Ivan Dean, Speeches Index

Tuesday 15 June 2010

SMOKING BAN IN OPEN SPACES

Mr DEAN (Windermere - Motion) - Madam President, I move the amended motion in my name -

That the Legislative Council calls on the Government to legislate against smoking in all malls, bus transit stations, alfresco dining areas and children's play areas across the State.

Madam President, I bring this motion to the Council for numerous reasons, some of which are to keep up with the changing expectations of people throughout the world in relation to smoking and the right to breathe clean, unadulterated air; the now compelling medical evidence of the harmful effects of second-hand smoke - passive smoking - and particularly its proven impact on children and unborn children through pregnant mothers; the inconsistency that currently exists throughout the State relative to smoking controls; the ad hoc way in which changes are being made by local government; some local governments, in fact, taking no action at all; the strong position now taken by the Federal Government to reduce the level of smoking in this country; and the fact that Tasmania now has the highest smoking rate in Australia at 24.9 per cent, with the national average currently sitting at about 20.8 per cent.

Madam President, some people say that smoking is a legal right and that we should not interfere with that right by restricting smoking areas. In my opinion they are wrong. We are seeking to do no more here than we have done and continue to do in restricting the rights of drivers of vehicles, users of mobile phones, consumers of alcohol, gamblers and pedestrians; we control where you walk, how you cross the street; there are laws to control just about every action that we undertake. Some say there are too many laws and I don't disagree with that because there are not too many things that we can do inside or outside our own home where we do not impact or infringe on some law.

All the above are lawful activities but we need to have in place laws, restrictions, controls that will protect other people, and that is exactly what the laws are all about.

With regard to smoking, it is a smoker's right to smoke. I have never said it is not. It is their right, even though they know that it will most likely cause serious illness and ultimately bring about their premature death. But it is not their right to cause serious injury to me, to a child or to any other person. That is my strong position and that of many of the public.

They should not be subjected to second-hand smoke, to passive smoking situations because there is somebody smoking nearby. Therefore it is incumbent on us to legislate against behaviour that is likely to bring about such results. We have to do something about it. We know the harm that it is causing and it is up to us to ensure the safety of the other 75 per cent of the people who do not smoke in this State.

Continually people ask me what right I have to interfere with their lawful right. I can answer that relatively easily. To have a driver's licence, for instance, you have to reach a certain age, then your driving speed is restricted, alcohol or drugs are limited and we regulate just about every way that you can drive a motor vehicle - stopping at red lights, not crossing double white lines and doing all of those things.

With alcohol, one of the most important things is that we restrict your right to drink alcohol in a public street. You cannot do it now. Once upon a time you could drink alcohol walking along a footpath. Now you can no longer do that. You cannot even carry an opened container and consume from it, you cannot even do that now within the law. We regulate the way in which you use your mobile phone. When you can use it, how you can use it, what you say over it.

Similarly, you can smoke if you are 18 years and older, but you have no right at all to risk the health of another person. Absolutely none. It is a requirement of us to provide those people with protection. Passive smoking has been proven to be just as harmful as directly inhaling smoke and it causes similar harm as that of the person smoking. There is no real difference between inhaling it passively - second-hand smoke - or inhaling it directly as a smoker.

The Public Health Act 1997 currently provides for restrictions on smoking including 50 per cent of alfresco dining areas. I might add that many council staff were not even aware of this, and the aldermen and councillors were not either.

In fact some businesses, and that is the worrying point, are not even aware that, currently, alfresco dining areas are restricted to 50 per cent smokers only in a certain area. That is that 50 per cent of the area must be for non-smokers.

I would venture to say that probably more than 90 per cent of the public would not realise that was the law currently. I would be very surprised - they might. A legislative change in this instance would be quick and easy to prohibit smoking in 100 per cent of al fresco dining areas.

An issue that was raised with me the other day, Madam President, and I raise it here, is that we would also need to look at alfresco dining areas in beer gardens - for instance, areas that are not within the control of councils. That is one of the problems that arises here if it is left to local government, that they cannot restrict smoking in a private premises, in a hotel where a beer garden is being operated. In my view local government does not have the right, local government only has the right where it involves their property.

Mr Aird - What about the regulation of public amenity and cleanliness and all those regulations that local governments have?

Mr DEAN - That is legislated. It is a legislated right of local government to control that but if it is not an infringement or impacting on those issues, I think it is debatable as to whether or not local government could legislate to prevent people smoking in alfresco dining areas - in a beer garden as such.

Mr Aird - Doesn't local government establish by-laws under this head of power?

Mr DEAN - Yes, we do.

