Tobacco Products Regulation (E-Cigarettes and Review) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart—Minister for Energy and Mining) (11:55): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The bill seeks to amend the Tobacco Products Regulation Act—

The SPEAKER: Are you the lead speaker, sir?

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Yes, sir, sorry. I indicate that I am the lead speaker. The bill seeks to amend the Tobacco Products Regulation Act 1997 to enhance the operation of the act and address the lack of regulation of electronic cigarettes, or e-cigarettes, in South Australia. The bill also incorporates some adjustments to maximum penalty and expiation fee levels according to CPI indexation as an administrative change to ensure that the penalties are aligned to the cost of living. The former Labor government made no change to these penalties in 16 years, undermining the real impact of enforcement.

It is our government's view that further increases need to be considered at an offence level to align with levels in the rest of the legislation and take into account the seriousness of the relevant offence. The government has made it clear that in early 2019 we will consult publicly on penalty levels across the legislation to ensure the penalties are an appropriate deterrent. During the committee stage in the other place, an opposition amendment to the Tobacco Products Regulation (E-Cigarettes and Review) Amendment Bill 2018 was passed to section 38A to increase the penalty for the sale and supply of tobacco products to a minor.

Whilst the government does not object to the amendment, it is the government's view that making changes beyond CPI at this stage pre-empts the consultation process and denies the opportunity for health organisations, industry and the public more broadly to express their view. The government will be proposing to increase penalties for providing tobacco to minors. We look forward to consulting with stakeholders on that and other offences to determine the most appropriate penalty levels across the legislation.

There were inaccuracies in the information provided in the Legislative Council that I would like to correct for the record. SA Health issued 44 expiation notices between 2013 and 2018. There were 13 expiations for section 46(3) and two expiation notices issued to the CBD business involved in promoting a durry earlier this year for breaches of sections 40 and 45.

E-cigarettes are a rapidly evolving technology whereby a user inhales a heated vapour through a battery-operated device. The regulation of these products requires attention, as South Australia is now one of only two Australian jurisdictions that has not regulated these products. Due to this lack of regulation in South Australia, e-cigarettes can be sold to children, sold over the internet, promoted through advertising and used in areas where smoking is banned.

The bill aligns with the recommendations of the Select Committee on E-Cigarettes that was established in 2015 and delivered its final report to the House of Assembly on 24 February 2016. The select committee concluded in its final report that e-cigarettes should be regulated in the interests of public health, as there is a lack of scientific consensus as to the safety of e-cigarettes. The final report recommended amending the Tobacco Products Regulation Act 1997 to regulate e-cigarettes in broadly the same way that tobacco products are regulated. The bill includes bans on:

selling e-cigarette products to children;

using e-cigarettes in smoke-free areas under the act;

the retail sale of e-cigarette products without a licence;

indirect sales of e-cigarette products, such as internet sales;

e-cigarette advertising, promotion, specials and price promotions;

retail point of sale displays of e-cigarette products; and

selling e-cigarettes from temporary outlets via sales trays and vending machines.

The title and the objects of the act have also been amended to incorporate e-cigarettes. The short title of the act will be amended to the Tobacco and E-Cigarette Products Act 1997 to better reflect the legislation's proposed content.

A bill to regulate e-cigarettes was introduced by the previous government in 2017, but it lapsed when parliament was prorogued for the 2018 election. A private member's bill was subsequently introduced on 20 June 2018 and replicates the prorogued bill. The government does not support the private member's bill, as it is narrower in scope than the government's bill.

While both bills seek to address e-cigarettes in the same way, the government's bill has a number of enhancements that the private member's bill does not contain. These arose from an independent review of South Australian tobacco legislation commissioned by SA Health in 2017. They include improvements to definitions, the repealing of unnecessary provisions, adjusting expiation fee levels according to CPI indexation, adding expiations to offences where they currently do not occur and improving the function of certain provisions.

The bill improves the functioning of tobacco control legislation in South Australia. and it will also be useful for authorised officers to have tobacco legislation that is up to date and appropriate for the task of achieving compliance with the act. Maintaining a strong legislative framework for tobacco control is essential for reducing the harms caused by tobacco smoking in South Australia. Mr Speaker, may I add and put on the record your personal interest in this topic, nonstop since you were elected in 2014.

The SPEAKER: Thank you.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I commend the bill to the house and seek leave to have the explanation of clauses inserted without my reading it.

Leave granted.

Explanation of Clauses

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

2—Commencement

3—Amendment provisions

These clauses are formal.

Part 2—Amendment of Tobacco Products Regulation Act 1997

4—Amendment of long title

This clause amends the long title of the Act so that it will read 'An Act to regulate tobacco products and e-cigarette products'.

5—Substitution of section 1

The short title of the Act is changed to the Tobacco and E-Cigarette Products Act 1997.

6—Amendment of section 3—Objects of Act

This clause amends the objects of the Act to include references to e-cigarettes and e-cigarette products.

