LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Second reading.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (10:32): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill has come from the upper house. It was introduced into the upper house by the Leader of the Opposition (Hon. David Ridgway) and, obviously, gained the support of that chamber. The bill is quite a simple bill in itself but its ramifications are quite significant, and I will argue that it should be supported by this place and enacted as law for the state of South Australia.

The bill seeks to give local councils the power to make bylaws to ban smoking in certain public places. The bill specifically precludes local councils from making such bylaws which would pertain to a public place that is subject to a licence under the Liquor Licensing Act 1997. In essence, what the bill would do is give local councils the power to ban smoking in specified public places, such as a particular beach, parks, Rundle Mall, or places where significant events are being held, particularly those which are going to be attended by children.

We have three levels of government in Australia, principally so that individual levels of government can make rules and laws and decisions about areas which pertain to those levels of government. Local government, by its very name and nature, is about making laws and decisions which we might consider to be the order of minutiae, rather than in a general sense. I say that because from time to time this parliament has made laws about smoking, including banning smoking inside hotels and, previous to that, banning it in restaurants where people eat. More recently we banned smoking in cars when children are present. These things are done all for good reasons, and they are reasonable things for us to do. However, I do not think that the state parliament would ever ban smoking at a particular event where children where present, although it may be a very wise thing to do. The reality is that this parliament does not concern itself at that level; and that is why it is important to give this power to local councils.

There would be very good reasons for local councils to make a by-law, for instance, that bans smoking at a popular beach. Obviously the rules about making by-laws put certain obligations on the councils and with this particular bill, which has come from the other place, if a council made a by-law to ban smoking in a particular area it would be obliged to erect the necessary signage to notify the general public of the by-law and the smoking ban in that area. The bill also sets out that the council must fix penalties for breaches of the by-law, with a maximum fine of $200. Councils would also be required to set an expiation fee of $20 for a breach of the by-law.

That is the essence of what the bill will do. I have explained that from time to time we as a state parliament have, in an incremental fashion, introduced measures to curb smoking, but they have all been of a generic nature—that is, banning smoking across the board. The bill before us now would extend that power so that councils could go to specific areas, small locations, and ban smoking.

There are at least two reasons why we should give this power to local councils. The first is that there is obviously a significant health issue related to smoking. It was interesting to note that an article in the Sunday Mail last weekend claimed that South Australia was the ashtray of the nation, and South Australia seems to have performed very poorly in the last 12 months with regard to doing something about curbing smoking and addressing the attendant health issues. A number of people were quoted lamenting that South Australia seemed to have dropped the ball.

The South Australian division of the AMA noted some 12 months ago, in one of its publications, that the South Australian government, as part of its Strategic Plan, has a target to reduce smoking in South Australia. In fact, it noted that South Australia's Strategic Plan set a target of reducing the number of cigarette smokers in the age bracket of between 15 and 29 by 10 percentage points—down from 27.9 per cent to 17.9 per cent—by 2014. The AMA goes on to lament that that is a fine target, but the state government has done very little or nothing to try to achieve it.

The bill before us recognises the target in the state's Strategic Plan with particular reference to smoking among young people, because I would envisage that local government would be more likely to make a by-law concerning a site where young people are likely to congregate, such as a playground.

It seems to me that it is ludicrous to establish a playground where children can go to exercise and enjoy the open air if you also allow adults to be there—maybe supervising the children—but smoking. It sets a bad example. That does not even account for the fact that children are probably becoming passive smokers in the meantime. This will give local councils the opportunity to recognise that certain areas within their jurisdiction should have smoking bans in place.

The other issue is the environmental one. An individual cigarette butt seems a small piece of litter when we see it, but the cumulative effect of disposed cigarette butts which are disposed of wantonly by smokers—not necessarily in general—is that there are tens of thousands of them deposited all across this state every day and they form a formidable part of the litter stream. We have recently passed legislation in this state banning single-use shopping bags because we, as a parliament, decided that they cause a significant problem to our environment when they enter the litter stream.

Cigarette butts are just as toxic to the environment (even more so) as plastic shopping bags. Their longevity in the environment would be at least as long. However, because they are quite small individually they quite often go unnoticed. I am informed by my colleague in the other place that the city council has a significant issue with cigarette butts clogging up stormwater drains in the city. The number of cigarette butts that wash off places like the mall number tens of thousands, and they are entering the litter stream and staying there.

I am informed that, in addition to the synthetic material that cigarette butts are made from, there are significant chemicals, and that, after a cigarette is consumed, those chemicals then flow into our stormwater drainage system and from there into the environment. So, there are at least two very sound and significant reasons why we should be giving this power to local councils.

I urge the house to support this bill. I could read out all of the countries around the world who have legislated to move against smoking or tried to curb people's appetite for smoking, but those countries are already recorded in the Hansard of the other place and I draw members' attention to that. This particular power has been given to councils in other jurisdictions. I understand, that in New South Wales local councils have such powers and that in places like Bondi Beach smoking is banned.

I commend the bill to the house and, in closing, I will just point out that when I was touring in New South Wales quite recently looking at matters to do with irrigation and our dying but great river system, I stopped in Temora to get some lunch and my wife picked up a little personalised ashtray which people can slip into their pockets. I understand that local councils produce these and give them to places like delis and service stations to hand out to travellers. Again, that is to encourage people to dispose of their butts in a responsible manner rather than discarding them onto the ground.

The Hon. R.B. Such: Wouldn't it better to give up smoking?

Mr WILLIAMS: The member for Fisher said it would be better to give up smoking, and I heartily agree with him. As a reformed smoker, I heartily agree with him. Again, as a reformed smoker, I do not purport to suggest that everybody should immediately give up smoking, but I think we should allow councils the ability to protect citizens in their individual council areas. As with the other measures that have been taken from time to time by governments here in South Australia and in other places, this is a part of the incremental move against smoking in our community.

Mr BIGNELL (Mawson) (10:45): The government cannot support this bill on a number of grounds, and these reasons have previously been put on the record in another place. To reiterate, the government wants to strike an appropriate balance between the legitimate interests of both smokers and non-smokers. To strike that balance it is necessary to consider how, when and where any new restrictions on smoking might be imposed and enforced: whether it should be local government alone that enforces any such restrictions, the extent to which any exemptions should be allowed, the level of penalties that might be applied, the cost of enforcement so that enforcement is financially practical, and the possible effect upon businesses that may cater for both smokers and non-smokers.

Unfortunately, this bill has been prepared without fully considering these matters. This bill will permit a council to make a by-law to prohibit smoking in any defined public place. The term 'public place' is defined in section 4 of the act to include private land to which the public has access. A private function centre may have an outdoor area which may be considered a public place because it is private land to which the public has access.

This government has rightly banned indoor smoking where side stream smoke can have negative health impacts on non-smokers. Because some businesses have planned this and are catering for smokers in a way that does not have the same health risks, it would be inappropriate for councils to be given a broad power to override their decision.

While not detailed in the bill, the Hon. David Ridgway has specifically raised the issue of making the Tour Down Under and other South Australian events smoke free. I would like to assure the honourable member that, while his crusade is noble, it is unnecessary and misguided.

The Tour Down Under is an event I have covered and attended at most stages since its inception in 1999 and I have never seen smoking as a real problem at the event. Because this bill was introduced before this year's Tour Down Under, I specifically took notice. I saw one person at the start of the Norwood stage who was smoking, but I do not think he had anything to do with the race, he just happened to be walking along the footpath. I saw someone on the oval at Willunga who was smoking.

I rode the 97 kilometre stage 5 from Mount Pleasant to Angaston and, if there is ever a time you are going to smell smoke, it is when your lungs are at maximum workout rate as you are inhaling and trying to get some fuel to your heart. I did not smell any tobacco smoke on that ride either. I think the leader in another place may simply be after a cheap headline, rather than being serious about curbing smoking and stopping smoking at events where it is not seen as a major problem.

