House of Assembly Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2) 53 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Parliamentary Committees Parliamentary Committees Select Committee on E-Cigarettes Select Committee on E-Cigarettes (Debate resumed.) Mr SPEIRS House of Assembly Bright Mr SPEIRS (Bright) (11:40): Thank you for the opportunity to reflect on the final report of the Select Committee on E-Cigarettes released in February 2016. It was a pleasure to be part of this select committee. In fact, it was the first select committee that I have had the privilege of being part of since my election to this place two years ago. It did give me the opportunity to delve into a policy area and a topical area which I knew very little about up until I had the opportunity to be on the select committee. I took that opportunity and have learned far more about e-cigarettes than I ever imagined knowing about. I found it interesting. I thought the committee was helpful and well timed in many ways, in giving the South Australian parliament the opportunity to reflect on these devices which have crept into the market in recent years, and much more so in the last year or so. To recount a small anecdote, I was at the opening of the Adelaide Festival at Adelaide Oval a couple of weeks ago on the Saturday night and the person sitting in front of me puffed away on an e-cigarette all evening. I suppose there is no legislative framework in place to stop that from happening at this stage, but I was quite concerned about having this e-cigarette smoke or whatever it is—I am not sure you can really describe it as smoke, but vapour—drifting over me all night long. I would like to thank my fellow committee members for their involvement in the committee: the Chair, the member for Elder, who was joined by the members for Kaurna and Fisher, and from our side of politics there was myself and the member for Hartley. I would also like to thank Mr Shannon Riggs and Dr Helen Popple, who I notice is in the gallery today, for their involvement in the committee. The committee took a significant number of written submissions on board as part of this process. We also heard from several witnesses who reported to the committee directly, attending personal hearings. We also went out on an excursion or field trip of sorts to some vaping shops where we got to see these shops in action, one at Thebarton and one on Goodwood Road. Mr Tarzia House of Assembly Mr Tarzia: You even had a puff. Mr SPEIRS House of Assembly Mr SPEIRS: I would not be telling the house the truth if I said I didn't— Ms Redmond House of Assembly Ms Redmond: But did you inhale? Mr SPEIRS House of Assembly Mr SPEIRS: I felt I was actually peer pressured by the Chair of the committee into trying these things. Members interjecting: The Deputy Speaker House of Assembly The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You know how live music creates hearing issues? I am actually listening to all of you and it is not good. Under standing order 131, you must not speak over each other, because we can't all hear the wonderful words of the member for Bright. The member for Bright. Ms Redmond House of Assembly Ms Redmond: And we all want to hear them. The Deputy Speaker House of Assembly The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Your voice carries, member for Heysen. Mr SPEIRS House of Assembly Mr SPEIRS: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I was just recounting to the house when I was peer pressured by the Chair of the committee into taking a puff of one of these things. Ms Redmond House of Assembly Ms Redmond: But did you inhale? Mr SPEIRS House of Assembly Mr SPEIRS: Well, I choked. It made my throat very dry. I think the member for Elder would agree with me: it actually made our throats very, very dry. I have not smoked a cigarette before in my life, so I do not know if it is comparable or not, but there was a real dryness in my throat for quite some time afterwards. I was quite worried, because I was going on holiday the following day and I thought I might be ill for my holiday as a result of the member for Elder's— The Deputy Speaker House of Assembly The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's called 'one for the team', isn't it? Mr SPEIRS House of Assembly Mr SPEIRS: Something like that. Anyway, it was a very hands-on committee, and it is good to broaden one's experiences so that we can relate better to those people we represent in our constituencies. So, now I can relate to those who feel the need to use e-cigarettes. When I went on holiday—I had recovered from having the puff of the e-cigarette—I went to the UK and actually was quite surprised. I suppose my senses were piqued a little bit in terms of looking out for e-cigarettes, but the industry appeared to be much more developed there. It was much more visual in communities, there were many more sales points in high streets and in shopping centres in the UK, and there were far more people smoking in the streets and at events. I think if you saw someone with an e-cigarette in Adelaide, it would still be something that would attract your attention because it would still be a little bit out of the ordinary, but when I was in the UK it certainly was not out of the ordinary. I was really quite taken aback, having not been there for several years, to see so many people vaping in the streets. What worried me about it over there was that it had clearly become something that was 'cool' among younger people. I have a number of younger cousins in their late teens and early twenties over there and they were all talking about how their mates vaped; they showed me YouTube videos of people vaping and the different smoke rings you could blow using these vaping devices. That is a significant concern. We do not want to get into a situation where vaping and using e-cigarettes is seen as cool, particularly by younger people. I do not feel we want to get into a situation where it is normalised in our community. In recent years, certainly since I was in high school onwards, so in the last 10 to 15 years, smoking has become something that is seen by younger people as quite dirty and unattractive; it is not something that young people are really