TOBACCO PRODUCTS REGULATION (PRESCRIBED SMOKING AGE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 June 2009. Page 3054.)

The Hon. L. STEVENS (Little Para) (11:09): I have to inform the member for Davenport that this is another bill that the government opposes. This amendment seeks to increase progressively the age at which people can smoke and purchase tobacco products, making it illegal for anyone born after 1 January 1993. The government opposes the bill. It is not an effective or practical way to achieve a reduction in smoking.

Tobacco products are a legal commodity in South Australia, as they are in the rest of Australia and almost all the world. It would be impractical for one jurisdiction to introduce this type of legislation without all other jurisdictions in Australia and generally doing likewise. Even if they did, tobacco prohibition, just like alcohol prohibition, would set off a whole range of unintended and unwanted consequences—and we all know what happened in relation to alcohol prohibition. The unfortunate fact is that, when you have drugs that are so embedded in a society, the prohibition route is just not viable. The only—

Ms Fox: Counterproductive.

The Hon. L. STEVENS: And counterproductive is the better word, thank you, member for Bright. My advice is that the only example of banning tobacco outright is in the Kingdom of Bhutan.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: And the Taliban.

The Hon. L. STEVENS: I do not know about the Taliban, but, anyway, I will stick to the Kingdom of Bhutan because I have been provided with some information on that. It is north of India and south of China. In December 2004, the sale and public use of tobacco was officially banned. As a consequence, a flourishing black market has arisen. There has been a sixfold mark-up on the price of cigarettes smuggled around Bhutan, with people engaging in smuggling and criminal activity.

The World Health Organisation's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (to which Australia is a signatory) includes measures to reduce demand for tobacco, and those measures, largely, are the ones to which I have referred in the previous debate. It focuses on the regulation of tobacco products rather than banning such products. Making tobacco progressively illegal would not only lead to a growth in the trade of illicit tobacco, thereby resulting in an increase in crime through the trading of black market tobacco, but it would also make the regulation of tobacco products more difficult—practically impossible. Regulating the contents of tobacco products would not be possible. There would be no possibility of measures to reduce the toxicity and to minimise the harms of tobacco smoking.

The proposed bill is also inconsistent with the government's approach to reducing smoking in Australia and in South Australia. The government's strategies are based on best practice evidence and comprehensive tobacco control measures, which I have mentioned before, in accordance with the National Tobacco Strategy 2004-09 and the South Australian Tobacco Control Strategy 2005-10. The formulation of these strategies has been a robust process based on examination of this best available evidence and consultation with experts in the area. Each measure fits together to create a complementary larger strategy.

If tobacco became an illegal product, it would result in greater stigmatisation of smokers and could lead to smokers being reluctant to seek support to quit smoking, which, of course, is one of the major strategies employed to control and reduce tobacco smoking. The smoking cessation support services we provide have a proven track record and have demonstrated the importance of providing smokers with counselling support services, as well as other aids to assist their quit attempt.

The proposal contained in this bill would place considerable burden on tobacco retailers. In fact, I would say it is completely unworkable. I would be very keen to hear any other comments the member might make on how he expects this to work in practice. Currently, retailers are required to ask to see identification of anyone they suspect could be under 18 years of age. This bill would require retailers to seek verification of age from a changing age range. Employers would also need to keep their staff trained in identifying an increasingly ageing group of people to whom they cannot sell tobacco products.

The government has introduced a range of measures designed to reduce smoking prevalence, particularly among young people—and I mentioned some of those before. I mentioned previously that, in January 2009, the display and promotion of tobacco products from all temporary stores was prohibited. These stores were seen as a means of selling and promoting tobacco products to young people. Earlier, in 2004, advertising was banned and a number of other measures were introduced.

Other recent initiatives include: banning the inclusion of tobacco purchases in customer loyalty and reward schemes (that was in 2008); prohibiting the display of fruit and confectionary flavoured cigarettes (which I mentioned before); and requiring all cigarette vending machines to be operated via intervention by a staff member.

