TOBACCO PRODUCT REGULATION (FURTHER RESTRICTIONS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 14 September 2011.)

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (17:14): I indicate that I am the lead speaker on this bill. It will not take that long. I believe there are one or two other speakers on our side who want to make a contribution. We are supporting this bill. We do have a couple of concerns about it, and I have spoken to the minister and his staffers about two amendments that I had on file. I will not be moving those amendments in this place, but there will be some discussion between the houses as to how we can come to an agreeable solution to make sure that South Australians are able to go about their lives without having to inhale other people's smoke.

I say from the very start that, at Elizabeth South Primary School, in, I think, grade 4, I won a packet of Craven A 10s at the school fete, and my brothers and I smoked those on the way home and that cured me of smoking. While both my parents smoked, I have no recollection of them smoking. I must have been very young, and they gave it up when I was at an early age.

The issue of smoking is one that I think we all need to take extremely seriously because of the numbers of people who are directly affected through smoking and also those people, whether they are children of people who smoke or whether they are family friends or employees who are in an area where people are allowed to smoke, who are all being affected by hundreds of noxious chemicals that are blown about the place as a result of cigarette smoking. The need to make sure that people are able to go about what is a legal activity though, because tobacco is still legal, is something that we are also aware of, but, at the same time, I do take great offence to people demanding that they should be able to smoke anywhere, anytime.

There was a program on the ABC—I think it was Sunday night, or maybe Monday night—which I recorded and which I had a look at. It was set back in the late 1950s in England in the BBC studios and everybody was smoking inside. It sort of brought back those times when smoking was just something you accepted.

It is interesting to note that a friend of mine who works for British American Tobacco said to me, 'We readily acknowledge that smoking is one of the prime causes of preventable deaths.' The tobacco companies are admitting that quite openly, and it was not only this person but others from tobacco companies who have met with me have admitted the same thing. I think it is completely outrageous and, certainly, I am one who will support any legislation that is going to enhance the safety of our children and also those in the workplace.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: What do you think of plain packaging? What do you say about that?

Dr McFETRIDGE: It is interesting that the member for Croydon just cannot help himself.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Plain packaging. What you have to say about that?

The SPEAKER: Order, the member for Croydon!

Dr McFETRIDGE: I am happy to put it on the record and the former minister should go back and actually read about what I said about plain packaging, which is that I am yet to be convinced that it will actually work. I hope it does, member for Croydon, I really do, but I think the main concern for tobacco companies is that they know it is not going to have the effect we would all like it to have—and that is reducing levels of smoking by masses of percentages—but it will have an effect on the choices people make, so their high-product, high in profit cigarettes will not be purchased as readily as they are now. It will just be, 'Let's have a packet of cigarettes.'

So, it will not be volume, it will be profit that is going to be hit; that is what I am concerned about. I hope that is not the case, just as I hope that the effect of this legislation, which is to control smoking in outdoor areas that will be prescribed and proclaimed as a result of this legislation, will be to make sure that people are not being subjected to those thousands of chemicals which are being wafted about as people exhale their smoke and possibly cause damage to young lungs and particularly workers who are forced to work in areas where smoking is still allowed.

The other area that is covered by this legislation is enclosed public places such as around taxi ranks, railway stations, tram stops, bus stops and bus shelters. I think that anything we can do to improve people's health through education and also regulation is something that we should certainly carefully look at. There is the need to be very much aware of the tremendous impact of smoking on the cost of the health budget. There are thousands of people who die and there are many, many more who have serious illnesses as a result of smoking.

This legislation will do that. It is not going to change the way restaurants, cafes and hotels operate. There is legislation covering that already. This does, though, make sure that we alert people to their responsibilities around those public transport areas, as I have just said, but also around children's playgrounds.

There are two areas of concern about which I have had discussions with the minister's office, and I thank them for their cooperation over those discussions. They are the subject of the two amendments that I had on file but will not be moving in this place. They are, one, that we need to look at whether we need to gazette the prohibitions or whether we regulate them. I understand that the minister is willing to look at that between houses.

Certainly, there was another issue about whether it should be a 24/7 ban around children's playgrounds. Obviously, when there are children about, like passing a school whenever there are children about, you should be doing 25 km an hour. It is not just during daylight hours: it is 24/7, 365 days a week.

Do you need to have a ban on smoking as you are walking past a children's playground, going home from function, at, who knows, after dark, midnight, 10 o'clock, when it is very, very unlikely that there are children about? Do you need to have the ban where you could be pinged for walking past a completely empty playground, coming home after a New Year's Eve party, for example? There are various arguments about that.

