HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-10-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 October 2008. Page 322.)

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (17:12): I rise to support the bill, as proposed by the Hon. Mr Ridgway. I think this bill is a step in the right direction in terms of discouraging smoking, ensuring public comfort and safety, and addressing the environmental problems caused by cigarette butts.

A report commissioned by the federal Department of Health and Ageing revealed that, in 2004-05, tobacco cost Australians $31.5 billion, which takes into account the loss of life, health care costs, and reduced ability to participate in the home and workplace. This bill provides an important opportunity for councils to take further steps in restricting the opportunities for smoking tobacco and discouraging something that has been a significant cost to the community.

I have a number of concerns in relation to the practical operation of the bill that I would like to put on the record, and I would be grateful if the opposition would provide a response. First, I query whether a phase-in period is envisaged to give people time to be forewarned that bans in certain public places will apply, so that they are not caught unawares. I would have thought that the bill will provide for a phase-in period to allow councils to engage in a community information program about how they will signpost areas that are smoke free and indicate what the penalties will be if people are in breach of these provisions.

I note that there was a three-year phase-in period when legislation was passed banning smoking in hotels and the casino. Whilst I do not propose that there be such a long period before the bans are put in place, I wonder whether there has been any consultation as to when these bans may be effected if this bill is passed. Following on from that point, I wonder whether a warning system has been considered before the issue of fines and expiation notices and whether this would be envisaged as part of the phase-in period. I am sceptical of councils being involved in any scheme that allows them to collect money, as they seem to treat such matters as a revenue-raising exercise rather than a legitimate preventative measure, and I raise the point that council resources may not be sufficient to give effect to the bill's provisions.

I also query whether councils really have the resources to police this measure and what the associated costs might be. I do not see the point in having a law that will just sit on the statute book if there are not sufficient resources to police this matter. With those few queries, I support the bill.

The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: Mr President, I draw your attention to the state of the council.

A quorum having been formed :

The PRESIDENT: I call the Hon. Sandra Kanck.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (17:16): The Democrats are pleased to support this public health initiative. We consider it to be an extension of our smoke-free zones bill, which was first introduced back in 2005, I think. The Democrats have been at the forefront of anti-smoking legislation in South Australia. We began dealing with legislation, I think, as early as 1983. More recently, we suggested the ban on smoking in cars with kids and we successfully amended (with the help of the opposition) one of the government's tobacco bills so that it has now become illegal to advertise the sale of tobacco with grocery supplies over the Internet.

In terms of dealing with the Hon. Mr Ridgway's bill, the tram stops that we have in our city are frequently congested platforms. For me, it raises some questions as to why smokers should be able to take up space puffing away in a cloud of chemicals that others have to breathe in. It is a failing of the current government that it did not take the opportunity, when the tram extension was built, to protect commuters from tobacco smoke on tram platforms.

It is also timely to mention the Christmas Pageant which, for a number of years, the Democrats have been pushing to have declared as a clean air zone. Families with young children sit patiently waiting for the parade to begin; some of them are there hours ahead of time in order to get a good vantage point. Why should they be subjected to someone's tobacco smoke? It is an event which is aimed at children. Father Christmas sometimes has to hold his breath as he comes along part of the pageant route.

The Hon. David Ridgway said that he could hardly believe that tougher controls would have a negative effect on tourism. I think it would be an absolute positive if we could promote the City of Adelaide as a smoke-free zone in its entirety. We could become a clean air friendly city and (to paraphrase some Norwegian advertising) we could say, 'Welcome to Adelaide. The only thing we smoke here are tommy ruffs'—or Australian herring, if we want to use the new name.

I have pushed for the idea of clean air ramps as being a way of making buildings accessible to people for whom chemicals, such as those from cigarettes, form a barrier to the safe entry of buildings. Just as we accept a building code which includes accessibility for people with a disability as the norm, so should we provide a pathway of clean air to allow safe passage for chronic asthmatics and people who are sensitive to chemicals.

Last year, in an effort to counter the government's consistent bleatings that local rather than state government should involve itself with tobacco control measures, I wrote to councils across the state, and 19 of them responded. Many of them thought that it was not their position to take this on, but some of them had already done so. In fact, Prospect council is a leader in creating safe clean air playgrounds for children but they are the exception in this state rather than the rule. Generally, South Australia lags behind other states now in relation to tobacco law reform.

I have sought comment from the Local Government Association about the current situation and its preferred way to proceed with tobacco control measures, but I have not yet heard back from that association. Whenever bans are brought in there is a reaction from predictable political sources, but the broader public have adapted well to current regulations. A ban on smoking in public in South Australia would allow non-smokers more freedom, especially in the city where workers now smoke outside their buildings. If one walks down Rundle Mall it can be a walk into the Winnie blue yonder.

Tobacco smoking represents the largest single contributor to preventable disease in Australia. Effectively, controlling environmental tobacco smoke is a public health measure which should have been dealt with last century. In the absence of decent state laws to provide clean air zones, I indicate strong support for this important initiative.

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

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT