Select Committee on E-Cigarettes

Adjourned debate on motion of Ms Digance:

That the report be noted.

(Continued from 9 March 2016.)

Ms REDMOND (Heysen) (11:05): I am rising today simply to strike a blow for freedom. I say that on the basis that my entire smoking history can be summarised by the fact that I had one puff on a cigarette when I was about eight, and then I lit a cigarette in a car for the person who was driving when I was about 21. That is my entire smoking history, so I am not a smoker and I have never been a smoker.

However, I am concerned that we are becoming a parliament that thinks if something moves we had better regulate it. I listened with interest to the comments of the member for Elder when this motion came on; in particular, I took some notes. The member for Elder said that 'conclusive evidence on the heath risks or benefit [regarding e-cigarettes] is not likely to be available for…decades', and that they have not been 'proven to be safe'. It strikes me as passing strange that, in face of the fact that we do not have any evidence that there are harmful effects, we want to do something to regulate, in any way, these e-cigarettes.

I know only two people who use them, and both of those people use them as a mechanism for giving up smoking. Indeed, the member for Elder, in her comments, also said that there was support for e-cigarettes internationally. There was a UK report that e-cigarettes are now the most successful method for people to stop smoking.

We know that smoking cigarettes is harmful, we have known that for a long, long time. Indeed, we have done various things in this parliament and in other places around this country and around the world to inhibit the use of what remains, however, a perfectly legal substance in this state. We have put conditions on how old you have to be before you can buy cigarettes. We have put conditions on how the cigarettes have to be hidden, how they have to be branded with all sorts of antismoking advertisements, and how they cannot have the usual packaging in this state. We have put restrictions on where you can be when you are smoking, and we are now at the point where even smoking outside restaurants and food areas is being regulated.

I have no difficulty with any of that because in the case of ordinary cigarettes there is clear, abundant evidence of the harm they do. However, in the face of clear statements from proponents of the motion to the effect that, first, there is no evidence to show they do any harm and, secondly, that they are now the most common way for people to give up smoking, and in face of the fact that, as I said, the only people I know who use them are both using them to give up smoking, it seems incomprehensible that we would then try to regulate the use of e-cigarettes.

I will be opposing this motion simply because I cannot understand why a parliament, in the face of those clear statements, would choose to do anything other than say, 'Until the science is in, it is not our place to regulate.' What we may be doing in fact is making it more difficult for people who wish to give up smoking to actually be able to do so using this particular method, so the idea that a cigarette store cannot also be a vaping store seems to me to be contrary to common sense. The fact that there is discussion about providing warnings seems to me to be premature. We do not know what the effects of e-cigarettes might be and, as I said, it seems to me that we are almost at the point where we are jumping at shadows in this parliament.

On behalf of those people who are using e-cigarettes as a mechanism by which they can give up smoking, I wanted to get up this morning and simply make those few brief comments to say it is a nonsense to me that, in the face of an absence of any evidence that e-cigarettes are harmful, and in light of the fact that we have legal consumption of cigarettes which we know to be harmful, it is crazy to then say we need to regulate this.

Last night, I attended the Science Meets Parliament meeting down in the Old Chamber. The guest speaker at that meeting made the point that policy should be based on science and that the science, in turn, should be based on the research. In light of the member for Elder's comments that these things have not been proven to be safe but the evidence of the benefits is not likely to be available for decades, it seems to me that the motion before the house is premature, and I will be thus voting against it.

Ms DIGANCE (Elder) (11:11): I would like to thank all those members who have spoken on this particular motion, including my fellow committee members and also others who have contributed. It was interesting to hear the member for Heysen speaking just now on the fact that she will vote against these recommendations in the house, given that this committee unanimously supported all 20 recommendations.

I think if the member looked at these recommendations, she would find that the committee does not recommend banning this particular product. In fact, we identified that there is significant research to be done on this product, and there are also those who told the committee that they benefit from this particular product when giving up smoking or complementing their smoking habit so they can cut down their cigarette intake. What we have done is be very mindful that we need regulation. In fact, I do not think we can continue to allow this product to be bought by any age group, as this means that children and minors can actually access this product at this particular point.

The other thing I would like to raise is that it is a relatively new product. The longitudinal studies are not yet in on the health side effects of this particular product. Just recently in Queensland, when the ACCC tested some products that were being imported courtesy of an e-cigarette company, they found there was formaldehyde, among other potential carcinogenic-causing compounds, in the e-cigarette liquids. What that highlighted is that the committee was quite right in suggesting that clear and transparent marking of what is in these products is essential so that people know what they are actually inhaling.

In the process of inhaling, the body takes up these products much more quickly than when ingesting, generally, in the main. I would just like to highlight that, and I would also like to make note of the fact that the AMA, Asthma Foundation and also Heart Foundation have supported the recommendations as suggested by the committee. In due course, I look forward to and welcome what will come forward from the minister after her deliberations. With that, I commend the report to the house.

Motion carried.