MEDIA RELEASE

Nile Urges Urgent Government Action On Smoking

The Rev Fred Nile MLC, Leader of the Christian Democratic Party, has urged the NSW Government and Legislative Council to expedite the introduction of legislation that will make all public areas smoke free. In an impassioned and detailed speech, Rev Nile reaffirmed his continued commitment, over many years, to the health and well being of the people of NSW. Whilst speaking on the ‘Smoke-free and Environment Amendment (Removal of Exemptions) Bill’ before Parliament yesterday, Rev Nile stated that “a smoke-free environment will save people's lives”.

“I wholeheartedly support the Smoke-free and Environment Amendment (Removal of Exemptions) Bill and call on the House to pass it. As members would be aware, when the Smoke-free Environment Amendment Bill 2004 was passed by this House, in spite of opposition from me and other members, such as the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, the bill went through with an exemption section set out in schedule 1. We wish to have the exemption measures set out in schedule 1 of the present bill to be removed so they no longer operate. Although new section 11B of the 2004 bill referred to "temporary exemption for areas of a club, hotel, nightclub or casino from 4 July 2005 until 2 July 2007", the provision particularly applied to what are described as bar rooms. The definition of "bar room" was included in that legislation as follows:

..bar room means a room in which drinks are recorded, served and consumed, but does not include a gaming machine room or a recreation room.

As I said, the exemption set out in new section 11B of the 2004 bill applied from 4 July 2005 until 2 July 2007. Some people may suggest that we should wait until July 2007 to allow the legislation to run its course. Obviously, having a totally smoke-free environment will save people's lives, particularly workers in hotels and clubs who work in bar areas. During the hearings of the Select Committee on Tobacco Smoking, on which I and the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans served as members, we heard evidence from employees of hotels and clubs, known as barmaids or barmen, who had served in bar areas for many years. Even as they gave evidence to us they were suffering the shocking effects of cancer of the throat—and they had never smoked. One can imagine having operations on one's throat and the effect that must have on one's ability to speak. As we know, cancer is very unpredictable; it can often spread to other parts of the body and become fatal.

The Smoke-free Environment Amendment Bill 2004 inserted new section 11A, relating to the temporary exemption for areas of a club, hotel, nightclub or casino from 3 January 2005 until 4 July 2005, which has now passed. That section provided that bar rooms, gaming machine rooms and recreation rooms in a club, hotel, nightclub or casino may be set aside as an exempt area. I believe we should not wait until 2 July 2007. As some of us said at the time, dates are always critical with legislation because we have to work out whether the date is before or after an election. The date 2 July 2007 is obviously after the March 2007 election.

My concern is that after the election and when Parliament resumes in 2007 an amending bill may be introduced to extend the temporary exemption from 2 July 2007 until 2 July 2010. That is the danger with the way the bill was drafted. I believe it is reasonably suspicious when a key date is chosen to be after an election. One could argue that if the Labor Government loses the election, it would be in the hands of the Coalition as to whether it would enforce the date 2 July 2007. I suspect that, given the Coalition's record on the smoking issue, that would be very much in doubt.

As I have looked through the debates on the smoking issue I have noted that each piece of legislation has been strongly opposed by the Coalition. I recall the Coalition's ferocious opposition to the first bill I introduced to prohibit tobacco advertising. I believe it was only when the Coalition ascertained that the majority of members of the House were in favour of the passage of the bill that the Coalition changed its tune and said it would support it. The bill would have been passed with or without the Coalition's support; with the Labor Party and the crossbench members we had sufficient members to pass it. However, until that point there had been strong criticism of the bill, particularly by the member we might call the health spokesman, the Hon. Dr Brian Pezzutti, who, as members know, was a heavy smoker even though he was an anaesthetist specialist. He opposed the bill, but it was subsequently passed”, stated Rev Nile.

“In 1997 I introduced the Smoking Regulation Bill. After some debate, that bill also was passed by the upper House. However, before it was passed the Opposition moved amendments designed to water down the effectiveness of the bill. As recorded in Hansard, the Hon. John Hannaford, the then Leader of the Opposition in this place, said:

The Opposition supports a ban on smoking in indoor areas where food and beverages are consumed, and proposes the following amendments to Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile's Smoking Regulation Bill.

He went on to outline the amendments, which were ultimately moved and which severely watered down the bill. The then Leader of the Opposition continued:

Exemptions will be granted to venues with equipment which complies with clean air standards. These will take into account acceptable air quality standards. In other words, the health factor will determine the success or otherwise of the application for exemption, not the comfort factor.