The member for MacKillop says that by giving these councils the power to fine someone $20 for smoking where they are not meant to smoke will improve the situation. He says that it will help clean up our streets, our gutters and those little cracks in the pavement. Yes, cigarette butts are annoying. When you see people drop a butt on the ground or throw it out of the car window, it is annoying. When you see them stacked up on the side of the road or in the gutters, there is nothing worse because it looks terrible and it is terrible for our environment. These butts are going down the stormwater channels and out to sea. It is terrible, but there is already an act there and there is a fine. Local councils can fine people $200 or so—

Mr Williams: $350.

Mr BIGNELL: Well, $350—they can fine them. How often do they do it? Very seldom, indeed. You already have a law there that councils can use to help curb the rate of smoking, yet it is not taken up by councils, so why give them another one that they are not going to enforce?

It is also interesting to note the disunity in the Liberal Party on this matter. I say this because on 12 November 2008 when this bill was voted on in the upper house, Hansard reports that Liberal members the Hons Caroline Schaefer and Rob Lucas voted with the Labor government.

You have to question the strength of the Liberals' upper house leader, the Hon. David Ridgway, when on the same day in a media release he said, 'I look forward to this bill passing with the full support of the South Australian parliament.' Prior to seeking the support of the entire parliament, a good starting point would have been with your own political party. So, the government opposes this bill.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (10:50): I must admit I am rather surprised by the comments by the member for Mawson on this. I think, firstly, he demonstrates the complete lack of support that exists within the Labor Party for local government as a complete industry when he says—and this is what I took the member's comments to mean—that local government would make frivolous decisions without considering the impact upon the community or businesses that might be in the area. I can tell you from personal experience that that is not how it works.

Mr Bignell: Since when is local government an industry?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Well, it is. It employs 7,000 people in this state, member for Mawson, so if that is not an industry, I do not know what is. The member for Mawson has actually criticised the intent of this bill, which was moved by the Hon. David Ridgway in another place and has now been brought into the House of Assembly. I can tell you that this bill is sincere; it is not just a political opportunity to grab media headline, it is a real position that the Hon. David Ridgway has taken. He has quite often debated in our party room his concerns about smoking in our community and any efforts that we can make as an opposition to improve the health of South Australians and the environment of South Australia.

I think this bill is a good one. I rise in support of it today, because it provides an opportunity—where it is deemed appropriate—for local government, after consulting with communities and engaging business people who might be around the area, to look at what opportunities exist. I consider it to be no different from alcohol-free zones, which are supported under exactly the same principle. In certain cases, councils are entitled to create (via a by-law) an alcohol-free zone. I have never heard the honourable member talk negatively about that. This is exactly the same principle.

These are not frivolous decisions made by council. Quite often communities come to local government and suggest that there is an area that they would like to support for the nature and the quality of that zone. They suggest that, if alcohol is a problem, the removal of the ability to consume alcohol legally within that area improves it for the whole community. I see this bill as being no different to that. It makes sure opportunities exist to ensure that there is a healthy environment.

The member for MacKillop talked about playgrounds as being a classic example. Some of our playgrounds around the state have hundreds of people there at the same time. I have been to the playground on the northern side of the Adelaide Aquatic Centre, which is quite busy on a lot of days, and I think that is one example of a playground where we should not allow smoking.

It is true that parents are responsible these days. They are very concerned about the health of their children, and that is why the parliament has supported legislation restricting smoking in vehicles in which children up to the age of 16 are passengers. We took a bipartisan approach, we recognised that that was an opportunity to improve health, and we supported that.

That is why I am very surprised that the member for Mawson (on behalf of the government) does not support this bill, which is designed only to improve the health of South Australians. It is important that we have some debate about this. I can assure members that we on this side of the house all want to ensure that South Australia has a healthy future, not one where the risk is posed to us of an increasing number of people suffering from very severe health problems brought about by smoking. If this is a small initiative that can help in some way, it is one that this parliament should support.