7—Amendment of section 4—Interpretation

Several definitions are added to section 4 of the principal Act, including e-cigarette, e-cigarette product, e-cigarette advertisement, which aligns with the current definition of tobacco advertisement, and shisha tobacco which in turn is included within the definition of tobacco product.

8—Repeal of section 4A

Section 4A of the principal Act is repealed.

9—Amendment of section 6—Requirement for licence

This clause will require a licence to carry on the business of selling e-cigarette products by retail or holding oneself out as carrying on such a business.

10—Amendment of section 9—Licence conditions

The clause amends section 9 of the principal Act to allow the conditions of a licence to include conditions in relation to e-cigarette products.

11—Amendment of Heading to Part 3

The clause amends the heading to Part 3 to include a reference to e-cigarette products.

12—Repeal of section 29

Section 29 of the principal Act is repealed.

13—Substitution of section 30

Reference is made in section 30 to e-cigarette products, but apart from this, the status quo is largely retained with minor changes including bringing regulation 4A of the current regulations to the level of the Act, updating terminology and increasing penalties.

14—Amendment of section 36—Products designed to resemble tobacco products

The clause amends the section to include a reference to e-cigarettes.

15—Amendment of section 37—Sale of tobacco products or e-cigarette products by vending machine

The clause inserts a new offence prohibiting the sale of e-cigarettes or e-cigarette products by means of a vending machine. Note that previous subsection (2) has been deleted.

16—Insertion of section 37A

New section 37A makes it an offence to sell e-cigarettes or e-cigarette products by retail from a temporary outlet and for an occupier of premises to cause or permit another person to sell any such products by retail on those premises in contravention of proposed subsection (1). Temporary outlet is defined as a booth, stand, tent or other temporary or mobile structure or enclosure, whether or not part of that booth, stand, tent, structure or enclosure is permanent.

17—Amendment of section 38—Carrying tray etc of tobacco products or e-cigarette products for making of successive retail sales

The clause amends the offence provision in section 38(1) to insert a reference to e-cigarette products.

18—Amendment of section 38A—Sale or supply of tobacco products or e-cigarette products to children

The clause amends the offence provisions in sections 38A(1) and (5) to insert a reference to e-cigarette products, increase penalties and make another related consequential amendment.

19—Amendment of section 39—Power to require evidence of age

The clause amends section 39(1) to insert a reference to e-cigarette products.

20—Amendment of section 40—Certain advertising prohibited

The clause amends various provisions in section 40 to extend to e-cigarette products the advertising prohibitions that currently apply to tobacco products.

21—Amendment of section 41—Prohibition of certain sponsorships

The clause amends section 41 to extend to e-cigarette products the prohibition on certain sponsorships that currently apply to tobacco products.

22—Amendment of section 42—Competitions and reward schemes etc

The clause amends section 42(1) to extend to e-cigarette products the restrictions on the promotion of sales by competitions and reward schemes that currently apply in relation to tobacco products.

23—Amendment of section 43—Free samples

The clause amends section 43 to prohibit the offering of free samples of e-cigarettes.

24—Amendment of section 51—Smoking banned in certain public areas—short term bans

The change to section 51(1) will, in enabling gazetted notices of short term smoking bans to include maps, ensure a more user-friendly description of the short term smoking ban areas. Under the amendments to section 51(5), the occupier commits an offence if he or she fails to place signs in a public area setting out the effect of the notice made in relation to the public area under subsection (1).

25—Amendment of section 52—Smoking banned in certain public areas—longer term bans

The change to section 52(1) will, in enabling regulations declaring longer term smoking bans to include maps, ensure a more user-friendly description of the longer term smoking ban areas. Section 52(3)(a) and (b) are deleted and reinserted under section 87(3) (see below). Under new subsection (4) the occupier commits an offence if he or she fails to place signs in a public area setting out the effect of a declaration of a longer term smoking ban made in relation to the public area under the section.

26—Amendment of section 66—Powers of authorised officers

The clause amends section 66 to allow an authorised officer to seize and retain e-cigarette products if the officer reasonably suspects that an offence against the Act has been committed in relation to the products, or that the products may afford evidence of an offence against the Act. Other minor updates and corrections are made to section 66.

27—Amendment of section 69—Powers in relation to seized tobacco and e-cigarette products

This clause makes minor amendments to section 69 removing the Minister's express power to sell forfeited products by public tender but enabling the Minister to direct the manner of disposal of such products. The section will also now apply to e-cigarette products.

28—Repeal of Part 6

Part 6 of the principal Act is repealed.

29—Amendment of section 70A—Confiscation of products from children

The clause amends various provisions in section 70A to allow for the confiscation of e-cigarette products from children in the same manner as tobacco products may currently be confiscated under the provisions of the section.

30—Amendment of section 71—Exemptions

The amendments under this clause delete from section 71 requirements for exemptions under that section to be recommended by the appropriate Minister. The Governor is given power to exempt by proclamation e-cigarette products or a class of e-cigarette products from the operation of the Act subject to conditions set out in the proclamation.