Mr Aird - Could you not extend the by-laws?

Mr DEAN - I do not know if we can. I think that is a debatable area and it has been discussed, in fact last week, and I could not answer the question when it was asked of me and I could not find the legislation that would cover that but perhaps it is there. Anyway, it is not an area for local government in my view.

Ms Rattray - Through you, Madam President - is that an area that would be covered by the report that is being prepared at the moment?

Mr DEAN - I do not know and I will talk about that in a moment where I have sought information on the report and where the State Government is going but I cannot get anything from them at this stage.

This legislation was enacted in January 2006, that is the newer parts of that legislation to restrict smoking in alfresco dining areas and it is now high time it was moved forward without waiting for local government to address this issue ad hoc. That is, Madam President, if local government feels inclined to do so.

In January 2008 legislation prohibiting smoking in cars with young people was enacted, including some other restrictions at the same time in relation to advertising et cetera. Menthol cigarettes I think were involved in that so there was other legislation in 2008 in relation to smoking.

The State Government has been quite conscientious about this in the past and they have introduced, in my opinion, some good legislation to protect children, babies and unborn babies in particular travelling in cars and have introduced other legislative changes designed to reform smokers and protect families and the public.

Since that time - and it is only a short time - the attitude to smoking throughout the world has changed and is continuing to change. It is changing every day. People are becoming less tolerant of smokers and more particularly, the areas where they should be able to smoke.

I am going to refer very briefly, Madam President, to a study completed by Mark Willoughby and Kendan Lovell on smoking. This was done in 2009 as a third-year assessment item in a Bachelor of Health these two persons were doing at the time at the University of Tasmania. The study specifically targets smoking in a mall area and in this case they specifically identified with the Launceston mall and it was because at that stage that mall was receiving quite a lot of publicity regarding smoking and where the council are going to go.

First, just a little on smoking statistics in this State - in Tasmania tobacco smoking is the single largest preventable cause of drug-related death. Annually, tobacco smoke-related deaths far outstrip motor vehicle fatalities but yet get a minute amount of attention. They get a relatively minute amount of attention when you compare them with road fatalities, that is, publicity, legislative attention, policing and control. The statistical data I have identifies that smoking kills about, on average, 500 Tasmanians annually. Traffic crashes now average about 45 to 50. That is tragic and that is unacceptable as well. But when you get the two together and you look at the two, very clearly smoking is an area that we should really be clamping down on and really trying to get on top of.

Ms Rattray - Why don't we ban it?

Mr DEAN - I think we would have problems if we ban it and I think that the bootlegging days of the 1930s and 1940s - the Al Capone days - would probably resurface again if we did. That is probably the reason. But on these statistics alone, efforts to reduce tobacco smoking should be at least tenfold that of the attention given motor vehicle crashes. That is if you use statistics and statistics alone. Interestingly, some people cannot see or understand the correlation between tobacco smoking and death. They just refuse to accept that. They refuse to understand that or want to even look at it. Of course we all understand it in this House. Doctors understand it and of course the Cancer Council are doing a superb job in publicising this and publicising the health issues that go with smoking and passive smoking. One in four - that is, 25 per cent, or 24.9 per cent to be exact - of adult Tasmanians smoke, whereas one in five - 20 per cent or again, 20.8 per cent to be exact - smoke nationally. In some States, Madam President, figures are as low as 18 per cent. So very clearly, we have much work to do.

The State Director of Public Health, Dr Roscoe Taylor, suggested it is timely to again look at current tobacco control measures. He said this as late as 25 April 2010 when he said that we now need to look at it and move forward and we need to legislate further to control and restrict smoking and particularly, the impacts of passive smoking. I will return to the study that Willoughby and Lovell completed; there are just one or two quotes I want to make from their document. Their document is available should anybody want it. I find it to be a very good study, a very comprehensive study and they made some very good findings as a result of the study that they did in relation to smoking and passive smoking. I will quote from the beginning of their document:

'In Tasmania tobacco smoking is the single biggest preventable cause of drug-related death (DHHS, 2006). While every other state in Australia is enjoying a significant reduction in cigarette smoking, there is a worrying increase in Tasmania (DHHS, 2009). ...

The argument put forth by this article states that reform needs to occur with regard to placing bans on smoking in enclosed and semi enclosed public outdoor spaces such as inner city malls and bus shelters. …

The health risks associated with smoking have long been established, and evidence that passive smoking also has a negative impact on human health is continually increasing. Therefore, it has been common in recent times for governments and councils to restrict smoking in public places. However, banning smoking in public is not a new phenomenon with evidence of citywide bans in parts of Europe as early (sic) the early 1600's (McNabola & Gill 2009, p.742). Banning smoking in the Brisbane St Mall has been debated for several years, yet the Council have not yet seen a reason to act. The reasons supporting such a ban are listed and discussed below.'

Madam President, I might add that what they have said there is absolutely accurate. There has been a move to ban smoking in the Brisbane Street Mall for a long time, most of that put forward by myself in another role, wearing another hat. The fight is still not lost and I am continuing the fight in that area. When I first moved a motion in the Council to ban smoking in the Brisbane Street Mall, I was not able to get somebody to second it. I could not get somebody to support me on it. About six months later I put up a very similar motion, got somebody to second it, and got a partial ban on smoking in the Brisbane Street Mall. I now need to move on from there to get the ban that I think should apply to the mall in the future.

Mr Harriss - How did the partial ban work?

[3.30 p.m.]
Mr DEAN - The partial ban has not really worked. It has not worked because it related only to the children's play area in the mall at Launceston. There is a 10 metre area right around the children's play area, which is no smoking, but because people walk up and down the mall, they walk through that area smoking. It is almost impossible to police the ban in that situation. So it has not really worked.

I could quote further from that document, but I do not see a need to do so. It is a good document, in my opinion, with some very good, strong findings. In fact, since he wrote this document, Mr Lovell has advised me by e-mail that he now refuses to walk through the mall in Launceston because of the second-hand smoke. He is obviously very health conscious. He is studying medicine and he has said that he now refuses to walk through that area.

Another matter that is continually brought forward by the public, is the matter of smoke versus diesel fumes. When you talk about alfresco dining, people ask: Why would you do that when there are vehicles driving up and down the streets spewing diesel and petrol fumes all over you? Isn't that just as dangerous? Isn't that worse than smoking? According to the studies that I have done, and the advice that I have got, and the research that has been done worldwide, that is not the case. Without getting into the technicalities of the testing, it was scientifically proven that tobacco smoke is several times more potent than the fumes released from a diesel engine.

Mr Parkinson - You still wouldn't want to stand behind a diesel bus for too long.

Mr DEAN - No, you probably would not want to. I am not going to bore you with the technical side of the study - it was almost too finely printed for me to read it.

Members laughing.

Mr DEAN - The study is described in the tobacco control document that I have with me, and it is readily available on the Internet. The study looked at environmental tobacco smoke versus diesel fumes and petroleum fumes. An idling diesel engine and three cigarettes were studied in an enclosed area. Tests taken at certain stages of the study demonstrated that the toxicity of the cigarette smoke, the environmental tobacco smoke, was almost tenfold that of the diesel engine fumes. The findings are very significant, and the study is good, well-founded research.

Another study was completed in Helsinki, Finland. It found that air pollution levels during August 2003 in Helsinki outdoor cafes with many smokers, were five to 20 times higher than pollution levels on the sidewalks of busy streets polluted by buses, trucks and other general traffic. That study shows the difference between pollution levels for alfresco dining, with vehicles passing close by, and pollution levels from smoking. It is five to 20 times higher.

It is important to consider, for a moment, what is in cigarette smoke. Some of you would know and some of you would not know. Tobacco smoke contains over 4 000 chemicals - and I could not believe it when I looked at some of these statistics - including more than 50 known cancer-causing compounds and 400 other toxins. I find the level of toxicity in a cigarette amazing and alarming. There are about 173 poisons in a cigarette. We are talking about a substance that is quite potent and that is the point we are trying to make. If you have been to Melbourne recently and used public transport, you will have seen some of these statistics in relation to cigarettes emblazoned across the tops of nearly all the trams. This is where I first saw them, and decided to do some research into the 4 000 chemicals in a cigarette. In Melbourne, they are enforcing the message and trying to get through to the public the dangers of smoking.

The area of enforcement is one where questions are often asked, particularly of local government. Right throughout the world, laws are generally self-enforced. The public enforce their rights. One council looking at the issue of enforcement of smoking bans made an analogy with drivers and road rules - we have road rules in place, but we do not have police sitting on every corner or at every intersection to make sure that people do the right thing. If people know what the law is, they will do the right thing. Statistics identify that 99 per cent of people do the right thing. The same outcomes could occur with smoking bans.

I was in America recently, where I was waiting for a bus. There were No Smoking signs all over the place and a young fellow came along with a fag hanging out of his mouth. He would, I think, have been severely dealt with had he not got rid of the cigarette. Another person told him what he was going to do if he did not get the cigarette out of his mouth, so he ran off. That was an example of self-policing - he removed the cigarette and took off at the same time.