The then Leader of the Opposition proposed something that most of us thought could not work. He sought to argue that somehow the use of airconditioning in a large room would make one part of the room smoke free and the other part of the room could be used as a smoking area. I believe it was never possible to develop airconditioning that would do that, but that is what the Opposition proposed at that time. The Opposition's amendments were supported by the Labor Party and subsequently passed.

Many attempts have been made to pass strong legislation to deal with the harmful effects of tobacco smoke, but on each occasion the legislation has contained loopholes. We are now dealing with the loophole of temporary exemptions, which will expire, according to the legislation, on 2 July 2007. However, we do not have it set in concrete from both sides of politics, the Coalition and the Labor Party, that following the next election that date will be strictly enforced. Even if the Coalition and the Government do not support the bill, it may be helpful if they were to place on record in this debate their wholehearted support for the dates stipulated and give an assurance that the dates will be implemented in accordance with the legislation.

As members know, I have introduced other bills to try to reduce the harmful effects of tobacco smoke. They are the No Tobacco Products on Display Bill and the No Tobacco Smoking in Cars Bill, which will be debated in due course. Unfortunately, our system of dealing with legislation on a priority basis means that it can take some time to get bills before the House. I do not usually like to use a contingency motion to do that but we may consider that because of the importance of those bills.

The other matter of concern relates to loopholes. A policy has been developed of using the so-called 75/25 per cent figure to create a new enclosed room, a room that has three walls and a roof, which now becomes an open area where smoking will be permitted. I note that this loophole was obviously strongly desired by the Australian Hotels Association [AHA]. In June 2005 the AHA gave its members the green light to build smoking rooms almost 75 per cent enclosed, without the approval of Parliament that should have been required for a regulation defining "enclosed" under the Smoke-free Environment Act. The AHA argued that since these venues had invested capital in these fake outdoor areas, the Parliament should then rubberstamp the regulation when it came before Parliament. That happened, even though we sought to disallow it.

So, we have fake claims of open areas when normal commonsense dictates they are enclosed areas with three walls and a ceiling. I admit that if an area has walls and no ceiling it may be possible to argue that it is an open area, but once there is a ceiling, which traps the smoke in that room, then it cannot be an open area. It always seems that powerful organisations such as the AHA find ways to somehow get around the law. We have strong occupational health and safety laws, which are designed to make the workplace safe by eliminating second-hand tobacco smoke, but these loopholes in the legislation then allow it. I call on all of us in the Parliament to ensure that what we are doing is consistent and makes sense.

The Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans referred to some of the health dangers to smokers and non-smokers caused by passive smoke, but in this case we are looking at the issue of the impact of passive smoke on non-smokers. Earlier in the House today we discussed whether we should debate matters relating to health in this State and the pressure on the health system. One of the major pressures on the health system is smoking-related illness. Every year 6,500 people die in New South Wales as a result of smoking and 18 people die every day in New South Wales from smoke-related diseases. The important point is that 150 people per day are admitted to hospitals in New South Wales due to smoking-related illnesses. It would relieve a huge pressure on our hospital system if there were 150 fewer people a day going into New South Wales hospitals.

Also, we are trying to balance the budget and working out what can be done, what cannot be done and where to make cuts. We even have a dramatic cut to our own parliamentary budget. But what of smoking costs? Smoking costs New South Wales $7 billion each year and $21 billion per year nationally. Health statistics clearly indicate that smokers are four times more likely to suffer sudden cardiac arrest causing death and 10 times more likely to die of bronchitis and other related breathing diseases. So, this is a serious health issue for the individuals who are suffering from smoking-related diseases, it is having a serious impact on our economy, on our State and national budgets, and it is increasing the pressure on New South Wales hospitals, particularly New South Wales public hospitals.

I ask members of this House to give serious consideration to supporting this bill to remove the loophole for the exemptions forthwith. It would mean also that we would be consistent with what was proposed by both sides of politics: that these exemptions will be removed on 2 July 2007. After the next election we could have a new government, in which case how can we guarantee those exemptions will be removed and there will not be an amending bill? It would bring the matter to a head if we could vote now to remove the exemptions. It may take some weeks or months to implement the legislation but it would come into effect before the next election. It is my worry that next March the election will put a big question mark over all the legislation and over all the timetables as to what an incoming government would do.

Even if the Labor Government is re-elected, it could say that under further consideration it is extending the exemptions to 2010. I can see arguments for an extension put up by the Australian Hotels Association and others and, unfortunately, a government could give in to that pressure. Let us take the pressure off the government: make the decision now, so it cannot be an election issue; it will be dealt with today, and that is the finish of it. Let us remove those exemptions and save the health of the people of New South Wales”, Rev Fred Nile stated.