HON AARON STONEHOUSE (South Metropolitan) [1.04 pm]: I move —
(1) A select committee, to be known as the Personal Choice and Community Safety Committee, is established.
(2) The select committee is to inquire into and report on the economic and social impact of measures introduced in Western Australia to restrict personal choice “for the individual’s own good”, with particular reference to —
(a) risk-reduction products such as e-cigarettes, e-liquids and heat-not-burn tobacco products, including any impact on the wellbeing, enjoyment and finances of users and non-users;
(b) outdoor recreation such as cycling and aquatic leisure, including any impact on the wellbeing, enjoyment and finances of users and non-users; and
(c) any other measures introduced to restrict personal choice for individuals as a means of preventing harm to themselves.
(3) The select committee shall consist of five members.
(4) The select committee is to report by no later than 12 months after the committee has been established.
[Speeches and comments from various members]
HON ALISON XAMON (North Metropolitan) [1.20 pm]: When I first saw this motion, I was very concerned because of the sheer breadth of what had been proposed. I have to indicate that I was not supportive of the establishment of the committee on the terms in which it had been put forward simply because I could not see a way that the committee would realistically be able to effectively canvass the broad range of issues that had been presented to Parliament to consider being part of the content of this submission. However, I had some conversations with Hon Aaron Stonehouse behind the Chair and I will add that it was not as part of any deal. Like the Leader of the House, no deal has been offered to me nor requested, and it has not been necessary. It is rather amusing that that is where some people’s minds immediately go. I had a conversation with the honourable member behind the Chair about the scope of this committee and we talked about what would be useful and what would be of value to this Parliament to consider. I note that since then, Hon Aaron Stonehouse came back with a revised committee terms of reference and I have to say that the Greens are far more amenable to what has been reviewed. That is not because we do not think there might be some merit in talking about the broad range of issues that had been originally suggested, but simply because we did not see that it was practicably going to be implemented in an effective way with the parliamentary committee. As such, I rise to indicate that the Greens are quite comfortable with seeing this particular select committee go forward.
Having said that, I indicate from the outset that I hope that the select committee is able to narrow its focus so that when it chooses those particular issues, a good job can be done on them. A fair bit of media has been put out around this, and it has been suggested that perhaps the terms of reference and the issues that are going to be canvassed will depend on what comes through from public submissions. I am a little concerned about that. It is not usual for a select committee to be established and to basically put it out to the public and say, “Hey, what do you think we should be looking at?” Ordinarily this Parliament, this house, would be putting the parameters around what we deem to be priority areas that need to be investigated. I hope that the committee is able to focus on what it will be looking at.
I want to make a comment about a couple of things. One thing that I am personally really happy to have a select committee investigate is the issue of e-cigarettes, because it is a really timely and vexed issue. The Cancer Council, for example, is clearly concerned because, as we know, tobacco, even if it is not smoked, is still a carcinogen. It is concerned about the appeal of e-cigarettes and activities such as vaping to a new generation of potential nicotine users, and what that means for future health implications. On the other hand, we are hearing directly from long-term smokers that the only way they feel they can get any sort of handle on their nicotine addiction is through the use of e-cigarettes. I personally have friends who have gone through everything. They have tried hypnotism, patches, chewing gum—a plethora of things that are available—and have struggled. When they made the switch to e-cigarettes, they felt that they were able to at least minimise the degree of harm wrought upon their bodies by the insidiousness of tobacco.
When we talk about issues of personal choice, we need to remember that we have an obligation. I believe, and the Greens believe, very strongly, that we always need to think about the potential impacts on children and also the most vulnerable and disadvantaged members of our community. When we talk about, for example, e-cigarettes, as we have noted before in this place—or certainly I have—it is important to recognise that the tobacco industry is very well resourced and it has demonstrated that, frankly, it can be extraordinarily unscrupulous in the methods that it uses to try to attract new people to the addiction of nicotine. I maintain that the government therefore has a very clear role to play on issues of harm minimisation. As I said before, the Greens will always support provisions targeted at making it harder for young people to take up smoking and protecting the community from exposure to second-hand smoke. It will be interesting to hear, through the committee’s deliberations, whether it believes that e-cigarettes are therefore likely to lead to more harm or in actual fact will potentially play a role in minimising harm. I hope that when the committee looks at these sorts of issues, it can also look at the importance of adequate funding for things such as health promotion and treatment rather than just restrictions, and that it looks at the evidence base and to public interest assessments to inform the development of measures aimed at harm minimisation. We also feel quite strongly about communities having the opportunity to have a say. These are the sorts of things that would be well canvassed, particularly in an environment in which extraordinary personal fines can be issued against individuals for the use of e-cigarettes. I understand this is an issue that the Minister for Health is very interested to take a look at. Being informed with a much deeper examination from a parliamentary select committee will be incredibly useful.