With regard to local councils, about three or four weeks ago I wrote to all 29 council mayors that the Government may have to deal with it in the future. Some are making promises to withdraw from LGAT, and we might hear a bit more about that later on, but I wrote to 29, and to date I have had 11 responses. I think all councils will probably respond in due course. Some only meet every two months, so I think they will come back to me in due course.

Some of the comments that I received were interesting, and I will refer to them in a moment. I will certainly refer to the comment made by the Mayor of Latrobe, which was very interesting. The mayor might want to comment further at a later date.

Madam PRESIDENT - The Mayor of Latrobe is not entitled to comment on the Floor of the House. The member for Mersey might comment on his behalf.

Mr DEAN - I agree, the member for Mersey might comment. The questions I asked of the council mayors were: do you subscribe to the view that smoking restrictions and controls are predominantly a State matter? If so, do you agree or disagree with the notion that smoking should be disallowed in malls, bus transit stations, children's play areas and al fresco dining areas? Specifically to LGAT I asked a question : will your association support local councils to introduce measures to restrict smoking in any of the aforementioned areas? To councils only I asked the question : has your council made moves or does it intend to make moves to restrict smoking in any of the aforementioned areas? I also wrote to the Minister for Health, Michelle O'Byrne, on 10 May 2010 however I do not expect a response for another three or four months. As we all know, responses from the ministers' offices are quite lethargic to say the least, and I have often referred to it in this House, in fact I probably will not get the response for another six months, it might even be later than that, if I get one. It is not surprising that members, like I do, and I admit it, take other courses of action to get the information we want, knowing that if we get caught out we will get a slap on the hand. I am prepared to risk that because some of the information I want at times is important and we need it fairly quickly, and I would suspect that there are others in this Chamber that would not always comply 100 per cent with the protocols of this Government to get the information they need from a minister's office. It really is -

Mr Parkinson - I would just like to remind the honourable member that breaking and entering is a criminal offence.

Members laughing.

Mr DEAN - I have not resorted to breaking and entering.

Mr Gaffney - You could also add that the honourable member's opinion does not refect all of us.

Mr DEAN - No it probably does not reflect all of us. I would be very surprised if some of the members here do not try to source -

Ms Forrest - I obey all sensible rules.

Mr DEAN - You are right, I do too. I obey all the sensible ones.

Ms Rattray - Not all of us have members or staff in the offices you rely on. So you have excellent expertise.

Mr DEAN - It helps to know some people in some places. However, the minister has spoken to the media and we now know that the State is working on a paper to be released in August 2010. I think that is what is going to happen. I have read it in the media. I was hoping that the minister would provide me with this information so that I could refer to it today, or even consider not to continue with the motion.

Ms Forrest - We could adjourn it now and wait.

Mr DEAN - I am not going to. I am going to tell you why now.

Dr Goodwin - Through you, Madam President - a motion has been tabled in the lower House on this issue.

Mr DEAN - Has it, another motion?

Dr Goodwin - Yes, by the Minister for Health, referring to that discussion paper.

Mr DEAN - Has it? Very good, excellent. As I understand it, the State Government is currently looking at imposing further bans in prisons, within fenced children's playgrounds and within 10 metres of any children's playground equipment, in unenclosed areas and in all pedestrian and bus malls and covered bus shelters and includes a total smoking ban in all alfresco dining areas. I understand that they are looking at those areas. However, I think that it is important that I continue with this motion. I would ask that all members support the motion. It needs to be made clear to the State Government that we are serious about improving the health of our people in public areas. I think that we need to convey a strong position to the Government. We have a responsibility to protect those people, the 75 per cent of people, and particularly the unborn, young children and babies who cannot protect themselves. We need to protect them. The State has made changes but it is clearly not enough when you consider the 500 smoking-related deaths annually. As I previously said, if you compared the road fatalities statistics with smoking death statistics there is a huge difference. More would be spent on road safety policing and education than on educating the public on the consequences and policing of smoking.

The Latrobe mayor's response is interesting. I am going to go into some of the responses that I received.

Ms Forrest - I hope he is listening.

Ms Rattray - That is a long way away, Latrobe, he won't be listening.

Ms Forrest - Maybe he is listening online.

Mr DEAN - I know. But before I talk about the Mayor's response I want to quote from the response that I received from LGAT. It is probably worth reading into Hansard their full response. I think it is fairly important. I will quote from the document dated 28 May 2010 provided by the Chief Executive Officer, Alan Garcia.

'I am writing in response to your letter received 14 May 2010 in regards to your planned motion in the Legislative Council calling on the State Government to enact' -

Ms Rattray - It is a quick turnaround, though, from the 25th to the 14th.

