|
|
|
Ivan Dean MLC Legislative Council Seat:
Windermere |
|
|
|
Ivan Dean MLC Legislative Council Seat:
Windermere |
|
Thursday 14 October 2004 PUBLIC HEALTH AMENDMENT BILL 2004 |
| Mr DEAN ( Windermere ) - Mr President, I
can say right from the beginning that I support the earliest starting
date possible for a total ban on smoking. That is the position I have
held, I have held that position very strongly and I have made my feelings
well known in relation to that matter. There is little doubt - and we
have heard this and I say it again - that the Government responded positively
to calls to them from people - the Cancer Council; those dying from cigarette-caused
diseases - to significantly water down their original incredible position,
in my view, on this issue. That was part-bans, different areas to be banned,
half one room, and so on. That original position does not now come into
the equation and therefore my original strong position regarding this
Government for paying scant attention to the death warrants, as I saw
them, sealed from tobacco smoke, needs to be somewhat more subdued. However,
I am still concerned at the extended time provided for the commencement
of this legislation, and accordingly give notice of my position to support
the honourable member for Nelson, Mr Wilkinson, in his amendment for the
introduction of a total ban to commence as of 31 May 2005. If I really had my way, it would start as of today because, according to the Cancer Council of Tasmania, issue 27, spring 2004 document - and we have heard these figures; we will go through them again; I do not apologise for reiterating some of the statements already made here, because this is a very critical matter that we are talking about - around 50 Australians die from smoking-related diseases every day, so this means that every day we allow people to become passive inhalers of tobacco smoke we are signing the death warrants of good Tasmanian people. And some of those Tasmanian people could be members of the families of people in this Chamber. On the Government's own figures, 570 Tasmanians die from smoking-related diseases annually. By commencing a total ban as of the foreshadowed motion position of 31 May 2005, we could in fact be saving the lives of probably about 300 Tasmanians. Mr Parkinson - That's not right. That is highly exaggerated. Mr DEAN - These are the figures I have been supplied with. Significantly decreasing the opportunity for passive smoking also equates to a saving of millions of dollars in health costs, and what does that mean? That means fewer doctors, more bed availability and less criticism of this Government in the area of health, and that has been discussed in this Chamber this week. The question I ask, knowing these facts, is why would we not commence the bill before the Government's commencement date of January 2006? That is, the total ban. I think - and I would use a fairly strong word here - that while I commend the Government for bringing in the total ban as of 2006, it probably demonstrates a certain callousness, in my view, to now not bring in that total ban at the earliest opportunity. I am not prepared to sit back and at least not attempt to make the necessary change, or at least support the foreshadowed motion when it is brought into this Chamber at a later stage. A lot of information was provided to us yesterday at the Athol Meyer awards, and at the end of the day that was, I guess, fairly riveting information in some respects, and it was very persuasive that we, this House, ought to take the initiative, in my view, and have this legislation commence promptly. I will refer to one or two of the arguments against it. An argument against an earlier commencement date is that access to builders and carpenters still remains an onerous task but, be that as it may, publicans, licensees, casino operators, club operators, have known for several years that this legislation has been coming and there should have been strategies in place to work through these changes with short notice. Mr President, you raised that question this morning in the briefing that we had, and I agree with that. They knew it was coming. It is not a surprise. They knew that this was occurring, and therefore they ought to have made - Mr Parkinson - So you think they should be punished now if they haven't done anything? Mr Aird - The other part of that is, of course, that argument could be sustained in the case of long-term licence-holders, but if someone has just taken over a business they might not have anticipated or seen it in the same light maybe. It is a matter of judgment again about what should be anticipated and what should not be. Mr DEAN - I am glad you raised that, but I would have thought that any new licensee coming into those premises in the last two or three years would have known that this legislation was likely to come into being within a very short period of time, so one would have thought, on your argument, that those people - Mr Aird - A matter of judgment. Mr DEAN - coming into that business now would have ensured that that was taken account of in any contracts that they entered into, any lease arrangements they entered into. I certainly would not have gone into it knowing what was likely to come, or knowing what was coming. Not likely to come; knowing what was coming. Another argument put to me by a licensee, an interesting one, was that he forces no-one to be in a smoke-filled bar. They, non-smokers, do it by choice. But do they do it by choice? No they do not, in my view. For a non-smoker to get a beer they cannot very well order it from outside. They cannot get their beer whilst they