TOBACCO PRODUCTS REGULATION (BAN ON CHILDREN SMOKING) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 June 2009. Page 3052.)

The Hon. L. STEVENS (Little Para) (10:50): This amendment seeks to criminalise children by the imposition of a fine on children who are caught smoking.

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The Hon. L. STEVENS: The opposition should listen to the argument. The government opposes the bill. No-one would dispute the harmful effects of tobacco smoking. The evidence is indisputable. We know that tobacco kills around 15,000 Australians a year, more than the combined death toll from road accidents, alcohol, illicit drugs, all homicide, HIV, diabetes, skin cancer, and more. Tobacco smoking is the biggest single preventable cause of both cancer and heart disease—our two leading causes of early death—and is linked to the seven diseases causing most deaths in the Australian community.

It has been estimated that the effects of tobacco smoking cost more than $31 billion a year to the Australian community; and that is a 2004-05 cost value. Reducing tobacco smoking has been, and still is, a very significant health measure which has been adopted right across the country. There is both a national tobacco strategy and a state tobacco strategy.

The 2008 figures for South Australia in relation to the current smoking rates are as follows. Of all people over 15 years of age, the level of tobacco smoking is 19.9 per cent. Of those aged 15 to 29 years, the level of tobacco smoking is 23.2 per cent. The state plan targets a reduction in the level of smoking for those in the 15 to 29 year age group and aims to achieve a target of 17 per cent by 2014. Interestingly, the group with the highest prevalence of smoking is the 30 to 44 year age group, at 26.2 per cent. This is an important target for action, because people in that group are often the parents of young children.

So, what does the research say about the best way to address demand and supply reduction in terms of tobacco smoking? A number of studies have been undertaken in relation to changes in youth smoking. A handful of empirical studies have related changes in youth smoking to popular laws that penalise tobacco possession, use and purchase.

A 2003 paper by Wakefield and Giovino entitled 'Teen penalties for tobacco possession, use and purchase: evidence and issues', reviews the literature and outlines reasons why these laws are unlikely to reduce youth smoking significantly at the population level. The authors said that these laws lack important features required for punishment to be effective in changing behaviour. They continued:

In practical terms [these] transgressions seem difficult to detect. Conceptually, there is potential for [these] laws to undermine conventional avenues of discipline, such as the parent-child relationship and the school environment.

They further stated:

Strategically [these] laws may divert policy attention from effective control strategies, relieve the tobacco industry of responsibility for its marketing practices and reinforce the tobacco industry's espoused position that smoking is for adults only.

In contrast to this we know that, in terms of the 2007 National Drug Strategy household survey of about 25,000 Australians aged 12 and over, there was very strong support in the Australian community (and there is increasing public support) for measures to reduce problems caused by smoking. This survey established the following results: 90.1 per cent of those surveyed supported stricter enforcement of laws against illegal tobacco sales to minors; 87.5 per cent supported stricter penalties for the sale of tobacco products to minors; 82 per cent supported banning smoking in the workplace; 77 per cent supported banning smoking in pubs and clubs; 73.6 per cent wanted bans on retail display of tobacco products; 71.6 per cent supported the implementation of a licensing scheme for tobacco retailers; 68.6 per cent supported increasing tax on tobacco to contribute to treatment costs; 67.1 per cent supported increasing this tax to pay for health education and 65.7 per cent supported using this to discourage smoking; and 66.4 per cent wanted to make it harder to buy tobacco in shops. There was no mention in any of that research in terms of support for penalising children.

The strategies that studies, experience and evidence have shown to be effective in reducing the uptake of tobacco smoking is pricing, social marketing that denormalises smoking, cessation programs for all people (and that is the sort of thing that Quit does through various mechanisms) and enforcement laws that target adults who provide cigarettes for children. These strategies that have that public support—the ones that are based on best practice evidence—are what is being done in this state and in all states, territories and jurisdictions in Australia.

Government strategies are based on best practice evidence and comprehensive tobacco control measures in accordance with the National Tobacco Strategy and the South Australian Tobacco Control Strategy. A whole range of those have been introduced in this state, particularly over recent years—in 2004 in a major bill, and a number of other bills that have followed more recently in a range of areas that specifically target the uptake of smoking with respect to young people.

Those things include, for example, the promotion and display of tobacco products from temporary stalls, which was banned in 2009. These stores are often present at youth-oriented events, such as the Big Day Out, and were seen as a means of selling and promoting tobacco products to young people. This has been particularly successful. Bans on the display of fruit and confectionary flavoured cigarettes were implemented in April 2008. There are now penalties for retailers in relation to the sale of cigarettes to minors, in addition to a number of other issues in relation to environmental tobacco smoke.