The government continues to invest in effective quit smoking media campaigns. First, as I mentioned before, price signals. Pricing is known to be the most effective deterrent for taking up smoking. It is a very effective strategy. The second one is the media campaigns. These campaigns are important because they encourage smokers to think about how smoking affects their health and encourages them to quit. The campaigns also discourage non-smokers from starting to smoke. These strategies, combined with a comprehensive enforcement program and support for quit smoking services, are all part of the government's effort and, indeed, the effort of all jurisdictions in Australia.

I add that these jurisdictions, whether they have been Labor or Liberal governments, have all committed over recent years to this same set of evidence-based proven strategies for tobacco control. I think there is no doubt that this is impractical and wrongheaded and deserves no support whatsoever.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:16): I intended to speak on the previous bill, but parliament moves so quickly these days that it caught me by surprise and the previous bill has been dealt with.

Some years ago, I put forward the proposal that, rather than going in harshly on young people, they incur only a modest expiation penalty if they refused to hand over tobacco products they had in their possession. Importantly, they would be required to attend a health awareness program so that they learned about the dangers of smoking. We have the anomaly now that young people can smoke happily outside a tobacco shop but they are not meant to buy the products inside.

One of the issues I am sure the member for Davenport seeks (apart from trying to eliminate smoking for the welfare of our people) is to have some sort of accountability in respect of this issue, particularly as it relates to young people. Whilst the percentage of people who smoke has dropped, still far too many smoke. We know that tobacco is a highly addictive substance, but I think that greater effort needs to be made to help people give it up. I have written to members of parliament whom I know smoke, and I have great—

Mrs Geraghty: And to some who don't smoke.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: Well, it is good if they do not smoke.

Mrs Geraghty: I was greatly offended.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: I am sorry; I did not say in my letter that you were a smoker. I suggested that if people were smokers they should try some of these registered hypnotherapists because I have been told that they work. I do not know because I have never been a smoker and have not used one. I apologise if the member thought I had the wrong target.

Mrs Geraghty: I am reformed.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: You are a reformed smoker. I could ask the member whether she was reformed in other areas, but I will not go there. I am particularly keen that people be given the information so that they can give up smoking. It is no good to keep preaching; they feel bad anyway and know that they should not be smoking. The issue is: how do they give up the habit and stop? I am told that some of the programs (there is one in New South Wales, but I cannot recall its name at the moment) using hypnotherapy work, but not in all cases.

It is important that we talk about this issue and that we keep the message out there. It is vital to try to avoid young people taking up the habit of smoking because once they are hooked they are well and truly hooked. Anyone who has been a smoker and given it up will tell you that it is often not an easy thing to do. I know that the member for Davenport is well intentioned, and I look forward to the day when we do not see people suffering horrendously from smoking in this state.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:20): I note the comments made by the member for Fisher. Again, this bill, introduced by the member for Davenport, is aimed at phasing out smoking, and it is very similar to the previous bill. It seeks to phase out smoking over 70 to 100 years by gradually increasing the age at which people can smoke, so it is not an instant measure. Again, I commend him for his endeavour to stop this insidious disease—because that is what it is or how it ends up.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: What about alcohol?

Mr VENNING: The minister is right. Alcohol abuse is certainly—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Pengilly): Order!

Mr VENNING: Certainly, alcohol abuse is the same as cigarette abuse. Anything in moderation, and I am lucky because in my case alcohol is not as addictive as cigarette smoking—and thank goodness for that.

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

Mr VENNING: It can be. There is no doubt about it, and I am very much aware of that. I say to anybody, whether they smoke or whether they drink: if you have to have a smoke or if you have to have a drink, you have a problem and it needs to be addressed before it is too late. So, this is a continuation of the previous bill that was defeated and the government would not support, and I am quite surprised that there was no encouragement at all.