are outside and additionally we know it is an offence of course to drink liquor in a public place or on the street. A non-smoker is just as entitled to a beer as a smoker is. As I explained to this licensee a smoker, on the other hand, can have their cake and eat it as well. They can have their beer and smoke. It just means that to further the cause to kill themselves - and that is probably a strong term but that is what it is at the end of the day - or cause themselves to suffer from horrendous diseases, when the legislation changes they will need to go outside. They have no right, in my view, to subject others to this poisonous substance, and that is what it is and they know that. I must say I have never smoked in my life, albeit I had a father who was a chain-smoker and he suffered the ultimate death sentence there; my father-in-law was a chain-smoker as well and he is still living. But it is a position that I have some concerns about because I have not been a smoker. Legally you can smoke but legally you have no right to cause suffering to another person. When is this Government going to act to make it an offence to smoke in an enclosed area with a child or baby, for instance? This is one that has always concerned me, when you see a driver, whether it be male or female, driving a vehicle with a young baby in the back or a couple of children in the back and they are puffing away on a fag. Mr Aird - That's an offence now. Mr DEAN - No it is not. Not to my knowledge. Mr Finch - Recently I saw a bloke driving a truck with a broken arm in plaster, he was on a mobile phone and smoking at the same time - driving a truck down Bathurst Street. Mr Aird - What did the tow-truck driver say when he arrived at the crash? Mr DEAN - It really is an amazing situation when one considers that those children are being subjected to that type of situation without any ability whatsoever to do anything about it. Going back some time ago on a talk-back program, I heard discussion about this very matter. I would hope that the Cancer Council and all of those others involved will in fact start to really give this the publicity that is necessary because there are changes needed. Ms Ritchie - There has been a campaign in relation to that issue. You probably have the posters. Mr DEAN - I am aware there has been a campaign but it needs to be ramped up, in my view. The point I was previously going to make and it escaped my memory, Mr President, was that one of the things that I hate most about a smoker is when you are at a place where smoking is occurring and they drag on the cigarette and hold it over in front of you so that you have the smoke wafting up in front of you. That really aggravates me and causes me distress. Mr Parkinson - It is a good point you're making. I just had a reminder by the Leader that it was working cars that we banned it in a few years ago. Mr DEAN - All government cars. Smoking in government cars has been banned. Smoking in police vehicles was banned quite a number of years ago. I was a part of that program to ensure that occurred and it was brought in for very good reasons. Also another member raised that with me a moment ago, that you find a situation now that even if there are two smokers in a government car they still cannot smoke. I can understand why that is the case because the smell remains in the vehicle and once you get out of a vehicle where smoking has occurred you take it out in your clothes and so on. So I can understand that and it is a good law, in my view, that the Government has enacted in that regard. There is little doubt that this legislation is likely to impact negatively on licensed establishments in the early stages, or is that assumption wrong? We know that some licensed places that have already gone smoke free have retained a similar business and there are cases where businesses have in fact improved. This is on the information that we have been provided with. I just want to quickly look at Aurora Stadium at York Park. I need to keep emphasising the true name of York Park - Aurora Stadium at York Park. The Launceston City Council took the initiative, I think it was some 12 months ago now, from memory, to ban smoking at York Park. There was a lot of concern at the time as to whether or not that would be successful and as to whether or not the people would adhere to that direction. It is interesting, I do not think there are any breaches, or if there have been breaches - and I dare say there have been - they are very insignificant and people are abiding by it. But the crowds at York Park - which is the important issue - have increased. That is identified in the figures we have received on attendance this year at AFL games at York Park. Mr Finch - But AFL coincided with that increase, or are you saying that other AFL games showed an increase since the ban? Mr DEAN - I am saying that the crowds and the number of people attending AFL games has increased. They are not staying away. There is no indication that as a result of that ban people have stayed away. Mr Finch - I thought that since the AFL games were introduced, though - I thought it was banned anyway. Mr DEAN - No, smoking was only banned at York Park about 12 months ago by the Launceston City Council. Contrary to the beliefs of some licensees, I cannot see hotel, casino or club patrons changing their patterns too much. It is not as if they will be able to go down the street to a smoking venue. This bill will apply to all; it does not discriminate. It does not discriminate against a smoker either, and it will not discriminate against a smoker if it is brought in as of 31 May because they can