Tanczos Nandor: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Tanczos Nandor: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7969] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of this bill and to commend Steve Chadwick for the very good work she has done in progressing this bill. I also commend her predecessors Judy Keall and others who have done considerable work on this issue. First of all I will address some of the points made earlier by the Hon Peter Dunne in terms of the Green position. He criticised the Greens for supporting cannabis coming under the auspices of this bill under the area of herbal tobacco. Of course if we had not supported cannabis being in this bill he would have been even more critical but he criticises us now nevertheless because he has got to have a go. 
Mr Dunne said he did not know what our policy was; he was confused. [ 
Interruption 
] No it does not. It has been consistent since 1999 and I suggest that the honourable member should read the policy because he has been going around the country misleading people about the Green Party policy. He misled this Parliament earlier in the debate about our policy so I suggest that he should read it before he tells us all that he is an expert on it. I would never suggest that he was deliberately misleading the Parliament because he was not doing that he just did not know what he was talking about. 
The Green policy has been consistent on these issues since 1999. We support an R18 rating for cannabis and we support cannabis coming under the Smoke-free Environments Act—that has been our consistent policy. We are totally consistent when it comes to tobacco alcohol and cannabis—they should be given an R18 rating; they should not be promoted or advertised; there should be restrictions to protect other people’s safety—for example other people’s air quality with things like the smoke-free environments legislation—and we should not make people criminals simply because of personal use whether it is tobacco alcohol or cannabis. Mr Dunne and United Future on the other hand are not consistent because they consistently oppose any restrictions on tobacco or alcohol consumption to the degree that Mr Dunne has become extremely sensitive on the issue. 
Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is quite inappropriate for Nandor Tanczos to describe Peter Dunne as Peter Dunne; he is the Hon Peter Dunne. Surely those old courtesies should be pursued in a determined way. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: My apologies. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I know this bill is wide-ranging but we are actually talking about the commencement date and I have not heard the member talk about anything on the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am sure the member will move to the commencement date and the interpretations. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Speaking to the point of order first of all I understood that the agreement of the House was that this would be a wide-ranging debate. Secondly I was replying to allegations made by the Hon Peter Dunne in his speech. It seems to me to be unfair if he can make allegations and I cannot reply to them. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member. I have not yet pulled the member up so would he please continue his speech. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: But at the same time that he opposes this legislation he supports people being made criminals for personal use of cannabis. I consider that an inconsistent position. 
I move on to the question of Mr Dunne’s amendment. I came very close to supporting that amendment. Unlike Mr Dunne I do not support or oppose amendments to legislation on the basis of who puts them up. Green Party members make their decisions based on the merit of the argument. I am sympathetic to the view that legislation like this should take an approach based on outcomes rather than on mechanisms. The objective is to provide a safe environment and it should be up to the premises how that is defined. 
If I were convinced that the amendment was workable I would be supporting it but there are a couple of issues that do need to be addressed. The amendment is silent on who would bear the significant costs of ensuring compliance because costs are not just the cost of installing the equipment but the cost of maintaining it and running it consistently. Given the very limited resources of public health officials who will do the ongoing checking to make sure that the equipment is working adequately and is actually being used? The amendment is silent on that. It is just an easy way to avoid the intention of the legislation. 
I am persuaded that that is the intention of the amendment because it comes into effect no sooner than 1 February 2007. That is not “no later than” 2007; that is “no sooner than” 2007. That date and the ease by which the amendment would be got around by any premises wishing to do that convince me that the intention is actually to find ways by which people can get around the bill and so I cannot support that amendment. I do support the bill and the amendments of my colleague Sue Kedgley. Once again I thank Steve Chadwick for the very good work she has done.