TOBACCO PRODUCTS REGULATION (PROHIBITION ON SMOKING IN CHILDREN'S RECREATIONAL PARKS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 14 November 2007. Page 1292.)

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (16:53): I first introduced a clean air zones bill in this place in 2003. It gave power to the minister to impose through regulation a ban on smoking in playgrounds, parks, reserves or beaches, and adjacent to the Christmas Pageant, at bus stops and at the Royal Adelaide Show—all of which are places that children and families and active people frequent. My first bill was not passed, so I reintroduced it in 2006.

The Cancer Council, in responding to the bill, specifically that part relating to playgrounds, indicated support and pointed out that there is a role-modelling factor in having adults around playgrounds not smoking and, in addition, the risk of children ingesting toxic cigarette butts would also be removed. Unfortunately, both the Labor and Liberal parties opposed it. I was very surprised because the bill was a moderate one, leaving the minister to determine which of those places, if any, listed in my bill would have any bans.

The argument given was that local government should take the action and that statewide regulation was not necessary. I subsequently contacted all local councils to advise them that the view of the Labor and Liberal parties was that it was up to them and not the state government to take this action. The results of my inquiries with local government show that, with the odd exception, little is happening, and quite a number of them advised that they did not consider it was their role. I will not name these particular councils because I have not sought their permission to quote them, but the following are quotes from some councils. One council said:

This council is surprised to find that Local Government would be considered to have such responsibility.

Another council said:

Local Government is already heavily burdened with enforcement and regulatory responsibilities and it is highly improbable that local government will voluntarily accept a role as lead agent in addressing the issue of smoking.

Another comment was:

...believe it is the responsibility of State and Federal Governments to establish the measure by legislation, and to enforce any such measures, as we do not have the resources, be it legislative, financial or human resources for such measures.

Members may recall that, about 12 months ago, following the call of councillor Mark Basham of Port Adelaide Enfield Council to ban cigarette smoking at bus stops, there was some media coverage. The Port Adelaide Enfield Council continues to investigate that as an initiative.

The shining light in all the responses that I received from local government was from Prospect council, which has applied a smoking ban to all 14 of the children's playgrounds in that jurisdiction, and I congratulate it on this forward move which has been in place since September 2005. But this is the exception that proves the rule: leaving it to local councils means that it is much more miss than hit. The question we must ask ourselves—because I have no doubt that the minister will again trot out the argument that it is up to local government when this bill gets to a vote—is whether it really is the place of local government to regulate the provision of clean air zones, or is it merely a convenient cop-out for the state government to say that it will leave it to local councils?

My view is that a move to make playgrounds smoke-free would have a far better chance of working if the state government was to take up the initiative, because it has the resources to publicise and ensure it is well understood, and it would ensure the same rules apply across the state. I do remind members that we did not ask local councils to take action regarding smoking in bars. I commend the Hon. Mark Parnell for following my lead in bringing this matter to the attention of the council, but I really have to question the commitment of both Labor and Liberal parties to public health when they have failed to bite the bullet on two previous occasions to support a move such as this. In some ways all we can do in this place in the absence of ministerial will on the matter is to fiddle at the edges, yet good, sound, public health policy dictates that we persevere in the face of recalcitrant governments and oppositions.

We must continue to identify the opportunities and keep on introducing—and even reintroducing—legislation in the hope that commonsense will eventually prevail for the benefit of the community. I am proud of the Democrats' initiatives on tobacco going back to 1983, when we introduced a bill in this chamber to stop tobacco advertising, which, by the way, was opposed by the major parties. Then there was a bill by Senator John Coulter in 1987 to stop cigarette smoking in aircrafts. I have coined the term clean air 'ramps' in an attempt to illustrate that giving accessibility to people who are affected by environmental tobacco smoke is every bit as important as providing safe access to buildings for people with mobility issues. These days we would not envisage creating a new public space without accessibility; similarly, a clean air ramp provides accessibility for all. It is a term I would like to see widely taken up.

The Democrats called for a ban to stop smoking in cars with children present and, eventually, the government took up the idea. We might not always succeed in keeping governments honest, but we can give them a few good ideas and, from time to time, they even take them up. I indicate that I will be supporting this bill and I encourage other members to get behind what is an important health initiative.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J. Gazzola.