still smoke. It simply means that they will need to go outside. So this legislation is not stopping people from smoking. All it does is say that you will go outside to smoke. I say it currently discriminates against non-smokers. I will concede, Mr President, that some premises will be hit harder than others. I am not quite sure what the answer will be there. I can specifically refer to one as an example here - and I do not think they would mind if I do because they raised it with me - that is the RSL club at Launceston. People who know those premises know that the bar is on the third floor of that building. The position there will be of course, once this legislation comes into being, that those patrons will need to go downstairs onto the bottom floor and go outside to smoke. There is no upstairs area where they can go outside; there is no veranda. So it will cause a special hardship in that instance and it will cause a special hardship to some, but in my view it is not insurmountable and that in my view is not sufficient to stop us supporting this legislation being brought in at the earliest possible time, Mr President. During a survey I conducted, some licensees asked why they could not separate bars designated smoking and non-smoking. One establishment, for instance, identified that they had four bars in their place. The question was: why couldn't one be designated smokers only? My answer there - after some argument and discussion where we simply agreed to disagree - was that the whole venue needed to be smoke free. My position there is that I do not think you can smoke anywhere in a building without some of that smoke infiltrating the rest of the premises. There was a lot of evidence to support that that in fact does occur. I want to refer to those survey results and some of the comments made. In my survey it needs to be understood that my area is somewhat different to a lot of other areas. I would suggest that if this same survey was done - and it probably has been done - in some of the other areas, a different result would be obtained. I have a large area which has fairly low socioeconomic group areas and that is probably reflected in some of the comments that came out of this survey. I will not mention the premises, it is probably not right to do that, but I will just go through some of the answers that I was given during that survey. I will just give them in a short form. The first premise is: litigation is a worry but people need to be responsible for their own choices; old clients will lose their social interaction, and other issues. Another premise: it will knock the business about initially; need area somewhere for smokers; should be done properly, and that was from a country hotel. Another suburban hotel: negative effect initially but not long-term negative effect, so what he is saying is the business will go down initially but will then improve and become prosperous again. Must be done for all at the same time - well, that was always the intention. Another city hotel: will not turn over too badly; people come to pubs and clubs to socialise and have a drink and smoke. The next comment made is fairly common to most of the hotels in my area and that is: not concerned about future litigation from staff or clients. Another hotel: issue been going on for so long; minority groups are driving this litigation; if it happens it happens; we will deal with it when it happens; it probably will not happen. Another comment made, Mr President, was: will knock business about; concerned about staff but most of the staff smoke; litigation not a concern. The rest of the comments made by the hotels is very similar to that and, as I said, on a number of occasions these licensees answered by saying, 'Litigation is no concern. I'm not worried about it. I don't care about it'. One other hotel that I will refer to here made the comment: was neither for or against; need area set aside for smokers; 20 per cent down on business in Victoria; only return 12 per cent; will take 12 months for business to return at any percentage; responsibility for policing, how and who?; exposure of staff to negative, aggressive behaviour. I am not going to refer to the other hotels because all of the other comments made by those hotels are somewhat similar to the ones that I have just referred to. It was interesting that the possibility of legal action, litigation and damages was not a concern to most licensees, as I have said, and that is my area of Windermere. Somehow though - and I make this statement - I do not think that would be the response if an action for damages in fact were to be taken against them. I think if that happened their attitudes would change very quickly. We know that there has already been one action taken in Launceston and we know that that action was successful and, as I understand it, a payout of $15 000-odd was made to the person taking that action, and that was in relation to passive smoking. I do wonder and I raise the question as to the knowledge of licensees, operators of these buildings, Mr President, and their understanding of duty of care, and that has been mentioned by the honourable member for Nelson earlier in his discussion on this matter. It seems to me to be an area where we are left wanting insofar as making those people well and truly aware of their responsibilities in that regard. It was interesting that not many of those surveyed saw policing as a problem and I am confident that it will not be a problem. If we look at all of those areas that have now gone non-smoking, if we look at restaurants and public buildings, Mr President, very rarely do we now see anybody