31—Amendment of section 85—Evidence

These amendments are consequential on the amendments to section 37.

32—Insertion of section 86A

New section 86A is a standard immunity provision that removes personal liability from an authorised officer or any other person engaged in the administration of this Act for an honest act or omission in the performance, exercise or discharge, or purported performance, exercise or discharge, of a function, power or duty under the Act and attaches such liability to the Crown instead.

33—Amendment of section 87—Regulations

The regulation-making powers are made consistent with current drafting style and the maximum penalties for the regulations increased. References to e-cigarette products consequential on other amendments in the measure are included.

Schedule 1—Transitional provisions

1—Interpretation

This clause defines principal Act, for the purposes of Schedule 1.

2—Licences

The clause provides that licences in force on the commencement of the measure will be taken to authorise the retail sale of e-cigarettes and that existing licence conditions will be taken to include reference to e-cigarette products wherever tobacco products are referred to.

3—References to Tobacco Products Regulation Act 1997

This clause provides that a reference in a licence, instrument, contract, agreement or other document to the Tobacco Products Regulation Act 1997 will, on and from the commencement of the clause, have effect as if it were a reference to the (newly named) Tobacco and E-Cigarette Products Act 1997.

Schedule 2—Further amendment of Tobacco Products Regulation Act 1997—penalty provisions

Schedule 2 amends the penalty provisions in the principal Act.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (12:01): This is a welcome opportunity to discuss the Tobacco Products Regulation (E-Cigarettes and Review) Amendment Bill 2018, and I indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition. Although I have not been tempted to use my unlimited time available on a lot of bills for which I have been lead speaker, I am tempted to use my unlimited time available on this piece of legislation—but I probably will not.

The SPEAKER: A lot of history.

Mr PICTON: This is a very important piece of legislation, and this is not the first time that I have spoken on this bill or its previous incarnations. It was introduced in the previous parliament, passed this house during the previous parliament and since then we have been waiting with bated breath for this to come back to the parliament.

Upon taking the position of the shadow minister for health and wellbeing, I saw this as one of the most important things for this parliament to deal with quickly after the bill lapsed in the Legislative Council during the last parliament. Hence, I wrote to the Minister for Health and Wellbeing very early on in my time as the shadow minister to ask him to bring this bill forward to make sure that we could debate it. I did not receive any response to that correspondence, never got a letter back from the minister, and so I decided to bring to the house my own private member's bill replicating the previous government's bill.

That bill has been sitting on the Notice Paper for some time, and for the last few months we have seen that it has been continually adjourned by the government. Clearly, it was an attempt to try to delay things so that they could bring their own bill and take credit for it, etc. That is fine. The key thing is that we get action on this issue and get this bill through the parliament; hence, the opposition supports this legislation. In terms of e-cigarettes, by and large it is a copy of the legislation proposed by the previous government that previously passed this parliament.

Mr Speaker, you will recall, as do I, that this came about initially through a select committee process of this house of parliament that you and I were both on—as well as the now member for Hurtle Vale, the current member for Black, and the former member for Elder, Ms Annabel Digance, who chaired the committee—where we looked at the subject of e-cigarettes or, as it is generally known, 'vaping'. It is one of those areas where the technology has advanced more quickly than the law.

Currently in South Australia, the law is pretty much a free-for-all for these products. There is a law that says that you cannot imitate a cigarette or create a device that looks like a cigarette but, apart from that, there are no laws that govern or regulate e-cigarettes. I think it was a worthwhile process to have a bipartisan select committee investigate the subject. We came up with a bipartisan report from that select committee. As I recall, we may have had some argy-bargy about our points of view in relation to that, if people want to go back and check the Hansard, but by and large a view across the parties came out of that committee.

The committee had two very different propositions put to it. One was by the vast majority of public health groups that appeared and gave evidence before the committee. They said that there are risks associated with e-cigarettes and vaping, that we do not fully understand the science around those risks and that potentially this could be an avenue for people to get into smoking, hence we should act very cautiously. A large number of those submissions recommended that we go as far as outlawing e-cigarettes and vaping in this state until there is better research and a better understanding.

On the other hand, we had a large number of submissions, including a large number of submissions sent to us by individuals, advocating for vaping and the availability of e-cigarettes. They believe we should make them as readily available for people as possible. The argument is that it would act as a cessation device for people to stop smoking, that people would be able to use e-cigarettes and vaping instead of smoking cigarettes.

Reducing the number of people in South Australia, and indeed in Australia, who smoke is a topic that I am personally very passionate about. It is something that I did quite a bit of work on in my career before entering this parliament. I am very cognisant that we need to do everything we possibly can to reduce smoking levels in South Australia. We have done a huge amount over previous years, probably over the last 50 years but, if you look at the last 15 or 16 years, a significant amount of work has been done in South Australia to reduce our smoking levels. They have continued to go down, which is good; however, there is more to do.