The government does not support this. It believes that to go down the path suggested by the member for Davenport is simply wrong-headed, it is already discredited, and it is a distraction from the real task.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:00): I understand the member for Davenport is very keen on implementing his legislation to ban smoking, and I agree. Smoking is unhealthy, and the associated illnesses and diseases resulting from smoking place an unnecessary strain on the medical system. We support this motion and the member for Davenport—and, certainly, I do. I am surprised at the government stance of not supporting this. I cannot believe that, firstly, it does not recognise there is a problem. I am amazed when I go about my duties to see young people thinking it is groovy, hip, or whatever the term is, to smoke. I think it is a dirty, rotten, filthy habit. As I said to my children, it is habit-forming. Once you are hooked, it is very difficult to get rid of it.

According to the report regarding the cost of tobacco, alcohol and illicit drug abuse to Australian society in 2004-05, 14,901 Australians died because of smoking. Based on South Australia being 8 per cent of the population, 1,200 South Australians died from smoking in one year, and smokers took up to 60,240 hospital beds in South Australia in 2004-05. The bill seeks to make it an offence for minors (those under 18 years of age) to smoke in a public area. If enacted, any minor caught smoking in a public place will receive an expiation notice of $315, but they will not receive a criminal conviction.

Currently, there is no penalty or offence for under-age persons smoking. There is no disincentive at all. There are only offences for selling or supplying to minors. The minor commits no offence by smoking. In my own personal experience as a student, we all tried the fag behind the shed. We smoked anything we could get our hands on because we were experimenting. Young people always will do that.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: Smoking behind the shed, I think you are doing the wrong thing.

Mr VENNING: I was doing the wrong thing. Even in my college days, it was trendy when we got on the train to go home for the exeat weekends to get stuck into cigarettes. But, half way home, we got off at Bowmans and we got into the Chasers so that mum and dad did not smell it. Of course, we forgot about our clothes and they would have known. Luckily, our parents spoke about the issue and, when it came time to consider whether we were going to be smokers, we were told, 'If you continue this habit, you are going to get hooked and you are going to have it for life.' Likewise, throughout my Army days in national service, it annoyed me that every hour it was always smoko time and you knocked off and everyone else lit up. What did I do? Because I did not smoke, I just had a biscuit, or something. That is part of the problem I have now, I suppose. This is the problem of the habit in the workplace: what do you do with your hands? Recreational smoking becomes habitual and kills.

I say this to the member for Davenport: as always, he has a very good feel for the issues on the street, and I think he is dead right. I just cannot understand why the government would not support this.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (11:03): I thank the member for Schubert for his personal support and I thank the government for its comments in relation to this bill, even though I disagree with them. If you want to see why the government is wrong about this particular bill, you only need to look at the first line of the government speaker's address to the house where the member said this bill seeks to criminalise the issue. Any fair reading of the bill will show that is a false statement. What this bill simply seeks to do is introduce a system of expiation notices for underage smokers for smoking in public. Is that such a radical new idea? The answer is: no. Underage drinkers can get expiation notices. Drivers who are under the age of 18 years can get expiation notices. Under 18 years olds who litter can get expiation notices. People under the age of 18 years who do not pay train, tram and bus fares can get expiation notices.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: What does 'expiate' mean?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: 'Expiation' means you get fined, and then you pay the fine. It is as simple as that. The reality is this: the member for Elizabeth, quite rightly, says that 1,200—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Little Para.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The member for Little Para, quite rightly, says that 1,200 South Australians a year die of smoking. So, for every one person who is dying on the South Australian roads, 12 are keeling over because of smoking. The government's great response to the smoking issue has been a broad strategy; and the member for Little Para, as a former minister, has taken action in relation to smoking. I congratulate her for that and I do not criticise her for that. However, I make this point: the government took the very courageous decision of banning lolly cigarettes but will not do anything about real cigarettes for minors.

It becomes an issue of personal responsibility. What message do you want to give a 15, 16 or 17 year old in relation to smoking? We give them the message in relation to drinking. If you are caught under-age drinking, you will be dealt with by the law, but we do not do it for under-age smoking. I have been in the parliament for a couple of years and we have dealt with a lot of legislation about driving down the road toll, and it has dropped from about 375 in the 1970s to 100.

So, why would the parliament be so reluctant to simply extend the system of expiation notices to smoking in a public place for minors as a way of sending a message to that group that you are 12 times more likely to die of smoking than you are in a car accident? 12 times! Every time the media says, 'There was a terrible crash today and someone was killed,' I say to myself: that is very sad and I feel for the families, but 12 people die of smoking compared to one person dying in a road accident. Every day, three people. Today, three people in South Australia will die due to smoking diseases. This bill is not a radical idea—

The Hon. L. Stevens interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The member for Little Para says that it is the wrong idea. Then the member for Little Para needs to explain why we have expiation notices for under-age drinking. Why is that such a wrong idea? If you send the message that under-age drinking is wrong and you will get an expiation notice or a fine, why not smoking? This is not a radical idea: this is simply sending the message to young South Australians that the parliament does not want them to be one of the 1,200 who die from smoking every year. If 1,200 people were dying from car accidents every year, the parliament, quite rightly, would be outraged.

I thank members for their comments. I understand I will lose the vote on the numbers. I think the government has made a mistake and the premise for its position is wrong: this bill does not criminalise the action.

Second reading negatived.