[3.45 p.m.]
Mr DEAN - A very quick turnaround, Madam President, and certainly not similar to that of the minister's office, I can assure you of that. It was within a few days. They saw it as an important matter requiring a speedy response and that is what they did.

To continue quoting:

'… legislation to control smoking in designated areas.

The negative health effects of smoking and passive smoking are widely evidenced and acknowledged by the Local Government Association of Tasmania. The Association is a member of the State Government Inter Agency Working Group on Drugs, as well as the State Government Tobacco Coalition.

Restrictions on, and the control of smoking is currently a shared responsibility between State and Local Government. While legislative control remains the domain of State Government, some councils have applied smoking bans in areas under their control. As you are aware, Launceston City Council for example has banned smoking in licensed on-street dining areas to come into effect on 1 January 2011, after consultation with the community, businesses with licensed outdoor dining areas and other stakeholders. This announcement was made in February this year, with the enforcement date of 2011 giving people time to prepare and adapt to the changes.

On 10 May 2010 the Hobart City Council agreed unanimously to make Elizabeth Mall, the Hobart Bus Mall and Wellington Court smoke-free as of 1 August 2010. This followed a Council commissioned survey in April 2009 of business and community members, undertaken by an independent consultant. The survey aimed to determine the degree of public support for the introduction of smoke free areas in public places under Hobart City Council's jurisdiction including: alfresco dining areas, Elizabeth Street Mall, Wellington Court and the Hobart Bus Mall.

The results of the survey indicated that the majority of businesses and members of the general public surveyed supported the introduction of smokefree public places. Some concerns were raised, however, in regards to inconsistencies between councils in the consideration and introduction of smoke free public places and the possible affects this may have on ongoing commercial viability for some businesses. It is the view of Hobart City Council, that State legislation is therefore warranted and Council has called for the introduction of State no smoking legislation for alfresco dining areas including the consideration of entire public streets or public areas.

All views the Association holds in regards to the issue of controls on smoking in designated areas are based on the views of our member councils. The Association is supportive of members in their activities, including measures to restrict smoking. The Association has previously been proactive in providing details of the efforts of Launceston City Council with regard to smoking laws with a view to encouraging member councils to consider similar actions.

While in principle the Association is supportive of broader measures to control smoking there are a number of issues for Local Government that need to be considered and addressed prior to further action. Feedback received from member councils indicates a number of issues of concern on this matter, particularly in relation to enforcement including:' -

I think it is important to identify the points that they see need addressing -

'o A council's ability to enforce smoking controls in areas of council responsibility;

" potential resourcing issues in regards to enforcement, particularly for smaller, regional councils;

" Management of enforcement beyond education;

" Escalation of issues in an enforcement situation - when do Police become involved?

At our General Meeting, held on 12 May 2010 the Hobart City Council moved a motion that "LGAT request the State Government to introduce no smoking legislation for alfresco dining areas including consideration of entire designated city streets". This motion was subsequently amended to include "public areas". While there was general recognition of the public health benefits of controlling smoking, there were a number of individual issues of concern raised with the motion (such of those raised previously in this letter) with the result that the motion as submitted was not carried. It is understood by the Association that Hobart City Council will redraft the motion for consideration at a subsequent General Meeting.

Subject to the guidance of our members, the Association is in general support of collaborative efforts between State and Local Government on the issue of smoking control.'

I think it was fairly important to read that in because it clearly identifies the position of LGAT that is representative of all local government bodies. I will quote a couple of comments, Madam President, from the letters received from the mayor. The member for Mersey will identify, I would think, probably with the Latrobe Council position there, but generally all councils - and 11 councils have responded to this to date - have agreed that all of these areas are a State Government responsibility and urge the State Government to become involved and to legislate appropriately and that is a very strong position.

There was one only council at this stage, and it was a fairly small country council, that had said to me, 'No, this is a local government matter and a local government should legislate' - but only one out of the 11 that I have received back at this present time.

Mr Wing - Did they express to you whether they would be prepared to have regulations incorporated in what you are advocating?

Mr DEAN - I have that one here and I will read just a couple of quotes from it in a moment to answer the member for Launceston's question . The Mayor of Hobart was fairly clear; I do not think I have any need to quote his letter but you know where he stands on this. It has been publicly identified on a number of occasions that they feel strongly that it is a State Government issue and they urge the State Government to bring forward the legislation as soon as they possibly can.

Mr Wilkinson - But the State Government accept that it is an issue for them as well. They have come out and said it is an issue for them as well.