Obviously, we have made smoking more unattractive and outlawed it in areas such as alfresco dining. We have had a whole range of social media campaigns that have helped people to quit. At the federal government level, where I used to work, a significant amount of work has been done in terms of introducing plain packaging in a world first that has now been repeated by countries around the world. Secondly, taxation has been increased, which is clearly one of the drivers of the reduction in smoking rates in Australia.

A whole range of other measures, such as social marketing campaigns and the like, have also had an impact in terms of reducing smoking rates and will continue to do so. However, certainly there are segments of our population that still have higher than average rates of smoking, particularly Indigenous Australians, people on lower incomes, people with mental health issues and prisoners. There is a whole range of different segments of our population where the smoking rates are much higher. One of the things that I was very proud to do when I was the corrections minister, sadly for a short time, was announce a movement towards banning smoking in our prisons.

We currently have one prison that has a smoking ban: it was introduced as a trial in the Adelaide Remand Centre. These things are never without difficulty in that sort of environment, but it has gone very well. In fact, staff very keenly support banning smoking in our prisons. I am glad the new government has decided to continue that commitment, and I hope it continues to be resourced appropriately so that it can be rolled out on time and as we had set out in the plan. I believe that will help to make more of a difference in terms of reducing smoking levels.

In terms of e-cigarettes specifically, there is an argument that this helps reduce smoking, but the evidence on that is a bit murky. Members can have a look at the evidence we compiled in the select committee report, some of which shows that a number of people have quit through vaping and that there is a segment of the population that has reduced their smoking through vaping by using a combination of cigarettes and e-cigarette products.

I guess the big question is whether there are people who take up e-cigarettes and then take up cigarettes after that. A big concern for a number of the public health groups in Australia is that this would be an avenue to get around our laws in terms of advertising cigarettes. If you were able to advertise e-cigarettes, that would help to support and advertise, by association, cigarettes as well. All this led us to come up with a position that, I think, tries to reach a sensible compromise, that tries to establish some sensible regulation in terms of how we approach e-cigarettes and vaping in South Australia.

The recommendations we came up with were not to ban it but to legally allow it to happen, but also to have a number of the restrictions currently in place for tobacco also to be in place for e-cigarettes—not all of them, but the vast majority of them. This is not to say that the law should acknowledge there is no difference, because clearly there is, but, in terms of the legal aspect, the easiest thing to do was to apply the restrictions in the current legislation—which is what was originally drafted in the last term of the parliament and what this government has now brought before us in an almost identical form in this legislation. I understand a number of other states have moved down this path as well.

After the passage of this legislation, vaping will still be legal in South Australia. It will still be legal to purchase vaping products and the juices that go into them as well as to vape publicly in South Australia. However, there will be restrictions around that. There will be restrictions in terms of the age that people can make a purchase, restrictions in terms of making sure people are licensed and restrictions around advertising and point of sale displays.

There will also be restrictions on where people can vape, particularly in areas where smoking is banned. We do not want to see people vaping in those areas because we want to ensure that people who may have a respiratory condition, etc., are not affected by the emissions that are part of vaping. There are some people who say that it is fine and that there are no issues, but there are people in our community who are concerned about what impact vaping 'smoke' (for lack of a better word) may have on respiratory conditions, and I think it is appropriate that we carry those restrictions through.

There is a significant associated complaint people make about vaping in Australia, and that is in regard to the regulation of nicotine. Nicotine is the addictive component of tobacco smoking, the element for which people use nicotine-replacement therapy when trying to quit smoking so as to receive that drug in another way. A large number of people who vape in South Australia and Australia use nicotine in their vaping liquid. Nicotine is not available for sale anywhere in Australia due to restrictions in place under federal law and, as I understand, under South Australia's Controlled Substances Act.

It has been debated at the federal level, but some people are still obtaining nicotine via the internet and other means and are receiving it in parcels, which is against the law. I think that is a significant issue. People are clearly flouting Australian law and it needs to be dealt with by the federal government. Indeed, I think one of the original recommendations of the select committee was that representations should be made to the federal government on this issue. However, that is not a factor in this legislation; the importation of nicotine will remain an issue for the federal government to consider. I understand there is general bipartisan agreement in the federal parliament to maintain that law.

The recommendations of the select committee then flowed through to the bill presented to the previous parliament. For those avid Hansard readers, I can refer people to my previous speech on that bill. I introduced this legislation as a private member's bill in this house some months ago. Again, I refer members who are avid Hansard readers to my speech on that bill. We are now dealing with this issue through a government bill brought forward by the Legislative Council.

The government has added a couple of little things into this legislation as well. One could be cynical and say that they have done this to avoid introducing an identical bill to the one presented by the previous government, but that is fine. The other aspects of this legislation are sensible. There is a general tidy-up of the act, as was referred to by the Minister for Mining in his second reading contribution, including the removal of some unnecessary clauses and slightly increasing most of the penalties.