What you do not want to see, though, is people hanging about and loitering around playgrounds turning them into de facto ashtrays. I know that down at the beach cigarette butts are one of the problems we have, and cigarette butts washing into our oceans is terrible—cigarette butts generally, but cigarettes particularly washing into the oceans is a real issue. Smoking is a very selfish habit. I find that people generally get relief from it. I know there are people in this place who smoke, but I have no sympathy for them in having to restrict their habit to particular areas or particular places.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

Dr McFETRIDGE: And that is the other thing: as the member for Finniss says, they are foolish people, and they are. Never mind the health effects, the cost alone of smoking nowadays is just huge. You cannot buy a packet of Craven A 10s now; I think you have to buy a packet of 20, 30 or 40, and I do not know what they cost. I think they are $14 or $15, or they might be more, I do not know; I do not have to worry about it.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

Dr McFETRIDGE: Some of them are over $20, the member for Stuart says. I know he is a very keen supporter of this legislation. We need to make sure we do everything we can to protect the innocents of this world and also the innocent bystanders of this world. With that, I say that we will support the bill. There are a couple of points that we will be discussing between the houses, and I will be interested to see what the minister has to offer in the way of compromise on amendments we have on file.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (17:23): I follow the shadow minister for health and obviously support the bill. He has foreshadowed that he will be putting a few amendments forward. I would like to just pay a little bit of credit to the Hon. David Ridgway from the other place, who put forward a very similar suggestion to this previously, which the government did not accept and now have come back with something quite similar of their own. I think we just have to accept that that is part of the way things can work around here, but I think the Hon. David Ridgway does deserve some credit for his leadership on this issue.

With regard to smoking in general, I consider myself very fortunate to never have smoked and never have actually wanted to smoke. I grew up with lots of friends who did. I do not actually object to people smoking. I think they are silly for doing it, but people are allowed to do whatever they want to do. I think in my teenage years, in my early 20s, probably half my friends smoked, and I was quite comfortable to be around it, although it was never something that I was ever attracted to, perhaps because I was doing the best I could to pursue sporting activities.

I have also seen the negative health impacts on people come and go, as I am sure we all have. I suppose I am on the surface a bit attracted, like lots of people, to ideas like increased health insurance costs, increased medical costs, and things like that. It all sounds good, but the reality is that we all make choices in our lives that are not ideal.

If you took that example to the extreme, would you charge people extra hospital costs if they did not drive below the speed limit? There are a thousand things to think of where, other than smoking, individuals make choices that are not ideal in their lives. While that is attractive on the surface, I do not believe it is workable, because where would you stop?

Smokers do have rights. As the member for Morphett pointed out, and as many people point out, it is a legal activity and they have rights. They should not be ostracised. It is a personal choice; it is a personal preference. I think every responsible person would encourage their family members and friends not to smoke but you are allowed to do it and, if you head down that path, then so be it.

I think that there is great merit in this bill in terms of trying to reduce the impact of involuntary consumption of smoke, and addressing public transport and playgrounds is pretty sensible. I think it will require mature and commonsense application. I would hate to think that somebody was walking past, a metre too close or a metre too far away, getting caught up in silly nonsense but, if you are lingering in or near a place that this bill would designate as a place inappropriate for smoking, then I think you do that at your peril.

There will be an impact on business. That concerns me. There will be an impact on business with regard to, yet again, making smoking just a bit more difficult. Business is certainly not nearly as important as health in this issue but I think it is important to point that out—that just like tightening up rules on pokies, tightening up rules on smoking will have an impact that hurts some sectors of our community over and above just the people who smoke. I would also like to take this opportunity to put my personal view on the record. This is not an opposition policy but it is certainly my personal view that the very best way to approach smoking in Australia over the next decade would be to increase the legal age at which a person is allowed to smoke by one year, every year.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Every year, member for Croydon. Right now it is 18, and you would then start a program like this, and next year it might be 19; the year after that it might be 20; the year after that, 21; and from the time that you start it, you would increase the legal age of smoking, one year, every year, until there was nobody left alive eligible to smoke. If that took 80 years, then so be it. What works well there is that it does not impact on any legal smoker. Anybody who is legally allowed to smoke today could continue to legally smoke for the rest of their lives.

What it would do, though, is stop people who are currently too young to smoke from taking it up, and I think it would have a very steady impact on society. Importantly, I think it would have a steady and slow impact upon the taxes that all levels of government rely on as well. There is no need to beat around the bush here, governments need taxes, and if taxes are not coming from smoking, taxes would have to come from some other area. That would reduce the taxes from smoking year by year by year and governments of all persuasions over successive decades could manage that a year at a time, rather than having some instant one-off hit that no government could manage.