Mr DEAN - They have, but I think local government is trying to urge them to take the appropriate action or take it quickly because you currently have local government still meddling with this. You still have local government in some areas changing legislation or bringing in by-laws because the State Government are not acting quick enough. I think that is one of the issues we currently have. Some local government areas very clearly see that they have a huge responsibility on the areas that they are responsible for and in fact, a duty of care. They have a duty of care moving forward with this as well. To answer the member for Launceston's question , Mr Legge from Break O'Day said that -

(1) The general consensus is that it is not a State issue;

(2) Smoking should not be allowed in mall areas, bus transit stations, children's play areas and al fresco dining areas;

(3) Smoking is prohibited in all council buildings and vehicles.

So that is their position in relation to it. Clarence council had a fairly strong view on it which is not significantly different to the other councils.

Mr Wing - So the Government has made this a health issue? This as a health issue is surely a State matter?

Mr DEAN - It is. It is very clearly a State matter, in my view. I think, at one stage, the State was probably leaving it up to the local government to see where the local government went with it because there were some local governments who have been meddling with this now for a number of years. The first motion I moved in the Launceston City Council in relation to this was about five years ago. It was the first motion that I moved. The State Government became aware of it then, it knew what was happening, but they have sat back since then and allowed it to move along in the slow way it currently is.

I will read the Kentish Council's last answer to me:

'Kentish would love a bus transit station with or without smokers.'

Members laughing.

Mr DEAN - That came from Mr Braid, a former lower House member, who wants to have a say.

Mr Wing - And former Minister for Local Government.

Mr DEAN - That is right, a former Minister for Local Government.

Mr Wilkinson - There are plenty of those little glassed-in areas in airports overseas, aren't there, which look like just a smoke room because you do not see anybody in there but you know they are there in amongst all the smoke?

Mr DEAN - You are right.

I thought his comment was quite a good one. Consistency is necessary across the State for this State to meet the benchmark as set out in the Tasmania Together document, and that document is saying that by the year 2016 the number of our smokers will be reduced to 16 per cent of the population. Under the Tasmania Together document that is the target that we are aiming for. All I can say about that is that much more will need to be done to get anywhere near that figure. Currently it is about 25 per cent and it is not really reducing at this present time. The State cannot rely on local government to put into place the changes necessary to meet the benchmark. The Federal Government is doing their bit with the recent tax hike on cigarettes, plain label packaging to occur in 2012 and a recent announcement that consideration is being given to the addition of nicotine replacement therapies to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. I think that that is a good move for a Federal government to take. People are saying they want to give up. They are saying it is a thing they are able to do lawfully; they are not infringing any laws by smoking and many older people say that in the initial stages it was not known or never advertised that it was dangerous, et cetera. Smoking was promoted. You were virtually told that it was a good thing.

Ms Forrest - Through you, Madam President - my former mother-in-law tells me that she was told by her doctor after she had had her fourth baby and was a little bit stressed that she should smoke for her nerves.

Ms Thorp - They used to be in army ration packs.

Mr DEAN - As a returned serviceman - and the member for Western Tiers is not here but he was probably provided the same - we were provided with cigarettes in our ration packs when we were going out on patrol.

Ms Forrest - Whether you were a smoker or not?

Mr DEAN - Whether you were a smoker or not.

Mr Wilkinson - That was to show the enemy where you were, though.

Mr DEAN - I used to give mine away. There was always somebody who wanted to take them. We need to help these people get rid of the habit and I think it is very important. I think it is fair to expect some reduction in smoking to occur as a result of these measures and I think there will be a reduction. I hope it will not be a case of a further change in that benchmark. We have seen that happen, Madam President, where things have not been going all that well with Tasmania Together in some areas and there are readjustments of the figures. If there is a readjustment of that figure I hope it is even less than 16 per cent and I hope it is not readjusted to a higher figure.

While Hobart and Launceston councils are doing their bit to provide relief for non-smokers, others are doing very little and obviously do not want to know about the inherent dangers of smoking and, more importantly, of passive smoking. Madam President, I am concerned councils are not taking a proactive attitude in relation to smoking in areas that they specifically control. It worries me that that is the case. It is a bit of a nonsense in a State of 500 000 people to have 29 different smoking paradigms, and that is what we would have if the State does not get this legislation in place quickly.

Another comment that was made recently, Madam President, and I think the councils and the State Government need to listen to this as well, is that there are people out there who are willing to take on organisations in relation to health issues, particularly where they are able to provide evidence that their health conditions have been caused by activities that have been permitted by an organisation and by local governments. Hoteliers have had actions taken against them. Local governments ought to consider that as well.