Much of this was led by the Reynolds review into tobacco control legislation. One of the recommendations of the Reynolds review was to significantly increase the penalty for selling tobacco to minors in South Australia. The existing penalties under South Australia's tobacco legislation have been in place for a long time and are relatively minor compared with other offences. When compared with penalties already in place for selling alcohol to minors under South Australia's recently amended liquor licensing legislation, the penalties for selling tobacco to minors are far less.

I would argue that selling tobacco to minors should be on par with selling alcohol to minors, and our parliament should see them both as serious issues that must be dealt with. The offenders should be fined and prosecuted as appropriate. Hence, when the government sought to only slightly increase the penalty under this legislation, the Leader of the Opposition in the other place (Hon. Kyam Maher) moved an amendment to make it on par with the current penalty for selling liquor to minors.

I am glad to say that, despite opposition from the Liberal Party and, staggeringly, from the Greens, that amendment was carried due to the support of SA-Best and Advance SA. It forms part of the bill before this house, and I wholeheartedly support this revised amendment. It will ensure that we send a very strong signal to those who might want to sell tobacco to minors and will also make sure people have the appropriate controls and checks in place to ensure their staff members are not selling tobacco to minors, just as we would expect in the case of alcohol. I hope the government does not seek to amend that in this house, and I hope it flows through to the legislation.

I think the passage of this legislation, which is going to be supported by both sides of this parliament, will help to make a difference. It will help to bring about a sensible amount of regulation for e-cigarettes. I think that it is something where we are going to have to continue to monitor developments in this field. As I said, it is something where the technology has advanced quicker than the law has. We will continue to need to monitor forthcoming scientific evidence that is in place in this area to see whether our laws are contemporary and whether there are any changes that might need to be made one way or the other.

I know that we have heard some concerns from some people in relation to internet sales. That has been one of the topics that has been discussed generally. This was something that was in our bipartisan select committee report originally and has flowed through now to all three pieces of legislation that effectively have said the same thing. I endorse the comments the government made on this, where I think people will still be able to access vaping stores. This might even be supportive of the economic model of those stores to avoid internet sales.

Essentially, we cannot regulate to make sure that the appropriate controls in terms of advertising and sales to minors can be in place through the internet in the same way we can for a licensed store. That is why this formed part of the legislation originally and has followed through to the Liberal government's legislation we are debating today. Of course, all these things will continue to be reviewed over time. I think it is appropriate. It is in line with restrictions we have in place for tobacco for the same reason—to make sure that those restrictions can be enforceable in South Australia. That is why we have those in place.

I should note that one of the other minor things that the government has sought to add into this legislation is in regard to shisha. When being briefed on the legislation, it seemed clear that the officials thought that shisha was already covered by the legislation but were seeking an amendment to make it absolutely clear that shisha will be covered by tobacco legislation in the same way. I have been surprised to hear some of the reports of how dangerous shisha is in that it has many more times the impact of tobacco in terms of your system as smoking a cigarette. Hence, it is something that I think we absolutely should be careful to make sure is appropriately regulated in South Australia.

However, I question why, if the government is of the view that it is already regulated and already clarified under the act, is this amendment necessary? Reading between the lines, it seems that the government is looking to take some action in regard to some of the shisha restaurants and cafes that we have in South Australia, and perhaps they want to make sure that they have complete and adequate legal protection of that before they do so. That may well be why we are seeking to amend this legislation—so that they are absolutely covered before they do that. It does not seem like there have been any attempts to issue any notices on people the government is view as having breached the laws already. We have not been able to find that out, particularly through the briefings, but time will tell if the government is going to take any action in that regard.

Hopefully, today we will finally pass this legislation. As I said, it has been in the parliament for well over a year now in various forms. I think that this is going to bring what is currently a completely unregulated practice into a sensible place of regulation in South Australia, not by banning it but by making sure there are appropriate controls around it, as well as a number of other minor amendments to the act, particularly that amendment that the opposition has been successful with in terms of sales to minors.

I think it will help to make a difference. I think it will be a sensible regulatory approach. We will have to continue to review it over time but I think it strikes the right balance at this time for what is an emerging technology without a large body of science that we can point to, and a large dispute as to that science, and a number of questions that still need to be answered. On behalf of the opposition, I am very happy to endorse this bill to the house.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (12:24): I rise also to commend this bill to the house. The Tobacco Products Regulation Act 1997 is the principal piece of legislation regulating the supply of tobacco products in this state, and the bill before the house represents significant further reform of that principal act, and appropriately so. Of course, public policy and legislation play a principal role in the ongoing campaign to reduce smoking—heading towards the elimination altogether—in our community, and South Australian legislation must continue to play its part.

The bill is substantially concerned with the regulation, for the first time in this state, of what are commonly known as e-cigarettes. It also contains other reforms and updates, including penalties for offences. As was noted by the minister and his representative in this house, it is pleasing to see that smoking rates among the entire population, including among younger people, have been falling over recent decades.