contravening the requirement of those places. It is self-regulating. You make the law, you bring in the law that there will be no smoking in a certain place and people accept that. There are not very many people who in fact flout those types of decisions and positions, and that is great. I can see that being the case here, as can many of the licensees. When it is brought in they believe it will be self-regulating and it will not be really a concern to them at the end of the day. There will obviously be an occasional transgression and quite obviously those matters will be dealt with as is necessary in the circumstances. I want to refer to three examples that provided me with the strength to pursue the bringing in of these laws at the earliest opportunity. As I have said, I have already congratulated the Government on bringing the law in as of 2006 but I think that they could have done a lot better, as the member for Nelson has already said, by bringing it in much earlier. Mr Parkinson - By 2005 mostly. Mr DEAN - My wife and I in fact attended a suburban hotel in my electorate here very recently. We had a meal there and it was a hotel - and I will not identify the establishment - that is fairly common where you have the gaming area and then you have the dining area, and there was an imaginary line splitting where smoking could occur and where smoking could not take place. I would estimate that the two areas were 40 metres to 50 metres apart. The area where we had dinner was almost as smoky as it was in the other area where smoking was permitted. Why I stayed, Mr President, I do not know. I suspect it was because I had ordered my meal and I did not want to run but I certainly did not enjoy it. Mr Wilkinson - At least until after you had eaten it. Mr DEAN - Yes. But, more importantly, while we were eating there a young waitress came along and sat at the table next to us and she was coughing - a real hacking cough; it was mid-winter at the time - and I said to her, 'Have you got the flu?' She said, 'No, I haven't. Ever since working in this place I have done nothing but cough' and I then referred to the smoking and she said, 'Yes, I'm convinced that is what is causing me to do what I'm now doing'. I thought, 'That is pretty ordinary'. I said to her, 'Why do you stay here?' She said, 'It's my first job and if I complain about it I'm going to be kicked out so it is a matter of weighing that up against suffering and accepting the smoky conditions'. I believed the decision she was making was wrong and I said so to her and said that in the future she may well regret that decision. Another example that I want to refer to very briefly is that I was involved in a tipping competition this year and I think Mr President would well and truly know the place I am referring to, although I will not identify it by name. It is quite a small club. I was involved in a tipping competition and the smoke in that place because it was so small was horrendous. After a time, I would go into that establishment, get the tipping guide and walk back outside to fill it in and then take it back in to the place where it should be. Occasionally, unfortunately, I would get caught by a patron wanting to talk to me and on occasions I would say to them, 'I will talk to you but you need to come outside'. It is those sorts of situations that make me support the earliest possible bringing in of this legislation. I might add, Mr President, that there was not much point in my being involved in that tipping competition because I continually supported Richmond and I did not do very well. I lost out all around - smelly clothes from smoking and all the other things that went with it. Another example was the lounge bar in Launceston where I was present at a fairly large function where there were 120 to 130-odd guests present, business people from in and around Launceston. There were two smokers in that establishment on this night. The comments that were being made around me were along the lines of 'We've got two smokers in this room but everybody is suffering the consequences of it'. That was a fairly big room, it was not a small room, but you could smell it and, as I said, a number of business people raised that with me and asked that I take a certain course of action when the matter came up in this House. I attended recently a public meeting at Lilydale - and this would interest the member for Elwick, who has now gone. The public meeting I attended was to try to get some funding for a gymnasium at that school to which I referred yesterday, Mr President. We had a number of lecturers there, including two lecturers from the Launceston campus of the University of Tasmania, two very learned people. They opened their lecture on this night with the comment that the most serious risk factor to good health is tobacco smoke. That is not riveting news as this is something I think we all know. They then went on to say that the second most serious risk factor to good health is inactivity. My position here is, look at what we are spending on inactivity. Look at what the Government is currently doing there, and it is great. It is wonderful. It is spending a lot of money trying to get people to become active. We know obesity levels are high. We are trying to improve schooling with regard health issues. We are spending a tremendous amount of money in that area. It begs the question, what chance does an inactive smoker or passive smoker have? I would suggest their chances are not great at all, Mr President. Like others, I would suspect, I started collecting all media releases on this subject but I really became sick of it after a while because