The proposal is that people born after 1 January 1993—that is, turning 18 in 2011—will not be able to smoke. They will not receive a criminal conviction if they smoke illegally but, rather, a very simple expiation notice of $315, which is quite consistent with that. Under this system, the age when people can legally smoke increases by one year each year; in other words, it follows a generation. You can predict what is going to happen; you can see it happening; it is not put in by stealth, it is happening.

All existing smokers can continue to smoke legally, no problem. No existing legal smoker has their right to smoke taken away. Those who are already hooked are addicted—and that includes the minister. There is no problem with his smoking; that is his right. These bills only affect future generations of smokers and not today's legal smokers. The minister, I am sure, would probably prefer not to smoke, if he could, but that is his leisure activity, it is his choice, it is a free country.

Visitors to the state have one year to comply, so it will impact on tourists and they will need to abide by the normal smoking bans. If smoking did not exist today and for the first time a business approach was applied by government to a smoking product that causes the number of deaths and diseases that smoking causes, it would not be licensed. This being the case, why should we continue to license a product for future generations? Why do we have to help people who have a self-inflicted illness?

Again, I commend the member for Davenport. The point he makes that 12 people die to every one road fatality is a very salutary point indeed. I cannot believe the government's position, particularly that of the member for Little Para, whose record on smoking is very good. I commend the bill to the house and I hope that the government will support it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Gambling, Minister for Youth, Minister for Volunteers, Minister Assisting the Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (11:23): I understand the honourable member's intent: he wishes to minimise the harm of smoking on young South Australians. That is a view which I think we all share, but the government has a very different approach to the matter. The government's approach is one of education in conjunction with regressive taxation on cigarettes—

An honourable member: You don't control taxation on cigarettes.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: In conjunction with the federal government. However, what the member for Davenport wishes to do is to criminalise the ownership of tobacco by people born after a certain date, thereby creating two classes of citizens. This sort of prohibition has been tried by governments in the past and it has failed miserably. Progressive governments have worked out that the way to end cigarette smoking is through education programs, making sure that people are aware of the risks of smoking, and of course making it unattractive, unsociable, socially unacceptable—

Ms Fox: Smelly.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —smelly—and banning it in places where there is social interaction, such as restaurants and some gaming areas. It was banned in gaming areas because it was realised that there is a link between smoking and addiction to gambling, those two types of addictions are similar. So, I think what the member for Davenport is doing is well-intentioned but ill-conceived.

I think it is better to educate and make smoking so socially unacceptable that no-one chooses to do it. If these bills were to succeed, they would be almost impossible to enforce. I think the honourable member knows that and is indulging in a bit of mischief with these two bills. I find it interesting that when the federal government introduced measures to increase taxation on alcopops (which are designed to target young people specifically) to stop young people from drinking those products, it was the member for Davenport's party that opposed those measures. The Liberal Party opposed them because it is the party of free choice, as he likes to say—the party of the individual, as he always wants to lecture us—and now he is in here seeking to ban items that are legally available.

I think the member for Davenport is a little confused. He is confused about a number of issues. he is confused about whether he wants to be in this parliament and he is confused about his stance on alcohol taxation in terms of alcopops that are designed to target young Australians into drinking in larger quantities. All the evidence shows that when you mix alcohol with fizzy drinks it makes them more attractive to younger people, especially younger women. The alcohol in these drinks is almost undetectable by taste, and they consume more, yet the Liberal Party, supported by the member for Davenport, opposed the Rudd government's taxation measures, and now he comes in here and wishes to impose prohibition.

The member for Davenport, whilst well-intentioned, is playing funny buggers with us all. He would be better off supporting the government's harm minimisation programs and making smoking socially unacceptable, as I am sure he does personally. I am sure he talks to young people, because he is a very good shadow minister, someone whose worth is not really acknowledged by his own party, but I know he does a good job. However, whilst well-intentioned, these measures will not work.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (11:28): I close the debate and I thank members for their comments.

Second reading negatived.