Tobacco Products Regulation (Artistic Performances) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 3 December 2015.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (12:32): I rise to support the Tobacco Products Regulation (Artistic Performances) Amendment Bill 2015. Section 46(1) of the Tobacco Products Regulation Act 1997 prohibits smoking in enclosed public spaces, workplaces and shared areas. Exemptions from the Governor can be sought under section 71. This bill seeks to deal with practical inefficiencies in the application of section 71 in providing exemptions for artistic productions.

Investing the power to grant exemptions solely on the Governor has meant that artistic performances have been subject to what has proven to be an unnecessarily drawn-out process. Applicants have to apply at least three months in advance of the performance and of rehearsals. Such an onerous application process does not balance the risk posed. The proposed amendments seek to lift this burden.

Theatre groups often rely on the smoking of cigarettes to provide authenticity, but attaining the necessary exemptions under section 71 can be tedious. The proposed amendments propose to vest the minister with the power to grant exemptions rather than the Governor. The Liberal opposition considers that the bill is an appropriate enhancement of the efficiency of administration of our health promotion legislation and in turn also supports the arts sector in its role in adding to the rich culture and economy of the state.

As the former shadow minister of the arts, I strongly support the role that the arts play in our culture and in the life of our state. In holding the title of the Festival State, South Australia needs to do what we can to enhance and nurture that sector. Whilst I acknowledge the Cancer Council's concern that allowing exemptions to smoking on stage may promote the normalisation of smoking, it is important to balance these concerns against the expected effect of the proposed changes. The health risks associated with cigarette smoking, as highlighted by the Cancer Council, rightly justify the existence of the ban under section 46(1). This bill maintains the ban, it maintains the exemptions from the ban; all it does is make the exemptions easier to get.

In the interest of public health, conditions such as adequate stage and audience ventilation and the use of only herbal rather than tobacco cigarettes already apply to exemptions under section 71. The proposed amendments to section 71 will not affect these conditions. The bill primarily seeks to simplify the process of seeking these exemptions and reduce the administrative burden. In this regard, it is important to note that between 2008 and 2015 a total of 53 requests for exemptions were received and, of these, 48 obtained an exemption. If this bill passes, the number of exemptions needed will not reduce. The proposed changes are simply a sensible way of simplifying the application of section 71, a move which we believe will nurture the arts without increasing the risk to health. The opposition supports the bill.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (12:35): I rise to briefly contribute to the debate on this bill. The purpose of this bill is to streamline exemptions sought for artistic performances from section 46(1) of the Tobacco Products Regulation Act 1997 which prohibit smoking in an enclosed public space, workplace or shared area. The bill shifts the exemption powers from the Governor to the Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse or a delegate.

In this day and age, when electronic cigarettes are commonplace, I find it baffling that an exemption is required at all. I understand the minister's argument that smoking may form an integral part of an artistic performance, especially for historic plays; however, imitation cigarettes that mimic the look of and smoke emitted from real cigarettes now exist. The dangers of smoking are well known and it is perplexing that artistic directors would choose to use real cigarettes, albeit herbal, which would expose their actors, crew and the audience to passive smoking.

I note the definition of a tobacco product under the act includes 'any product that does not contain tobacco but is designed for smoking', and would be grateful if the minister could clarify whether exemptions need to be sought for electronic or other imitation cigarettes. However, I note that the main aim of this bill is to reduce red tape, something that I am wholeheartedly supportive of. Whilst I do not agree with real cigarettes being used in artistic performances, this bill is not debating the merits of this issue but rather streamlining the process for an exemption. As such, I support the bill.

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (12:37): I rise to speak in support of this bill. This bill seeks to amend the Tobacco Products Regulation Act 1997 to provide the Minister for Health and Substance Abuse the power to exempt a person or class of persons from the provisions of the Tobacco Products Regulation Act 1997 for the purposes of artistic performance.