attracted to in the way they may once have been. We do not want e-cigarettes coming in behind that and replacing smoking as a cool alternative that they ought to be taking up. As part of the committee, something that I pushed in line with this was a recommendation that I felt needed to be in there to prohibit the sale of e-cigarettes and peripherals to minors under the age of 18, in line with the Tobacco Products Regulation Act 1997, which is our headline recommendation. Recommendation 2, which I think is very important as well, is to prohibit the sale of e-cigarette devices that may specifically appeal to minors; for example, devices that have childlike aspects, such as diamantes and cartoon characters. We saw examples of this online. There were also examples, I believe, in the vaping shops we visited where there were shiny characters. I think there was a little Hello Kitty on one of the e-cigarette devices. These are things that would specifically attract younger people, these shiny, glossy items. It reminded me in some ways of the alcopops of the nineties and the early 2000s when alcoholic beverages were dressed up as lemonades and cokes and given fancy names in order to attract younger people into drinking them. It felt to me like some of these e-cigarette devices were being dressed up in a way to attract younger people towards them. Also, in the naming of e-cigarette juices that can be put into the e-cigarette devices to create different flavours that can be smoked, we have to be careful that we do not see a similar approach where they are given names to draw people in. There seemed to be some of these liquids that had names which could very well make them more attractive to younger people. I think there was a bubblegum flavour and things like that. The naming of these products should be looked at very carefully. Those were really, for me, the two recommendations that we need to look at very closely. We also need to look at recommendations which protect public health. Interestingly, when I was in the United Kingdom, in August/September of last year, I did see Public Health England hand down its substantial report into e-cigarettes. It did suggest, quite comprehensively in its findings, that e-cigarettes could be used as a way of stopping people from smoking traditional cigarettes. It was interesting to see that come out at that time, and to look across the world and in Australia at other studies, where the jury is still very much out on these things. Yes, it is probably better to be smoking e-cigarettes than traditional cigarettes, but there is still plenty of research to do on that, so I certainly support the recommendations which encourage that. In closing, I look forward to the government bringing rapidly into the house some legislation to change the law, to align e-cigarettes to traditional tobacco products and tighten up this area. It is something that needs to happen. It was a pleasure to be part of the e-cigarette select committee, and I would like to thank all those involved. Ms COOK House of Assembly Fisher Ms COOK (Fisher) (11:50): I, too, appreciate the opportunity to rise today and speak in support of the recommendations made by the select committee on electronic cigarettes. Firstly, I would like to say that, as a healthcare worker with a background in using evidence-based practice for about 30 years, I would like to stress that I continue to use the evidence-based practice here within the house to advocate and support recommendations around public health issues and health care, including Transforming Health, and particularly in areas where there are great risks to the public. I saw the opportunity to sit on the e-cigarette committee as one of those opportunities for positive reform. I, too, will point out at the start that I was disappointed with the member for Hartley's media release. I will quote one line from the media release, which leads to the disingenuous intent of this: The report's recommendation that e-cigarettes shouldn’t be sold alongside tobacco products has the potential to undercut this public health benefit. I do not recall anywhere within the hearing of actual rigorous evidence that that was actually the case. In fact, the research that was presented to us is not clear. There is a huge lack of double-blind trials and other rigour involved in the research. There is a lot of bias in the research as well. I would have to say this lack of clarity and lack of scientific process does not lead me to support any of it. Some of the things we need to look at when we are making statements as leaders within government is that we need to look for evidence, rigour, trials and bias, and use that as a way of putting our recommendations into the public sphere. Otherwise, we will confuse members of the public who rely on us for clarity and truth. That is my last statement on that. The other thing that concerned me greatly when I heard evidence being given throughout the hearings was the lack of acknowledgement of the power of addiction, and people's lack of understanding around the fact that this is actually an adjunct or a substitute addictive behaviour that does not necessarily address the psychology of smoking. Having said that, however, I, like other reformed smokers, understand how very hard it is for people to quit smoking. Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances on this planet. I am sure we all have people in our lives, if not ourselves, who have tried to quit for whatever reason but have fallen back into the routine of smoking tobacco, despite the warnings and the evidence of the harm that smoking does. Across many years of nursing, I saw firsthand the impact of smoking on the human body, and I fully support any evidence-based assistance we can provide to help people quit smoking for good. The committee has made 20 recommendations but they can be broadly broken down into five aims: limiting the appeal of e-cigarettes and associated peripherals to minors; bringing the sales, usage and advertisement of e-cigarettes and associated peripherals into a similar regulatory framework as regular cigarettes; empowering state government agencies to enforce the proposed framework for e-cigarettes, including calling on the federal government for more stringent enforcement; supporting ongoing research into the health effects and the safety of e-cigarettes; and recommending that the state government investigates further into the taxation of e-cigarettes. Like all health reform, evidence-based reform is key. From submissions and witness evidence at hearings, the committee heard anecdotal evidence that e-cigarettes might be useful to people who want to quit smoking, but none of this anecdotal evidence has been rigorously assessed. Instead, the evidence which has been published provides mixed results, with some suggestions that e-cigarettes can be a smoking cessation aid but other evidence suggesting that they can be harmful, including enticing young people to take up smoking. Until there is more peer-reviewed and assessed evidence around electronic cigarettes, their benefits and their harms, we should proceed with caution. This is also the advice of the National Health and Medical Research Council as cited by the Cancer Council SA in its submission when it says: There is currently insufficient evidence to conclude whether e-cigarettes can benefit smokers in quitting, or about the extent of their potential harms. It is recommended that health authorities act to minimise harm until evidence of safety, quality and efficacy can be produced. I would say that the Cancer Council would specifically have an agenda that supports people giving up smoking. The fewer people coming into their care, the better, so the more people who give up smoking, the better; and, if they believed that it was absolutely safe for e-cigarettes to be used in this way, they would be the first people to advocate for them. There are many quitting aids which have been assessed and approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) that increase the rates of long-term quitting and are safe to use, including patches, gums, lozenges, sprays and medications. During my journey, like Twain, I used every single one of them multiple times, and in duplicate, because it is an extremely difficult thing to do. While many e-cigarette manufacturers are keen to make claims about their ability to help people quit, they have been unwilling to put these claims to the test and have their products assessed by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. As noted in submissions to the inquiry, the TGA itself says: …there has not been any assessment of electronic cigarettes and their quality, safety and effectiveness is unknown. Until these things are known, we should be very wary of claims made about the benefits of e-cigarettes. We should also be wary about what chemicals and toxins may be present in the liquid—and I use that word because the term 'e-juice' has some physical effect on me: it makes me feel quite ill—that is used in e-cigarettes. Evidence provided at the hearings included information around the testing of e-liquids in the United States which showed 90 per cent of the 97 different e-liquids tested found higher levels of the carcinogenic compounds formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, with some having over 100 times the safety regulation level. This is a huge concern and should serve as a warning to those who advocate for these products without proper regulatory investigation. There is no doubt that further research is required into what these liquids contain and what their impact is when they are heated and inhaled in the lungs. We are dealing with products which may be extremely harmful to the cellular level of the lung tissue, and what people need to understand is this actually impacts on your capacity to have a long life. We only get one set of lungs. These can be extremely harmful and we need to take the utmost care that we are not putting people's health at risk. One thing that was consistent across submissions was that access to e-cigarettes by juveniles should be banned. We have an obligation to protect the most vulnerable people in our society, especially children and young people. Part of this protection is through ensuring that they can have a healthy lifestyle. We know the damage that smoking does and that the best way to be smoke free is to never take up smoking in the first place. Supporters of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid who provided submissions to the inquiry, such as the New Nicotine Alliance, claim that they are not used as a gateway to traditional cigarettes. However, I am unconvinced that the array of flavours available to people (such as iced vovo, strawberry fields, grape, soda and cherry blast) do not entice young people to take up e-cigarettes. South Australia can be proud of the comprehensive tobacco regulatory framework we have in place which has seen South Australia's smoking rate drop to an all-time low of 15.7 per cent. This includes point-of-sale restrictions, a ban on retail displays, widespread anti-smoking advertising and the Quitline (13 78 48) support. The work undertaken by health ministers (such as the former minister, John Hill, and the current minister, minister Snelling) is to be commended. Also, the member who spoke previously, the member for Kaurna, did work in the federal space around plain packaging, and we are seeing the lowest rates here in Australia, in the world and in history. We have an obligation to ensure that the smoking rate in South Australia does not increase again through poor regulation of electronic cigarettes, and we have learnt the lessons of our fight against big tobacco and to regulate before South Australians become addicted to these products and it becomes a long-term struggle to claw back their use like it was with traditional cigarettes. Thank you so much to the committee members, the members for Bright and, indeed, the member for Hartley. Thank you also to the member for Kaurna and for the drive and passion of the member for Elder who brought this in front of the parliament. I thank, too, the support of the secretary, Shannon Riggs, and also note in the house the presence of Dr Helen Popple and thank her for her excellent support, her measured approach and her encouragement to view the evidence rather than the emotive language. I commend the report to the house. Debate adjourned on motion of Ms Redmond.