I hope that most members on this side of the chamber rise to speak to this bill and make some comments about some of the remarks that the member for Mawson has put forward on behalf of the government.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (10:53): I have been in this place for many years. I am quite amazed at the member for Mawson's approach on behalf of the government. I just cannot believe it, because it has been a big issue in this parliament for many years.

This bill was first proposed in another form: the Tobacco Products Regulation (A Smoke-Free Adelaide) Amendment Bill. However, after discussion with the stakeholders involved, particularly councils, it was deemed unworkable given councils' current lack of powers to enforce smoking bans.

I commend the mover of this motion in the first instance, the Hon. David Ridgway in another place (our leader in that house), the shadow minister (the member for MacKillop) and also the member for Goyder, who just made a very appropriate speech on this matter. We are very proud of our party's record on this issue—very proud indeed.

This bill rectifies the situation by affording councils the power to make by-laws prohibiting smoking in specified public places and, in turn, the power to make such laws. I have no problem at all with giving councils these powers. We have a couple of ex-mayors in this chamber, and I would have thought they would have been supportive, particularly the member for Light. I am amazed that he would sit back quietly and allow comments like that to be made. I am confident that each individual council can make appropriate laws such as this, and let them be the judge and jury in relation to this sort of matter.

We are all aware of the dangers of smoking, however, it seems that here in South Australia the message is not quite getting through yet. Obviously not in the member for Mawson's case. Just a few days ago the Australian Medical Association rated South Australia as being one of the worst in the nation at giving up smoking. In fact, we were given the undignified title of the Ashtray Award in Australia—and the member makes speeches like that! Our deficiencies were listed as smoking outdoors in public places (as outlined by both the member for Mackillop and Goyder, which problem this bill seeks to deal with); smoke-free workplaces; and restrictions on tobacco marketing.

I think this legislation will be very useful for all councils. In the Schubert electorate we have many family events—family fun days, the vintage festival and other wine events—geared to families with activities such as face painting, jumping castles, the Tour Down Under, and the list goes on. That is without mentioning the fantastic restaurants we have, and many members have been there and many have chosen to get married in the Barossa. It is lovely to be in a beautiful restaurant and not have to put up with second-hand smoke. I think at events such as these there should be some restrictions on smoking.

Some people still smoke, and it is their choice, but I think that in this day and age people who do not smoke have some right to feel they can go to public places and events and not have to breathe other people's second-hand smoke. There was nothing worse than going out into public places and going home smelling like an ashtray. Even your clothes next day you would hang out to air because they stank because you had sat near a smoker the night before. That is a thing of the past. There is nothing worse than being a passive smoker, and today we know that passive smoking is as big a risk as doing the smoking, in many cases.

I remind the house that this parliament was one of the first in Australia to put restrictions on smoking, and I pay tribute to the previous Liberal government, in particular the Hon. Michael Armitage. Members should read and see what was done. At the time, he waged a very strong campaign against the then powerful tobacco lobby, and he stuck to a very strong campaign. Some of us were a little bit startled at what he was doing because he was a bit before his time, but we were one of the first parliaments in Australia to move on this. It is all there to read, and it is all dated, of course. In particular, we were the first in Australia to have the messages on the cigarette boxes. We did all that then, but what has been done since? Since this government has come into power we have gone soft on this.

The Hon. L. Stevens: What? You are joking!

Mr VENNING: I know the member for Little Para is over there, and I understand that there was some activity, but you have to give the Hon. Michael Armitage the kudos—

The Hon. L. Stevens interjecting:

Mr VENNING: Yes, you do—for first seizing on this. We have heard the stories about civil liberties and everything else but, when it is people's health that you are discussing, I think it is very important. I do not believe we have done enough in recent times, because we need to do all we can.