Smoking in enclosed public places, workplaces and shared areas has been prohibited under section 46(1) of the Tobacco Products Regulation Act 1997 since 2004. The purpose of this legislation has always been to protect people from passive smoking in enclosed public places and workplaces. Section 46(1) does not restrict the depiction of smoking in artistic performances using fake cigarettes.

Artistic performances add to the rich culture and economy of South Australia. In some cases these performances include smoking as an integral part of the script or an essential activity within the context of the performance. Rather than glamorising smoking, many of these productions depict smoking as an undesirable activity and a symbol of death and disease.

Under section 71(1)(a) of the act, His Excellency the Governor may by proclamation exempt a person or class of persons from the operation of the provision of the act subject to conditions as may be set out in the proclamation. Producers of artistic performances have been able to apply for an exemption under section 71(1)(a) so that smoking can occur inside venues under specific conditions.

Contrary to recent media claims made by the Cancer Council of South Australia, under the new proposal the same careful consideration will be given to each application for an exemption. It is important to note that the administrative process will be simplified by enabling the minister or delegate to grant an exemption instead of requiring cabinet approval and a proclamation by His Excellency the Governor.

The government does not support smoking; in fact, it provides funding to the Cancer Council of South Australia to provide smoking cessation services to the South Australian community. At this point, I would like to acknowledge the great work that the Cancer Council of South Australia does in reducing the number of smokers and preventing people from taking up smoking. This bill does not change this position. What the bill will change is the administrative process for obtaining a performance exemption.

The current application process is administratively protracted, and for applicants this means that they must apply at least three months in advance of a performance and rehearsals. As many honourable members would be aware, the arts community is a cutthroat industry and many performers work with shoestring budgets. Anything the government can do to assist to reduce red tape and burden would be welcomed by the arts community.

The passing of this bill will simplify the government's artistic performance exemption procedures and reduce the administrative burden on cabinet and the Governor whilst still ensuring that all of the strict conditions that are required when a production is granted an exemption are met. For applicants, the only change to the existing application process will be a reduction in the time taken to process applications from three months to two months.

Applicants will still be required to explain the context in which smoking occurs during a performance, its relevance to the production and why smoking is considered essential to the performance. They must indicate what alternative options have been considered and why these are not considered appropriate. Applicants must also explain how the venue will be ventilated to limit smoke reaching the audience and how the audience will be notified that smoking will be occurring during the performance, if any exemption is provided. I commend this bill to the council.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (12:42): The proposed change to the Tobacco Products Regulation Act 1997 aims, as I understand it, to simplify and speed up the processes for the producers of an artistic performance to apply for an exemption under section 71. In other words, if they wish to let one or more of the actors in a production smoke on stage during the performance of a play, this bill proposes to streamline the administrative burden to allow that to happen by allowing that exemption to be granted by the Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse rather than by the Governor.

As a former, participant and current patron of the performing arts, particularly the theatre in South Australia, I am in favour of any measure that enables those making theatre to focus on their art and not be distracted by red tape. From that point of view, Dignity for Disability certainly supports the aim of this bill.

Notwithstanding our support, of course, we are also acutely aware of the ongoing illness, disability and premature death that is caused by tobacco smoking, including the risks to health associated with second-hand smoke. For this reason we continue to be shocked and disappointed that certain political parties, including some in this place, are still willing to accept donations from tobacco companies.

I note that minister Hunter's second reading speech stated that conditions to these exemptions included the requirement for an audience to be informed that smoking will occur during a performance, for adequate stage and audience ventilation, and the use of only herbal cigarettes rather than tobacco cigarettes. While that is a step in the right direction I suppose, as has been pointed out, there are perhaps some even better alternatives that could be investigated.

I trust that these conditions will continue to apply to any exemptions granted by the minister if this amendment is passed. I also hope the passing of this bill does not lead to any increase in the amount of smoking that occurs in performances. Finally, I will state that my vote in support of this bill should not be seen in any way as support or sympathy for the tobacco industry, the demise of which, frankly, cannot come soon enough for the sake of the health of all South Australians. With those few words and a keen sense of irony, Dignity for Disability supports the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.