Nicotine patches are considered one important treatment method for those wanting to break the cycle. I am saying, let the State provide an incentive through subsidising those nicotine patches. If they are genuine about wanting to reach that target of 16 per cent by 2016, they will give that serious consideration.

I mentioned medical evidence earlier but I do not think I need to go into that. I think you all understand where we are with the medical evidence. The harm has been identified very clearly, in particular the harm to the unborn child through passive smoking.

I am passionate about this, Madam President, and I do not hide from that, hence the reason why I have taken actions in the other area in which I sit. I will continue to push this matter as long as I possibly can. My father was a chain smoker -

Mr Finch - They are hard to light, aren't they?

Mr DEAN - No, they are not. Chain smokes are very easily lit because you do not put it out. Once you get the chain alight you just continue lighting it and it continues to burn, so it is not, unfortunately. He used to smoke in his bed and he used to roll cigarettes in the night and smoke them and hence he had a fairly young death at the end of the day.

Ms Forrest - A lot of people die in fires as opposed to the effects of smoking, though.

Mr DEAN - Yes, they do. The unfortunate thing about that is my mother also died at a fairly young age.

Sitting suspended from 4 p.m. to 4.30 p.m.

Mr DEAN - I only have two matters that I want to narrate further. Before the four o'clock suspension I mentioned that my mother passed away at a young age and I think my father's smoking contributed to that. Hence, I have a fairly big passion in relation to cigarette smoke. It is interesting to note, though, that only one other member of my family took up smoking, and there are eight in my family.

In conclusion, right across the country now I think there is strong support for banning cigarette smoking in a number of areas, including the areas that are referred to in the motion. If you did a survey, you would find that there would be strong support for imposing a ban. There was a survey done in relation to al fresco dining in Launceston.

Ms Rattray - This is the official survey?

Mr Gaffney - Is this the Clayton's survey?

Mr DEAN - What people said about that was not quite right. I will put the record straight here and now by saying that a letter was sent out to all the businesses. I have a copy of it here if anyone wants to see it. It was sent from the manager at the time of Environmental Services, Launceston. In the letter he also referred to the renewing of their permits and the last paragraph of this letter was about the Launceston City Council moving towards, or at least moving a motion, to ban smoking in alfresco dining areas. If there were any issues or concerns about it, they were asked to please respond to council. That was the last paragraph in a letter sent out to all businesses. So to me, that was a form of survey; it was not a survey as we know surveys are but businesses were certainly sent a letter telling them what was going on and seeking their input. So, it is not quite right to say that nothing had occurred or that the council staff misled the aldermen in the council meeting at the time. It is not quite as simple as all that.

The result of the official survey that was sent out very recently was that just under 60 per cent supported the motion that the Launceston City Council currently stands with, and that is the banning of smoking in al fresco dining areas. Of the remaining almost 40 per cent of people that did not support it, a lot supported bans in al fresco dining areas. Some of them, interestingly, said that they supported a ban during eating periods only, from 12 noon to 2 p.m. I think, and from about 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. Some, whilst they did not support the ban, were simply opposed to it on the basis that the policing of it would be very difficult. Currently there is a 50 per cent ban on smoking in alfresco dining areas, so how are they policing that? I would have thought it would just be an extension of that arm of policing that they currently have in place. So, I think to say that they cannot accept it because they would not be able to police it is not a very strong argument.

Mr Parkinson - Probably the same way they used to police the 50 per cent ban on smoking on aeroplanes.

Mr DEAN - Exactly the same thing. If you were in this area in an al fresco dining area and you were sitting close to the other 50 per cent clear area, smoke would quite obviously waft through the whole area. It is almost akin to that.

Mr Wing - A fusion of gases.

Mr DEAN - Just as you can urinate in this end of the swimming pool but you cannot urinate in that end.

Members laughing.

Mr Aird - No wonder Launceston City Council has some problems.

Members laughing.

Mr DEAN - I did not say that was the position of the Launceston City Council but that is the comparison some people draw when you try to restrict smoking to one small part and another part right next to it is no smoking. It does not work and it is a very silly position to adopt.

The survey was fairly clear on a lot of things. One comment was that people sometimes like a smoke after a meal, as they do in pubs and hotels, and that it would be difficult to control people who light up regardless. Would we employ smoking police? My question is: what are we currently doing? Another comment was that a lot of customers will sit outside for a cigarette with their coffees and meals. Well, I would suggest that you also have a lot of non-smokers that do that as well. Another person said that smokers had a right to smoke and that if you were a non-smoker and you were coming to an alfresco dining area you should cross the street, walk up the other side of the footpath and then cross back onto the same side as the alfresco dining area a little further up the street. I thought that was probably taking it a bit too far. Another comment was, 'As a frequent outdoor diner and smoker I object strongly to DH's proposal'. I think some of us would be able to relate to the DH comment. That was a comment that came back in by one of the members. It was referred to as the DH in council wearing another umbrella, Madam President. I am not quite sure what they meant by that.