As a youngster I used to smoke. I was not ever a committed smoker, but a lot of my friends are. There is nothing worse than going out with smokers. There were several of my friends who smoked, and one was a minister in this place. I said to her, 'Dorothy, I just wish you would stop smoking because in my after-life I still want to be friends with you and not attend your funeral.' There are many people like that still in this place who have to go down into the fresh air. However, I will say, sir, that over the years, bit by bit, we have forced the smokers out of this place, out of Botany Bay and onto the extremes of this place. We are enforcing a message. We are thinking of people's health and we are thinking of public health, and I think we should do this.

I think this bill goes a long way. I am sorry the member for Mawson has made that speech. I think it is inappropriate. I am happy to give these powers to local government and let them be the judge and jury, because this is an issue we still have to confront. I certainly support the motion.

The Hon. L. STEVENS (Little Para) (10:59): First, I congratulate any effort that is made in the legislatures and in government policy to reduce smoking in our community. I know it is true that at this point in time we have seen in Australia a significant decrease in the levels of smoking over recent years. That has come about in no small measure because of the concerted efforts by all the states in Australia to address levels of smoking by various measures.

As a former Minister for Health, and one who brought in a whole tranche of measures some three or four years ago, I must put on the record some matters in relation to this, in particular, some of the statements that have been made in the house by members opposite. First, I think the fight against tobacco smoking has been a concerted effort by people on both sides—all sides—of the political spectrum, and it has been one of those issues that have had to fight very, very powerful stakeholders. As such, as in any battles of this sort, you get incremental changes occurring at various times across the whole jurisdiction and the whole of Australia so that one state moves out in front of the others and the others catch up; then the commonwealth and eventually the whole box and dice moves forward.

I think that, if we are looking at the history of activity against tobacco smoking in South Australia, we must start with John Cornwall on the Labor side. Let us put the whole perspective on the table. The Hon. John Cornwall in the South Australian upper house brought the first tranche of tobacco legislation to South Australia. Certainly, the Hon. Michael Armitage as minister for health in the Brown-Olsen governments brought in legislation, and it was the first of the smoke-free dining legislation, but it had exemptions to that measure built in. Okay; that was all that he was able to get through at that time. Unfortunately, under the stewardship of the next health minister, the Hon. Dean Brown, nothing happened at all; the whole thing stopped in relation to tobacco control.

When the Rann Labor government came to power we moved forward again with a whole tranche of—

Mr Williams interjecting:

The Hon. L. STEVENS: Just to correct the member for MacKillop, I know this very well: the Hon. Dean Brown did not move the agenda forward one iota in this area. When the Rann government came to power, another tranche of legislation, the smoke-free workplaces, went through; the hotel and club bans went through; there were issues in relation to advertising; the removal of the exemptions that existed under the Michael Armitage bill occurred; and there were changes to retail obligations in relation to the sale of tobacco products and other measures. Since that time, in the second term of the Rann government, some other measures have been added. So, let us put the whole thing on the table.

I notice also last week the Dirty Ashtray Award that was given to South Australia and I think the Northern Territory by the lobby group ASH. I would like to say that I think that was fairly churlish. I think great strides have been made. I know that, when we announced the final abolition of tobacco smoking in all workplaces, including pubs, we led the nation in that direction ahead of all the other states and caused the rest of the country to move towards that position. So, I think that label for South Australia on two very tiny points was a fairly churlish one by ASH. With those comments, I would say the war on tobacco smoking has proceeded well; we need to continue the efforts.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:05): I recognise the member for Little Para's contribution, and I recall her efforts towards the abolition of smoking and smoking related illnesses, and I strongly support the member for MacKillop's opening remarks and others on this side. We seem to have somewhat of a buggers' muddle here, because the member for Mawson's contribution 15 or 20 minutes ago indicated that the government is opposed to the honourable member's bill, and I have some problem coming to grips with that. I think that anything that stops people smoking or reduces the impact of smoking or increases people's chances of living longer through not smoking or absorbing smoke needs to be commended.