We are told that, in 2007, 23 per cent of people aged 15 to 29 were current smokers; by 2017, that figure had reduced to 14.7 per cent. As I said at the outset of my remarks, these reductions are substantially the result of public health measures that have been aimed at reducing smoking. There has been a range of measures, including the establishment of more smoke-free areas, bans on tobacco advertising and excise tax increases for tobacco products.

It is appropriate to take this opportunity, where review and substantial reform of the legislation are before the house, to restate and emphasise the significant health risks of smoking. We are told—and I hope most of us are now well aware—that smoking not only is bad for our health but remains the leading cause of preventable death in Australia. It is not just some sort of theoretical statistical analysis; many of us know that smoking affects friends, family and those close to us, so it is important that we know just how dangerous smoking can be.

Smoking eventually kills half of all smokers who continue to smoke. We are told that at least one in four of those who dies is aged between 35 and 69, which is a particularly startling statistic, in my view. A smoker who does not quit loses 10 years of their life on average. Smoking is responsible for about 85 per cent of lung cancers. Further, smokers are 20 times more likely to develop lung cancer, two to four times more likely to have a heart attack and 1.5 to two times more likely to have a stroke. These facts, these statistical analyses, are well known. They have been publicised and promoted in public advertising now for many years, but it is just so important to continue to re-emphasise these facts. As we approach reform in this area of tobacco regulation, it is against that background.

The consequences, though, go further. In terms of mental health, smokers are generally more anxious, stressed and depressed than nonsmokers. Further, smoking causes premature skin ageing, smokers are more likely to lose their teeth and, moreover, smoking causes erectile dysfunction. There are many serious consequences—ultimately, the terminal one. If we take nothing more out of the debate on the bill today in terms of those public health statistics, it is that this is the leading cause of preventable death in Australia. We clearly have work to do. As we endeavour to discharge our responsibilities in the public health space, it is against that very serious background.

It has been referred to earlier in the debate that this bill is informed by at least two substantial pieces of recent work in the South Australian public space: firstly, that of the select committee, which was formed in 2015 and reported findings on 24 February 2016; secondly, and substantially, insofar as the review aspects not related to the regulation of e-cigarettes are concerned, the bill reflects the good work of Dr Chris Reynolds in conducting the Reynolds review commissioned by SA Health in 2017. Dr Reynolds made 36 recommendations, 19 of which are included in this bill in the general reforms contained in the review aspects of the bill. Seventeen recommendations of Dr Reynolds will continue to be the subject of broader consultation with stakeholders and with the public at large later this year and into 2019. So the process of reform and review continues.

As has been observed, the bulk of the contents of the bill, although largely in a drafting sense, does the work of incorporating the regulation of e-cigarettes into the legislation for the first time in an area that was previously unregulated in this state. We are relatively late to be participating when compared with legislation nationally. As has been referred to, the governments of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and indeed the Australian Capital Territory have all already legislated to regulate e-cigarettes in some form. South Australia now joins those jurisdictions in a regulated market for these products.

Apart from the two substantial pieces of work that have emanated from this state in recent years, we are also aware of the substantial work the World Health Organization does in this space. Reference has been made specifically to the report of the World Health Organization's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control that was published in August 2016, particularly in relation to the impact and effects of what are more fully described as electronic nicotine delivery systems and electronic non-nicotine delivery systems worldwide.

I will take a moment to refer to the findings of the World Health Organization that have informed the preparation of the legislation in this regard. Firstly, for those who are not as fully acquainted with e-cigarettes (until recently, I counted myself among those), all the products that are categorised as electronic nicotine delivery systems or electronic non-nicotine delivery systems operate according to a common principle, namely, to heat a solution known as an e-liquid in order to create an aerosol that frequently contains one or a range of flavourants. They are usually dissolved into propylene glycol and/or glycerine.

All the electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) products contain nicotine, as the name suggests. They otherwise constitute, as the World Health Organization tells us, a really diverse group of products with potentially very wideranging and significant differences in terms of the production of toxicants and the delivery of nicotine. Much in the same way that over the course of the last century we have become used to or made an acquaintance with the sorts of poisons that are delivered together with nicotine cigarettes, there is also a diverse group of potentially significant toxicants involved in the delivery of e-cigarettes. Broadly, that is the nature of the product that is being considered in the context of the discussion on e-cigarettes.

The World Health Organization has made the observation that, if the vast majority of smokers or all smokers—that is, those who are unwilling or unable to quit smoking—were immediately to switch to using this or an alternative source of nicotine with lower health risks, eventually leading them to cease using it altogether, it would, in theory, create a public health achievement. The World Health Organization notes that that could potentially be, in theory, a significant achievement. However, as the World Health Organization observes, the important issue is that that would only be the case if the recruitment of minors, young people and nonsmokers into the nicotine-using population were no higher than for smoking or indeed eventually led to an overall decrease in use.