nearly all of those media messages were very positive in regard to preventing smoking in enclosed areas at the earliest opportunity. I commend and congratulate those pubs, clubs, cabaret operators and gaming room operators who have self-imposed smoking bans operating in their premises. While we will never know the actual figures, I say those people will have extended the lives of quite a few people and probably prevented many others from suffering from debilitating diseases. I say, 'Well done', and let us see the rest catch up. In reference to the media releases I say, why would I want to reference them for today? I know, you know, the world knows that tobacco smoke is a killer. It is harmful. It causes diseases. It creates unreasonable hardships on people, families. It is not a question of whether we should prevent passive smoking. It is a question of how soon. That is once again the reason I support today's foreshadowed motion because I see that as an important issue here. I do not need a newspaper report to tell me that, because the answer is 'now', certainly not January 2006. I did not need the media to tell me that. Making it off-limits to smoke indoors in public places will also cause many people to give up smoking and this will prevent premature deaths, sickness, hospital demands, hardships and trauma for families and will put, in many cases, an extra $100 a fortnight into the family of those people. We know what the cost of a packet of cigarettes is. I understand it fluctuates between $8 to $10, and we have many smokers smoking a packet a day. So I would suggest that is not an unreasonable figure for a family where you have two people smoking, to be spending at least $100 probably per week, at least per fortnight. We only have to look at a media release that has been put out by the Cancer Council now, Mr President, which says that when smoking bans are put into place it does cause a lot of people to give up smoking. It is a reason some people give up smoking. So there will be many positive spin-offs from this, in my view; it will not only improve the health of people and prevent deaths but it will also, in many cases, put extra money into - Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. PUBLIC HEALTH AMENDMENT BILL 2004 (No. 56) Second Reading Resumed from page 31 [2.36 p.m.] Mr DEAN ( Windermere ) - Mr President, I think that I have just about talked myself out on this and, as I understand, I think I reached the stage of - Mr Parkinson - Do you mean you have changed your mind? Mr DEAN - Well, I would hope that by this stage, Mr President, I have convinced the honourable members for the Government over there that they ought to be seriously considering bringing this legislation in as of 31 May. I would hope that I have satisfactorily done that and I think if they were to vote according to their conscience they would do that. I finished by noting that when this legislation is brought in there will be monetary savings for those people to put more money back into their families and at the end of the day, Mr President, perhaps more money to spend in the pubs as well, so maybe the pubs will gain out of that as well. I want to finish on a couple of fairly personal issues to me that really identify to me that we ought to be commencing this bill at the first opportunity. I want to briefly refer to my father's position. He was told, as a chain-smoker, at the age of about 60 that he needed to give up smoking if he wanted to live a quality life from that time on. He gave up smoking but unfortunately within two or three years he was diagnosed with lung cancer, as I said, through both passive smoking and chain-smoking himself and he passed away at a young age. I still see my father, Mr President, lying in his bed, pleading with us to help him live longer. When I consider that and when I look at this legislation, if by bringing this legislation in to commence as of 31 May saves one person, one family from going through that, I would be extremely pleased and that is the one big thing that really gets to me and that is why I am passionate about the position that I am putting forward today. The other position I want to put in conclusion is simply the position of my father-in-law, who again was a chain-smoker, told at age 62 that if he did not give up smoking his life would be drawn very short as well. He gave up smoking and 25 years later he is still living, aged 86 or 87. I happened to say to him last night, when I was talking about this bill to him, 'What's your position on this? How do you feel about this legislation? When do you think it should start?' His position was, 'I'm a reformed smoker and you all know all of that'. He said, 'I wouldn't have been here now if I'd continued smoking and the sooner this legislation starts the better', and he said that was a discussion that he had had only that day - he still attends the RSL clubs on a regular basis at the age of 86 or 87 - in the RSL club. They want to see it start and, as he said, 'The sooner the better'.
Mr DEAN - Madam Deputy Chair, I must say right from the word go that
the argument put forward by the Leader to have this matter delayed until
the beginning of 2006 was not compelling, in my view, and it is not
an argument that I can support. I would like to know from the Leader
how we answer those people who will be stricken with debilitating illnesses
and sicknesses between 31 May and 1 January 2006. How do we answer those
people? I do not support it. |
 |
Return To Main Page. | |
Return To Speeches. |
Back to HomePage
Maintained by Computer Services,
Parliament of Tasmania.
Feedback
Last Update: 03 March 2004