Also, having watched my father die from a smoking related illness, it is never far from the front of my mind to do anything I can to support any efforts to reduce the disgusting and insidious habit. It is a disease and an addiction, and I believe the contribution from the member for MacKillop from the Hon. David Ridgway in the upper house is a step in the right direction.

I am concerned that the Rann Labor government does not seem to have the courage to allow local government to get on with its business; it does not seem to support local government or have the confidence in it to allow this bill to have right of passage. I was at a function in the member for Mawson's electorate on Sunday night that was attended by about 120 people, and I had to fight my way through a sea of smoke to get through into the room before it commenced. I find the whole thing quite offensive. What the Hon. Michael Armitage did when in government in the nineties was a step in the right direction.

If this is truly an indication of where the government is coming from, perhaps the Minister for Health would like to put in his two bob's worth. I cannot believe that, having sat through the affairs of last night on the equal opportunity bill, the government comes in today on something as simple as the member for MacKillop introduced from the upper house and will not support it. I find that quite bizarre. Where is the direction of this government coming from? Is it from the member for Mawson, is it from the Premier or is it from the Minister for Health? Obviously, I clearly support the member for MacKillop.

Mr PICCOLO (Light) (11:08): I rise briefly on this matter to clarify some matters raised by people who pretend to know local government when clearly they do not. First of all, one of the reasons that was mentioned for introducing this bill was to protect kids in playgrounds, etc. The reality is that at the moment local government has the power to make rules about the use of any land or building under its control. So, councils have existing power over any public building or public lands they own. If they are not doing it now, the question one has to ask is: why is local government not banning smoking in those areas when it has the existing power to do so?

It is unfortunate that members opposite have not done their homework because those powers do exist. By all means, trust local government to do the right thing, but talk to them and find out why they are not banning smoking on some reserves. In fact, some councils already do ban smoking in public places. For example, in some playgrounds there are signs that clearly indicate that you cannot smoke. That is a power that local government is currently exercising in some areas; the fact that they all do not is a relevant question. However, you do not need this bill to protect children in reserves, playgrounds or public buildings.

Another issue raised was that we do not trust local government and that is why we are not supporting the bill. That is very interesting because, only a few weeks ago, I heard debate in the upper house on a very good bill that passed through this place. The reason the Liberals opposed it was that they could not trust local government to enforce or apply the proposed law.

It is interesting that their upper house colleagues do not support local government and oppose bills because they cannot trust it to do the right thing. That bill was about improving the environment, so it is interesting that, according to the member for Goyder, some things in the environment are important but other things are not.

The alcohol-free zone is a very good example, and involves issues around not only behaviour but also safety. Clearly, this is not the same as smoking, which is an offensive habit, and I accept that. I am a nonsmoker and always have been. I do not like the habit, and I do not particularly like going to people's homes where they smoke. Having said that, to put this in the same category as alcohol-free zones is a nonsense. In addition, alcohol-free zones can be implemented only with the concurrence of the commissioner for liquor licensing to ensure that alcohol-free zones are not used for political purposes, and that is a check and balance. So, that legislation is quite different.

The member for Finniss said that we should do anything to reduce the take-up of smoking, and I could not agree more: we should do everything we can to make sure that people do not take up smoking. The only area of growth in smoking is amongst young people and, according to him, we should do anything: we should either ban it or do what his colleagues suggested last week, that is, we should fine young people who smoke. If, according to his criteria, we should do everything, perhaps we should do that as well.

When you look at the reasons the Liberals have given for this measure, clearly it is clouded in smoke because it has not been thought through. If they are sincere about doing something about smoking, they would support education programs and support the things we have done on this side of the house about advertising, etc. and would not bring in these sorts of things to the chamber that really do not achieve much because, on the important issue of young people in public places, over which local government has care and control, local government already has the power to act. The Liberals should make sure that the councils in their area exercise those powers now.

Debate adjourned on motion of Dr McFetridge.