LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (15:59): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Local Government Act 1999. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (15:59): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

As members will recall, late last year I announced that I would introduce a bill in February to allow for a two-day ban on smoking in the city.

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan: It has taken you 12 months to get around to it.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. Bernard Finnigan laughs and interjects that it has taken me 12 months to get around to it. In fact, I consulted widely and introduced the bill, but it lapsed when the parliament was prorogued. I am now bringing back a bill that I think reflects the—

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. I.K. Hunter): Order! The Leader of the Opposition knows well enough not to respond to interjections.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I thank you for your guidance, Mr Acting President. I consulted widely, and I think that the bill I will discuss today reflects much more accurately the community's concerns and wishes in relation to smoking in public places. I will go into a more detailed explanation but, broadly speaking, this bill allows councils to declare as smoke free any particular area in its council district, whether it be a beach, a children's playground, the city mall, or anywhere that people might not want cigarettes to be smoked.

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan: In the mall?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Again, I should not respond to interjections, but the Hon. Bernard Finnigan talks about the mall. In fact, councillor Anne Moran (a smoker herself) recently said that smoking should be banned in the mall.

I introduced this bill earlier in the year, and it stimulated a significant amount of debate. In fact, I think at this point, in relation to this bill, I am the only member (other than perhaps the Premier) of any political persuasion who has had coverage on national breakfast television.

I consulted with the Australian Medical Association, the LGA, a number of councils (including the Adelaide City Council), the East End Corporation, the Cancer Council, the Heart Foundation and ASH Australia. As I mentioned earlier, in June this year, Councillor Anne Moran proposed that smoking be banned over the complete length of the mall and, possibly, its side streets.

In April this year, the council voted to create a subsidiary to manage the mall, handing it a budget of $2.7 million to do so. The Chief Executive (Stuart Moseley) said that the board could recommend a ban but that the final decision would rest with the state government. I am not prepared to wait for a recommendation to be made or for the state government to make a decision. As we know, it has been very slow to make decisions or, in fact, to do anything of any real substance in any area.

The City of Port Adelaide Enfield has been lobbying the LGA in its bid to outlaw smoking in public places. In fact, as a child, its mayor (Gary Johanson) sustained a nasty burn as a result of a cigarette butt on the beach when he was playing with his family. The council has been investigating a state-first ban on smoking on beaches, in bus shelters and on other council land, such as parks and reserves, much of which has already been done in New South Wales. The general consensus of councils is that they may be prepared to do more if parliament gives them the mechanism to do so.

As I have said, this bill replaces the bill that lapsed when parliament was prorogued. By prohibiting smoking in specified public places, it affords councils the power to make by-laws and, in turn, gives them the power to enforce such by-laws. It imposes an expiation fee of $20 and a maximum fine of $200. For some time, we have had a fine of $315 for littering, but it has never been clear whether that offence encapsulates the disposal of a cigarette butt. However, it seems inappropriate for a minor littering offence to attract such a fine. Initially, I included littering in the bill, but the opposition has a private member's bill in another place that deals with littering. This bill relates to just the smoking of a cigarette.

Throughout my consultation it was discussed that the $315 fine seemed quite excessive, and I have arrived at the decision, in line with the discussions with the Lord Mayor Michael Harbison, that a fee somewhat akin to a simple parking fine is an appropriate fine or expiation fee. That is why I have chosen the figure of $20. I think this also now gives councils a little bit more confidence in both introducing the by-laws and enforcing them if they know that they have the support of the state parliament.

In my second reading explanation on the initial bill, I discussed the argument that smoking legislation should be made from the production rather than the consumption end, but I do not believe in the removal of one's right to smoke. Smokers should have the right to smoke a legally-available product, but not where it affects others. Everybody has the right to clean air and tidy public places. Opponents who say that smokers should be able to use a legally-available product everywhere should be reminded that outdoor smoke, especially in crowded outdoor areas such as the CBD, can cause as much harm as indoors, especially when smokers congregate on street corners, at building entrances or in outdoor seating areas.