Let me recap and say that I support the right of smokers to smoke legally. I think it is a good idea to continue to slowly and gradually reduce the places where they can do that if it can be shown that in those places there is a negative impact upon the health of people who do not smoke, and I put that suggestion on the record as something I would like the minister to consider. I know that it would be difficult to implement.

I know that it would take a fair bit of will. I know that it would be almost impossible to implement unless it was done by all states simultaneously because we would not want to have a situation where people could smoke in one state and not another, with effects on tourism and people's desires to shift between states for jobs, and that sort of thing. The reality is that, in that situation, not one smoker would be harmed, not one smoker's rights would be reduced or minimised, and as a good Liberal I would never do that. Thank you for making those few comments, Madam Speaker. With that, in line with the rest of the Liberal opposition, I support the bill.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (17:30): First of all I should declare a conflict of interest as a smoker.

Members interjecting:

Mr PEGLER: I must say I just finished one. I certainly support this bill. I do not want people pinching my second-hand smoke. I think it is a great move in the right direction. In all seriousness, people should have the right to be able to play on playgrounds and wait at bus stops, etc., without having to endure other people's smoke. I certainly support this bill very strongly.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (17:31): I also indicate my support for this bill. I note the interesting comments of the member for Mount Gambier. However, I am sure I am not the only one in this place who has had personal experience of the impact of smoking. My father died some 35 years ago from lung cancer, only six weeks after being diagnosed. He and a great mate of his, Ron Wilson, were in the same battalion in the war. They never smoked until they went into the Army during the war. They smoked during the war, whether in Syria, Kokoda, Borneo or wherever. They had them handed out to them, and it was about the only pleasure they had, quite frankly.

To watch your own father, or whoever, die of lung cancer attributed to war service is something that impacts very heavily on you. I was only in my twenties at the time and it certainly had a lasting impact on me. I have never smoked. At school we did something stupid like having a cigarette just to be smart, but the greater impact of what happened later in life was devastating to me. Interestingly, my wife has never smoked, and our three children have never smoked. The devastating impact of cigarettes was drummed into them by their grandmother, my father's mother.

It is very interesting to see where we have got to since those days. At the time when my father died, they immediately started giving my mother a war widow's pension as dad was in the 2^nd/ 31^st Battalion. I think that went on for six or 12 months and then they said no, his death was not attributable to war service and we had to pay the whole lot back.

Bruce Ruxton, bless his heart, picked up this as a test case for a war widow in Perth. There were four or five women dependent on this test case and Bruce Ruxton won the case for this woman in Perth, so then some two years, or whatever it was, later (I can't recall), they turned around and repaid the whole lot—as they damn well should have. This was many years ago now, but there are ongoing effects on those people who did take up smoking during the war and many of them have died of lung cancer; we just did not know.

I think anyone who smokes, quite clearly, with respect to anybody in this place who does, is just a bloody fool—just a bloody fool. I really do. What really worries me is that, despite all the warning, all the signs on cigarette packets, everything that goes with it, the advertising, kids are still smoking. For the life of me, I cannot understand why they do it. Last night up in my office I was watching A Current Affair on schoolies in Bali (which was horrendous) and the numbers of them smoking—and the number who are out at night and who I see smoking in towns in my electorate—just baffles me.

The message is not getting through, and I wonder sometimes about the extreme view that perhaps we need to put prohibition on cigarettes in Australia, like they did with alcohol in the United States. It might be the only way to stop it because, as the minister well knows—and as any of us who follow these matters know—the cost to the Australian health system in smoking-related disease (whether it be ischemic heart disease, or cancers, or whatever) across the whole gamut is absolutely enormous.

Admittedly, people have to be responsible for their own health to some extent, but just take that—and the minister may well be able to answer the question on just what percentage of the health budgets in this state and across the nation is consumed by the effects of smoking. It is probably a bit difficult at short notice, and I accept that, but I merely make the point that I support anything we can do in this place to aid and abet limiting the affects of cigarettes, or the impact on others, wherever they may be.

Only at lunchtime today I walked up to the city to get a couple of things, and I was walking into City Cross on the footpath, and this young girl walked past me and dropped a cigarette right on my shoe. I did not say anything and thought, 'Let it go,' but really, where is it going to end? I have no doubt that in 10, 15 or 20 years' time—when some of these members who are here now may still be here—the same thing will happen again; that they will be debating the effects of tobacco.