The World Health Organization is quick to point out that the question of whether or not these products can do that is very much the subject of debate, and there is insufficient evidence to make any clear observations about any potential positive effects in practice. Indeed, the August 2016 report to which I have referred makes the further observation that the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of these electronic nicotine delivery system devices as a smoking cessation aid is scant and of low certainty.

The World Health Organization, as a result, observes that, with the current state of the science on the topic, it is very difficult to make any credible inferences. In my view, that is credible evidence in itself for ensuring that, if we are going to have alternative and evolving nicotine delivery systems being used as a result of technical developments along the way, that in itself is a good and clear argument to ensure that those new products are regulated in a way that we are used to seeing tobacco being regulated.

It is an area of ongoing important reform, and that work, in terms of public health, will be continuing. Significant public funds will continue to be expended in researching how we can reduce the impact of cigarette smoking and other nicotine products on our communities. The work of the NHMRC will continue to explore these things, alongside the work of the World Health Organization and others. It is an area that is not lacking in public inquiry for good reason, particularly the result of those very substantial deleterious effects on health worldwide to which I have already referred.

In the short time that is still available to me, I will refer briefly to a more recent further report that was published in the World Health Organization's Bulletin in April last year. It was drilling down to consider questions in relation to whether or not the use of these products ought to be limited in public places where cigarette smoking is restricted and so on and to give a flavour of where the research is heading. Balancing all the various factors, the authors concluded in their Bulletin report last year that, from a public health perspective, central and local governments should adopt regulations that effectively determine that all designated indoor smoke-free areas are also vape-free areas. It is noted that that approach has been taken in a variety of other jurisdictions. The research continues, the reform continues, of which this bill is one, and I commend the bill to the house.

Ms COOK (Hurtle Vale) (12:44): I am really pleased to rise and speak on the Tobacco Products Regulation (E-Cigarettes and Review) Amendment Bill. While I could take my full 20 minutes and take you through a history lesson about the 5000 BC shamanistic rituals, the smoking of cannabis using hookahs, opium dens, the tobacco trade, and James Bonsack, who invented the automatic cigarette rolling machine, I will spare you the agony and just stick to the points, although I am sure that would be extremely interesting because I have done a bit of work on this over my—

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: Your experience is broader than mine.

Ms COOK: Indeed. What a surprise that she can pull these things out of her head! The recent history around e-cigarettes and this parliament brings me to commend the work of fellow healthcare worker and nurse, the previous member for Elder, Annabel Digance, who brought to the parliament the motion for a bipartisan committee that would investigate the current laws and regulations surrounding the use of e-cigarettes, otherwise known as vaping. The members on that committee were me; the current shadow minister for health and wellbeing; the current Minister for the Environment, previously the member for Bright now Black; and the current Speaker, the member for Hartley. I do not think I have missed anybody.

We heard from a number of expert witnesses and did quite a bit of work looking into the harms and the benefits. I think we kept a fairly objective view about vaping and its use in contemporary society and how we would maintain the rights and liberties of people who chose to partake in such a habit, if it were deemed safe, versus the rights and liberties of people who would be impacted by the vapour exhaled. The vapour exhaled from an e-cigarette is quite voluminous. After some haggling, the end bipartisan view came with a range of recommendations. I will not go through all of them, but there are some important recommendations.

It is also vital to note the experience of the shadow minister for health and wellbeing in the space of lobbying and public policy around smoking. As we know, he has worked for many years in this space. We can thank him to some degree for the plain packaging of cigarettes, which reduces the novelty of the packaging. We can also thank the scientists who have been acknowledged and lobbying groups, such as cancer councils, for their great work.

These pieces of work have collectively led us to a point in time now where we have such incredibly low general population smoking rates and even lower uptake rates by young people. As the shadow minister for human services, which includes youth, I am really heartened to see that we continue to reduce the numbers of young people who are taking up smoking. Having a lot to do with young people and kids in general and as a mum, I know that they do not see this as an attractive thing, which is really heartening. As an ex-smoker as well, it is a relief that my children, and those of other members here, are very unlikely to smoke.

After the bill lapsed in the previous parliament, I knew that the shadow minister for health and wellbeing had written to the Minister for Health and Wellbeing to urge him to bring this to the parliament very quickly as a measure that a lot of people had already worked on and were ready to speak on and support. I am disappointed that he was not given a response by the minister. I thought we could have got stuck into this pretty early, considering the volume of work the Department for Health had also done in this space—and I thank them for that.

That is disappointing. I think that the six months of up and down we have had adjourning debate on the bill when it could have been done six months ago are also disappointing. It is one of the things that people in the public just do not get. They really do not understand and do not care whose bill has passed as long as the good work gets done. I feel very disappointed that this did not happen a long time ago. Leaving that behind, we now have a bill in front of us that will clarify and confirm for people some of the rules and regulations around the use of e-cigarettes. It is not about stopping people from using them: it is about giving people a safe and appropriate choice.