On 1 November 2007, the government's new laws on indoor smoking came into effect. As a result, city streets are now littered with cigarette butts as smokers leave premises to smoke on our streets. The Adelaide council mentioned that in its experience the banning of smoking in pubs and clubs has not worsened our overall litter problem but amounted to a greater concentration of both smokers and litter. Notwithstanding the potential harm to health, tobacco smoke pollutes our clean air. Vehicles, of course, also pollute our air, but that is why there are strict emission controls on all motor vehicles in this state.

One modification to my initial bill that stakeholders suggested was that smokers be directed to a limited number of what we would call temporary designated outdoor smoking areas, spaces marked out and signposted and provided with butt-bins in order to contain and restrict the poisons and the smell of smoke as well as contain the butts that are often left lying on the street. Under this bill, councils would have the power to make by-laws banning smoking in any areas under their jurisdiction.

The bill indicates that any areas which are identified under the Liquor Licensing Act and which are likely to be the outdoor areas of a hotel that is on a footpath—it is still technically council land, but it is used by the hotel—would be exempt from this ban. Councils may choose to designate areas near main thoroughfares and allow smoking in areas that are well distanced from the openings of buildings and, as much as possible, out of sight of and away from children. The bill allows councils to identify areas that they see as being under the greatest environmental threat and creating the greatest health harm.

I recognise that most smokers do respect others' rights as much as is practicable. However, passive smoking is still prevalent, regardless of how well smokers abide by current tobacco legislation. Because the general intent of this bill is the same as my initial bill, I remind members of a few points I raised in February. The size and relative insignificance of one littered cigarette butt makes it waste which is inconspicuous litter but which builds up into a huge environmental problem. My arguments are about the health and environmental impacts of inappropriately disposed butts and smoking in close proximity to other members of the public.

I also remind the council of an article which was brought to my attention throughout the consultation with the Australian Medical Association (AMA). The article, which was published in one of its magazines, states:

South Australia's Strategic Plan includes the preventative health objective of reducing the percentage of young cigarette smokers aged 15-29 by 10 percentage points to 17.9 percent by 2014. This is a modest but commendable target, which doctors support. One would hope that having established this objective, the government would move heaven and earth to meet it. It was therefore disappointing to see the budget report an expected rise in smoking prevalence for this group (estimating 24.6% for 2006-07 against a 2005-06 actual of 23.4%.)

So, we can see that actually more of these young people are smoking rather than fewer. The article continues:

Just how statistically significant this deterioration is a moot point, but the government's failure to adequately increase funding to QuitSA for advertising and promotional campaigns to target smoking rates surely cannot be assisting the situation. If we have a target, the AMA SA believes the government must get serious about meeting it.

The AMA said that closed circuit television footage has shown youths knocking off the bottoms of butt litter bins in order to scavenge the unused remnants of cigarette butts. Clearly, if smoking is banned in an area and people do not smoke, then the butt bins will not be in those places for young people to access.

I have had some quite significant consultation which has been broadly supportive from the Port Adelaide Enfield Council, the Adelaide City Council and the Campbelltown council. In a number of other parts of Australia, councils have taken this step and banned smoking in certain areas. Bondi Beach, for example, is now smoke-free. Some people have raised questions with me in relation to the legislation, in that it would have a negative impact on South Australia's tourism industry. I can hardly believe that to be the case. If we gave local government this power it would be almost a world first, although there are some small countries in Asia (and one in particular in the Himalayas) that have banned cigarettes and consumption of tobacco products; it is a total prohibition. That would be way too draconian but this would certainly lead the nation in allowing councils to ban it in any particular place they chose.

It would naturally put control back in the hands of local communities because they are the people who are best placed to know whether the park, the playground, the beach or the shopping precinct is being adversely affected by smokers. It would also enhance our tourism and national reputation because we would have a cleaner state and cleaner streets. With those few words, I look forward to the debate and I urge all members to seriously consider supporting this ground-breaking piece of legislation.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.