Madam PRESIDENT - One would presume the Department of Health.

Mr DEAN - It would not be nice of me to identify that exactly.

Madam President, I am serious about the motion and I am serious about wanting the State Government to take a very strong action in relation to smoking. The world is calling for it, not just us, and if you look at what is happening around the country, some local government areas now have complete bans in certain areas; some councils have complete bans on streets.

Manly Council is a good example. If you have been to Manly of late, well there has been an act in place now for two or three years whereby the main street in Manly is no-smoking right through the street. They have signs on it. They have no smoking on the beaches, of course, and their al fresco dining areas and it is working very well. They say it is working very, very well and they say there has been little, if any, drop-off in business for these areas as well.

They are saying that is not absolutely right when people say they are going to lose heaps of business. It does not really end up being the case at all and normally it just turns around. Provided you make a blanket control for everybody, then it works, but having it for some and not others is not acceptable and I think is normally fraught with some danger as to whether or not it will be successful.

I urge members to support the motion. It puts more pressure on the State Government and it identifies to them very clearly where we sit in relation to the health of our people.

Mr DEAN (Windermere) - Madam President, I thank the members for their contributions and comments. It was enlightening to listen to the member for Pembroke, and the member for Rosevears speaking of his childhood - quite an amazing situation.

As a police officer, I recall dealing with a family who lived at North Hobart, and the member for Nelson would know the family very well. The children were brought up on cigarettes and would have been smoking from the time they were old enough to put a cigarette in their mouth. It was not unusual to go to the house and see a one-, one-and-a-half, or two-year-old child with a cigarette in their mouth. That was the way they were brought up and it was an incredible situation.

Mr Wilkinson - There were a few children there, weren't there?

Mr DEAN - Absolutely, a number of children. I could tell another story, but I will tell it outside the Chamber, where one of the children was trying to push wood into a gas heater and could not understand why he could not get his wood to burn in a gas heater.

Madam President, I would seek to amend the motion, if I may. The amendment does not change the motion to any great degree.

Mr Aird - Are you going to start another debate?

Mr DEAN - No.

Madam PRESIDENT - No. You are closing debate on the motion before you. The amended motion that was circulated to members.

Mr DEAN - Thank you, Madam President.

The motion calls on the Government to legislate against smoking and my amendment was going to be 'in areas such as'.

Mr Parkinson - We know what you mean.

Mr DEAN - Today, no legislation is put into place or identified without a proper consultation process, and of course that will occur. We know that the State Government is currently doing this, so we can infer that there will be a proper consultation with all of the parties before they go down this track.

The other point I want to make is: Why would you not consider banning smoking altogether? I do not think the country is ready for that yet, but it is interesting that in one large city in America - I think the name is similar to Albuquerque - they have banned smoking totally. They have some designated areas in the city for smoking, but they have banned it for all intents and purposes.

The member for Murchison raises the issue of a mall. This is legislation for the whole State, and covers malls throughout the State, but the malls would need to be identified in the legislation. In Launceston, you would cover the mall area between Charles Street and St John Street. In Hobart, it would be the area between Liverpool Street and Collins Street. Mall areas would be specifically identified in the legislation in the same way that alcohol-free zones have been identified in some park areas. State legislation has already banned alcohol in certain Hobart parks - the legislation identifies the parks, and identifies the perimeters of the alcohol-free zones. The same process is now occurring in Launceston. Malls could be identified in a similar way in legislation to ban smoking.

We have a lot of ground to make up and I think the State recognises that. If we are going to meet the Tasmania Tomorrow benchmark of 16 per cent in 2016 we have to make some big changes and we have to make those changes very, very quickly.

I recently looked at a second-hand motor vehicle, with very low kilometres. It was well-priced and I was interested in buying it. I opened the door and stuck my head in and when I came back out, I told the fellow I would not take the car even if he gave it to me. The smell of smoke, the stench of smoke, was unbearable and you could see smoke stains on the roof liner. The smell was so strong, so intense. This aspect of smoking has a big impact on me, and on many other people.

I would ask members to support the motion because it is simply asking the Government to consider legislation. We know that they are going down that track. We know that they are in a consultation phase now and that is good.

Motion agreed to.

Return To Main Page.

Return To Speeches.