Mr PALLAS (Tarneit) — I rise  to speak on this  bill,  which Labor does not oppose. We acknowledge that there are public health benefits associated with the introduction of the bill, but quite frankly  we would not want to overstate them in the sense that  the work in the battle  against tobacco and the addiction  to nicotine is a responsibility for the entire community.

It is something  that government should go about rigorously and diligently while recognising  that anything  it can do  to reduce  the number  of smokers  in our community materially advantages the health and wellbeing of our community.

We  do  not oppose the  bill,  but  I would  not  overstate  its  effect. I  was interested to hear the  comments of the member for Bayswater that this is one of the greatest initiatives we have been able  to  achieve in recent times. Clearly the  bar  has  not  been set particularly high by  this  government  about  what constitutes a great achievement. This bill is one of a number of bills that have been introduced in recent times aimed at dealing with tobacco reduction in broad areas  of the community and also at reducing addiction to  it and  the insidious impact it has upon the wellbeing  of community members, particularly  those less capable of giving informed consent when it comes to their exposure to smoking.

We have seen amendments  included in the Tobacco Act 1987 relating to smoking in cars with  children, a ministerial  ban  on certain tobacco  and tobacco-related products,  a  ban on tobacco  sales  from temporary outlets,  increased  and new penalties and a ban on the display of tobacco products at point of sale with  an exemption for on-airport duty-free shops. Time and again we have seen government after government, regardless of their political persuasion, being able to put in place  the necessary adjustments  and improvements to  the  way that tobacco  is accessible, available and restricted in the broader community.

It is important that this happen, but I do not know if I would say  it is one of the greatest initiatives of recent times. I see it as the diligent, rigorous and appropriate action that government needs to go about to progressively reduce the level of addiction to smoking. Nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs known to man, and it is therefore important that dramatic action be taken.

As the  son of two smokers,  I was constantly amazed by  the change in community mores  around smoking. Although I have five siblings, not one of us  has smoked, despite the fact that  both my  parents did.  I have  seen the insidious effects that tobacco has had upon  my  family  — for example, I saw  my  father  die of vascular dementia and  arteriosclerotic  injuries, and  I  have seen  my  mother struggle with emphysema, although she continues in relatively good health.

Tobacco  touches everybody in our community. We all know somebody who has smoked for a considerable

Page 4765

period of time, and we all wish good health for those we love. Tobacco addiction is something  we  should  do everything we can to restrict, particularly when it comes to those in our  community who  are unable  to provide informed consent or who are unwilling or unwitting recipients of  second-hand or side-stream  smoke. It is important for the wellbeing of the community.

We are getting results. We have seen smoking amongst adults  reduced  from  17.3 per  cent  to  13.8 per cent of Victorian adults. Smoking amongst pregnant women has  been reduced by 50  per  cent,  from  9.3 per cent to  4.7  per  cent.  The community  is  becoming  increasingly  wise  about  and  aware  of   the  health implications of smoking addiction. Changes of this nature represent good policy, but let us not overblow the practical significance of this bill.

Step by  step, change by  change, we  need to  look at  a continual  progression towards  a   community  that  has  a   clear  and  unambiguous  view  about  the unacceptability of subjecting others to nicotine,  particularly  those  who  are uninformed  or incapable of  providing  consent, and that  ensures that they are protected by the community and by legislation.

The bill before the house amends the Tobacco Act 1987 to ban smoking between the flags at patrolled beaches and within a 50-metre radius of those  flags. I  have concerns, which I will  raise for the minister to  look at, about the way  these provisions  will  operate.  It  could  well  be  a  practicality of the way that statutory expression is  applied, but new  section 5RA(1)(a) provides for  a ban between  yellow  and red flags and new section 5RA(1)(b) talks about a  50-metre radius  around each of the flags. If you think about  the practicality  of those two restrictions, they do not necessarily create a substantial area.

For example, if we are talking about flags that are more than  100 metres apart, then we  will have  areas within  those  two flags  that are  therefore not  the subject of prohibition. I am  not sure that will be the case  in practice, and I am prepared to stand corrected if there is some advice from government about it, but if you are talking about an area, I believe that area should be more clearly defined.  We would not want to have too many Philadelphia  lawyers sitting  on a beach between flags more than 100 metres apart,  away from the point between the two flags, saying, ‘The law does not prohibit me from doing this’. I think it is worthwhile, for the purposes of clarity — —

  Mr O’Brien — Between the yellow flags or the 50-metre radius.

  Mr PALLAS— I thank the minister  at the table, the Minister  for Gaming, for saying  it is ‘or’, but the problem is that between the flags is a straight line and does not define an area. That is the point I am making.

I am not trying to make a great issue of this,  but the legislation may need  to be  considered in that context.  I do not imagine there  will be too many people standing  on a  beach with a copy of the Tobacco Amendment (Smoking at Patrolled Beaches) Act 2012  seeking to absolve  themselves  from culpability —  or maybe certain people  who have  great affection for their right to smoke at all times. The important thing is that the bill sends a message — a continuing, consistent and  bipartisan message — that smoking should be restricted in areas of  public access and  that  there  should be a progressive reduction in exposure for those members of the community who  cannot  provide informed consent or do not provide informed consent because  of the circumstances in  which those proximate to them participate in the activity  of smoking, an activity that we know  unambiguously has a deleterious effect upon one’s health.

The enforcement of the ban will be the responsibility of local councils.

Existing local government environment  officers  will  fine people for breaching the ban, and the penalty units,  which are  currently equivalent to $141, send a clear and  appropriate message.  I note that  the ban  will take  effect from  1 December  this year.  That being  the start of the swimming season, and  the ban applying to both ocean and river beaches to  the extent  that they are patrolled in this way, will ensure that the community is given a very strong message about the continuing intent and  direction of  public policy in this area, which is to restrict access and  ultimately reduce the  level  of nicotine addiction  in our community.

The bill  is therefore a valuable piece of public policy. However,  I do not see that it  should be overblown in terms of its quality or importance. It is just a diligent  piece of public administration. It should be seen as the sort of thing that government does day to day in order to protect  and preserve  the wellbeing of the population.

See Tim’s speech in Hansard here.