I am absolutely sure that there will be no impediment in this legislation; if anything, it may well be toughened up by amendments. When it goes to the other place, what they do with it is anyone's guess; however, I would have thought—I heard what the member for Mount Gambier said, and I know he said it in all sincerity, despite his comments at the start—that we just have to do something about it. We really have to do something about it. So, if I can walk out of this place when I finish here, in due course, and know that we have attempted to do something about the effects of smoking and limit the effects, I will feel far better about it. Thank you.

Mr SIBBONS (Mitchell) (17:37): I rise to speak on the Tobacco Products Regulation (Further Restrictions) Amendment Bill 2011. Everybody here today has said that tobacco is certainly the greatest risk contributor and disease burden that we face in Australia, and I must say that a lot of long-term smokers do die prematurely. In South Australia, there are approximately 1,140 deaths attributable to tobacco annually, and the annual cost of tobacco consumption is estimated at over $2.39 billion. That is very, very costly.

On my recent admission to Flinders Medical Centre, I found many older South Australians with issues and suffering ill health from the underlying factor, which was tobacco smoking. I must say that I am very supportive of this bill and, like members opposite—the member for Flinders, the member for Stuart, and—

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: Mount Gambier?

Mr SIBBONS: No, not the Mount Gambier guy; he's huffing and puffing. Anyway, I have never smoked, but I have to say these new regulations are certainly going to be very helpful for our children and the children of the future. Like the member for Stuart, I would like to see that we do everything we possibly can to stop children from smoking. With all of these inducers that go on, the plain packaging was certainly a very good move, and I believe that that will certainly make some positive inroads into this particular issue. With that, I support the bill and I ask everybody in this house to support it.

The Hon. J.D. HILL (Kaurna—Minister for Health and Ageing, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Minister for the Arts) (17:40): I thank members for their contributions and for the strong support that has been exhibited from all parts of the chamber. I think that is a good thing. The more bipartisan and multipartisan we can be in relation to this issue, the further we can advance in ridding our community of smoking. The contributions today across the chamber indicate that we are reaching that stage, which I think is a very good thing.

As the member for Stuart said, I would also like to recognise the Hon. David Ridgway in another place who had similar measures in relation to this matter. I have had consultations with him about this package. We are doing something slightly different; it is not exactly the same, but we have the advantage of having a department that has gone through it. That is not to derogate from what he came up with and I thank him for his interest and his concern. I will pick up a couple of issues. The amendments that the member for—excuse me; it's not a smoker's cough.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Though I do say that I am a reformed smoker, but I stopped smoking 25, 30 years ago.

Mr WILLIAMS: If you get to live another 30 years you might be over it, John.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: It's true. I used to smoke and I used to really like smoking. It is a very seductive drug and once you get into it you can measure the way you live your day through the cigarettes you have: when you have your first one, when you have your next one and all the rest of it. It does take a fair bit of effort to get rid of it.

However, I can say to the member for Mount Gambier that you can do it, and we can help you. We are from the government and we are here to help. We have got rid of smoking in all of our health institutions, including James Nash House, which is a detention centre for people with forensic mental health conditions or conditions that require them to be held in that institution. If they can do it, I can assure you that this institution is capable of delivering the same outcome, if you choose to.

There are two amendments. The first amendment I think the member was suggesting is in relation to the bill's proposition that children's playground areas should be smoke free and that there should be a prohibition against smoking within 10 metres of that area. The member for Morphett I think has flagged the notion that maybe that should be time restricted because kids are not going to be there in the middle of the night, so if somebody is walking home from the pub or somewhere why should they not be able to have a cigarette in that area or close to it? I can see the logic of that.

I think the downside to that is that children's playground areas become places where teenagers sometimes hang out. They could well become places where a lot of smoking occurs and you kind of create an ashtray effect. People sometimes drink there as well and you get broken glass. I accept that children are likely to be in these playgrounds after hours, but I do not want to create an environment where cigarettes are smoked there and cigarette butts are left behind. I think that is one of the main reasons we would not agree to the proposition that is put, though I can see some merit in it.

The other aspect, of course, is simplicity. If we say that you are banned from smoking near playgrounds then that is a clear message to send. If you say, 'You cannot smoke here except during these hours,' that sends a mixed message and I think that would undermine the overall effect. So, I hope the opposition will not insist on that amendment.

The second amendment is to do with the powers that we are giving to local government to make suggestions about where smoking should be banned within their areas, or to other authorities over properties or events that they control. The opposition says that should be done regulation. We are arguing it should be done by gazettal. I am happy to reach a compromise with the opposition over this.