Another issue I will touch on that keeps coming up is the issue of bike helmets. The Greens have some quite diverse views within its own membership around this. I note that Greens Mayor, Brad Pettitt, has been on the front foot talking about the need to relax the use of bike helmets, because there has been considerable concern that the use of bike helmets for adults has perhaps served as an inhibitor to people being able to undertake bike riding, particularly as an enjoyable pastime. It is good to hear the comments from members about the need to ensure that there is a difference between whether a person is riding in heavy traffic or simply ambling along a bike path at Rottnest Island, for example. We need to look at the competing public interests. Frankly, it is in the public interest to try to encourage more people to ride bikes. It is good for health, congestion and the community. That is the balance that we need to look at. I make a note about bike helmets. I feel as though we get to afford ourselves a bit of a luxury around this debate. I am old enough to be part of a generation that grew up fanging their bikes all around Belmont and Gosnells. I did that with my little gang of BMX bandits, and we did not wear our bike helmets. In fact, we were horrified at the thought of wearing a stackhat. We thought that was the worst idea in the world. We did not have laws that could have enforced that. In fact, a friend of mine used to put an ice-cream container on his head when he used to do some of his tricks! That was basically his idea of a bike helmet at the time.
I look at my children when they ride their bikes, which is not often because they mainly use public transport, and for them it is second nature. They grew up using a bike helmet. They grew up in an environment in which it was the law and it was expected. There has been a cultural shift over the issue of bike helmets. It is interesting to note the way generational change has occurred with those sorts of safety measures. It was unthinkable to wear a stackhat when I was a child because of the sheer stigma of doing so, but people now just see it as a necessary piece of equipment and as a matter of course, particularly for children. I think that that is a positive thing because brain injury is a serious matter. I remind members that the reason we implemented those sorts of changes is that people involved in accidents sustain serious brain injury, which has lifelong results. If the committee looks at the issue of bike helmets, I hope it gets Headwest in, which is the peak body that deals with people with acquired brain injury. I hope it hears people’s stories and looks at the lifelong impact of sustaining a serious brain injury and having to live with that their whole lives. It will meet people who have lost family members and friends and people who are no longer able to work who, had they been wearing a helmet when they had the accident on their bikes, would have been okay. I suppose that this is the balance that we need to look at. Having reached this point with bike helmets, maybe we have the cultural shift we need and people will seriously consider this. Perhaps we have gone too far; maybe we need to allow adults in particular to make up their own mind about whether they make that decision. We also need to remember that when people make those decisions and something bad happens, the community is left to pick up the pieces. The community has to pay for the health supports. I am a big fan of that; indeed, the Greens are supportive of public health measures and think that that is where our tax dollars should be going, but someone has to pick that up. Someone has to pick up the implications of a lifelong disability. It is not just a matter of going, “Hey, let me do what I want. I’m a free agent”, because people live within a community and when they make personal choices that negatively impact on other people, perhaps there is a role for regulation and the government to play.
I thought I would make a comment about those two examples. As I have indicated, the Greens are supportive of the establishment of this committee. The Greens will not put forward any members because there are only four of us and we can only do so much work; and, Hon Peter Collier mentioned—it is certainly my hope—that another select committee may be established sometime in the future. We will see how things go. After the committee is established, I encourage it to try to keep its focus relatively succinct so that it does not end up become bigger than Ben-Hur. There are some useful discussions to be had about certain elements of the balance between personal responsibility and the role that government plays in community safety standards, so let us have that discussion.
[Speeches and comments from various members]
Question put and passed.
Membership — Motion
On motion without notice by Hon Aaron Stonehouse, resolved —
(1) That the following members be appointed as members to the Select Committee on Personal Choice and Community Safety: Hon Aaron Stonehouse; Hon Dr Sally Talbot; Hon Dr Steve Thomas; Hon Rick Mazza; and Hon Pierre Yang.
(2) That the chair is to be Hon Aaron Stonehouse.
(3) That the deputy chair is to be Hon Dr Sally Talbot.