Some of the main things for me are about where people can smoke or vape, where people can purchase the supplies to do so and how this appears to children and young people in terms of what the next generation is going to think about this practice. It is incredibly difficult to give up smoking. It is highly addictive, as we know. I wanted to understand whether we were in fact substituting one habit that is highly addictive and harmful to health for another. Going through the nearly three years of work on this particular area of public health policy.

I am fairly content with the current legislation and how it will provide some safeguards in that regard, but I will certainly be watching for more research to come about. As we know, rigour and evidence around public health outcomes and long-term health effects do not always come in the short term. It may be in a couple of decades that we see some consequences of ostensibly a foreign material being breathed in, past the tongue, gums and throat. We as a parliament need to make sure that we are agile in relation to the research and a bit more responsive in terms of making some change if certain evidence comes to hand.

Regarding the concern of people who have contacted me about now having rules in place around the supply, sale and use of e-cigarette devices, I reinforce that the intention is not to stop that. For us, it is about making sure that the rules are right. Having worked in health settings, I am completely supportive of anyone who is trying to give up smoking. We should be encouraging whatever means they use that work, as long as they do not do harm to others.

For people who have tobacco-related diseases, the struggle to breathe and the end trajectory of life is one of the hardest things to see. To describe it very quickly, it is like breathing in through a wet towel and out through a straw all at once. The trapping of air and the lack of oxygen are distressing to watch, distressing to experience and something that we want to avoid at all costs. Providing a safe mechanism for people to give up smoking through the substitution of nicotine and other devices is worthy but, again, we have to be able to regulate what is in the device and how much—for example, nicotine—someone is taking.

You might not know, but nicotine is a parasympathomimetic stimulant that causes a lot of side effects. One of those is around the heart rate. In large doses, it can be lethal. We heard stories through the evidence of people putting their own quantities of such a drug in the liquid that goes into their vaping device. If people are going to put in large quantities of a dangerous substance, I think we should be concerned about it, and people need to be educated about it. Again, it is not about stopping people doing it but about making sure it is safe.

I find the vapour irritating. I have walked behind many people who are vaping and it makes me cough. I am fine; my lungs are great, but I worry about other people who have more fragile respiratory systems. I think being able to control it a little bit, particularly around eating places, is really great and something we should support. I hope that along with the rollout of new legislation will come a very clear and very simple public health message around the rules, making people understand how this will go in the future to ensure that we do not have any confusion for people who want to use such devices.

Of course, another thing I have mentioned relates to children. I am very glad there are some limits on parameters around where they are going to be sold and how they are going to be marketed. Children like nothing more, on a very cold morning, than to go out and puff out big loads of vapour from their mouth, and I would be very concerned that they may see this as another way to do that. So I am very pleased we are putting some legislation in place.

With that, I wholeheartedly support the legislation. Again, I thank the previous member for Elder, Annabel Digance, for her work, I thank all the scientists and the committees for their work, and I thank the shadow minister for health and wellbeing for his enduring work. I commend the bill to the house.

Dr HARVEY (Newland) (12:56): I rise today to support the Tobacco Products Regulation (E-Cigarettes and Review) Amendment Bill 2018. This bill seeks to amend the Tobacco Products Regulation Act 1997 to enhance the operation of the act and address the lack of regulation of electronic cigarettes, also known as e-cigarettes, in South Australia.

The bill aligns with the recommendations of the Select Committee on E-Cigarettes and the positions of leading public health bodies, including the National Health and Medical Research Council, on the need for governments to act to regulate e-cigarettes. We will also bring the e-cigarette legislation in South Australia into line with interstate legislation. The bill introduces a range of administrative enhancements to ensure that the legislation is up to date and to improve the functioning of this important legislation.

These amendments emanate from an independent review of South Australian tobacco-control legislation which was completed in 2017. A 2017 legislative review of the Tobacco Products Regulation Act 1997 identified opportunities to improve the operation of the act, including consistency between the act and its regulations, between tobacco control and other South Australian legislation as well as tobacco-control legislation in other jurisdictions, and identifying provisions that are no longer relevant.

The Tobacco Products Regulation (E-Cigarettes and Review) Amendment Bill addresses the review recommendations and strengthens the operation of the act more broadly. It also includes increases in penalties and expiation fees for more than 40 offences. Maximum penalties and expiation fee levels have not been adjusted since 1997.

When I first realised that these devices existed—I have some more distant family members who are quite big consumers of tobacco cigarettes—I initially thought that this was a positive step. At face value, it seemed much less offensive than tobacco smoke. Certainly, tobacco smoking is a big problem in our community. In fact, smoking is responsible for the hospitalisation of almost 150,000 Australians each year and around 15,000 deaths in Australia, 1,140 of those being in South Australia.

There is also a substantial economic cost associated with smoking—approximately $2.3 billion in this country every year. A report from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare a year or so ago found that smoking was a leading risk factor contributing to death and disease in Australia and responsible for 80 per cent of the lung cancer burden and 75 per cent of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00.