I do not mind going through a regulatory framework approach if they are for permanent or long-term bans. However, if it is for a few days I would suggest it is a fairly burdensome approach. It might be an event that comes up in the short term, like a football carnival or something where somebody wants to make it smoke free and the regulatory approach would take too long. I hope we can reach an agreement around that. If that is the case, then we are happy to have a regulatory approach for the longer-term measures, and I think that is a reasonably sensible way of going.

The member for Finniss gave some personal anecdotes. My father died young, too. I have already mentioned this to the house. He was a heavy smoker. He smoked 60 or 80 unfiltered cigarettes a day, I think. I remember him smoking all the time.

Mr Pengilly: My dad smoked 80 a day.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: A similar thing; he was a World War II vet, an army guy. He did not smoke before the war. He died when he was 59, and my mother was able to get a pension. It was on appeal, actually, so it may well have been caught up in the changes. We certainly had a second go at getting her a pension, which she did. It is true that many returned soldiers, sailors and air force personnel smoked heavily, and you can understand why they did.

The member mentioned a friend of his father's, Ron Wilson. My father-in-law's name was Ron Wilson and he was in the Navy, a permanent sailor. He was introduced to smoking as a sailor during World War II, and he died of emphysema at the age of 79. It is not as quick as cancer; in fact, it took years and years and years. It is a slow, ugly, horrible death, and it is directly related to smoking; and that smoking is directly related to the provision of cigarettes. It hurt his heart, it hurt his lungs, and he had to retire early. It is a horrible disease.

The member for Finniss asked me about the health costs. I do not know the individual costs for hospitals, but we do know that it is estimated across Australia that the overall cost to our community for the negative impacts of smoking is $31 billion per year. People who are smokers and who sometimes defend smoking say, 'You get all these taxes. Why are you worrying?' The amount we collect in tax nowhere near compensates for the costs of the provision of services for people who have smoking-related illness and other needs in the community, so the community would be much better off if we did not have smoking.

The member indicated the number of young people who smoke. It is true that young people do smoke. The member for Stuart also talked about young people smoking. The rate of smoking is coming down in our community. We have had effective campaigns for decades now, and they are successful in reducing the rate of smoking. However, some young people still do smoke.

The tragedy is that young people under the age of 18 get their cigarettes illegally. You cannot legally buy, give or provide a cigarette to a young person. A person under 18 can only get their cigarettes illegally, so that means somewhere along the way adults are providing young people with tobacco. I worry and wonder about the ethics of adults giving children tobacco. Some might pinch it but mostly it comes from an adult source, whether it is a shop, a family member or a friend. We are increasing the surveillance of shops so that we can gain a greater understanding about what is going on there.

In relation to smoking, members offer a range of suggestions about how we should do this, prohibition and the like. The advice to me is that there are three aspects of the strategy. One is to put the price up; two is to advertise through the media with antismoking campaigns; and, third, is to take as much glamour out of smoking as we possibly can. All of the measures that we have focused on, both federally and at a state level, do that. Putting tobacco prices up does work, and the commonwealth government has put up the price of tobacco. I think it should have a rising price. It is difficult for it to do that in the environment it is in politically, but I agree that is what it ought to do.

Secondly, in relation to advertising, we have upped the advertising in South Australia, with commonwealth support. We are now advertising at the rate of 700 to 800 TARPs, which is the appropriate level. TARPs are the targeted audience reach potential points, or something along those lines, so that is the rate at which we should be advertising. Thirdly, we should take as much of the glamour out of tobacco as we can.

Mr Pengilly: It's working already.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: They are forming a little clique there; that's good. The plain packaging helps take out the glamour, and there is the banning of tobacco in places like children's playgrounds so that kids will not see as much smoking occurring, as well as a whole range of other things that we are doing. All those things are important. I do thank the house for its support of this. I think that if we support this unanimously we send a very strong message to the smoking lobby that this parliament is united in our opposition to smoking. It would be great to have a community where no smoking happened and, hopefully, over time that will occur.

I think that our strategy in relation to smoking needs to be similar to our strategy in relation to road safety: you keep continually putting pressure on and introduce new measures just to remind the public and remind the community about the issues and, effectively, that is what is happening through these measures today. Finally, in commending the bill to the house, I thank our parliamentary counsel, Mark Herbst, for his work on this legislation, and to my departmental advisers, Simone Cormack, Marina Boshall and Della Rowley for their assistance.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.D. HILL (Kaurna—Minister for Health and Ageing, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Minister for the Arts) (17:51): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.