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

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 18 October 2018.)

The Hon. C. BONAROS (18:15): I rise to speak on SA-Best's behalf in support of the Tobacco Products Regulation (E-Cigarettes and Review) Amendment Bill 2018. The bill, as we know, 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, known more commonly as e-cigarettes. The bill resembles the Labor government bill, introduced in the House of Assembly last year. I note that Labor, in opposition, reintroduced the bill in this parliamentary session as a private member's bill, which currently sits before the house.

The bill also clarifies that shisha falls under the definition of a tobacco product, regardless of whether the product contains tobacco. Whilst we were briefed that shisha is already covered in this act, it has in fact been difficult to enforce. There is a growing concern that shisha is not safe, and, according to some experts, smoking shisha for one hour is equivalent to inhaling the volume of smoke from 100 to 200 cigarettes.

I note that it was reported last week that, in a grassroots campaign in New South Wales, the Lebanese Muslim Association and the South Eastern Sydney Local Health District have joined forces to lead a public awareness campaign, backed by a New South Wales government grant of $386,000, to warn people of the water pipes also known as a hubbly bubbly or a hookah. I would be interested to learn from the Minister for Health whether the South Australian government is looking to follow suit with a similar campaign.

Returning to e-cigarettes, it is a technology that involves a user inhaling a heated vapour—which may contain propylene glycol, vegetal glycerine, food flavouring and sometimes nicotine (called e-liquid or e-juice)—through a battery-operated device. The practice is more commonly referred to as vaping. We know that e-cigarettes represent an opportunity to assist some smokers in kicking their smoking habits. As we have been aware of for decades, smoking is a known carcinogen and a leading cause of death. Fifty per cent of smokers will die from smoking-related illness. Key smoking statistics published by SAHMRI for 2017 reported that there are some 1,350 tobacco-attributable deaths annually in South Australia.

As a result, retail outlets where you can buy such products—these are known as vape shops—have popped up everywhere as the popularity of e-cigarettes and vaping has increased. South Australia is now only one of two remaining jurisdictions that are yet to regulate these products. Given that e-cigarettes are not currently part of any regulatory framework, it is really a Wild West industry where e-cigarettes are being sold to children through vape shops and the internet. They are promoted through ads and attractive packaging and can be used in places where conventional smoking is illegal.

Despite claims to the contrary from pro-vaping lobby groups, there remains a dire lack of evidence about the short and long-term health effects of e-cigarette use and consequent second-hand exposure to the vapour they emit. I would like to pause there to comment also on some work that we did on this issue federally. On the face of it, I think we all accept that e-cigarettes provide a good alternative to those who are trying to give up the smoking habit, but the fact remains that the TGA has not gone down the path of approving these products and that we remain as one of two jurisdictions not regulating this product. So it is something that we really need to address.

What I would say to those businesses who have set up their business models around vapes, which are an unregulated product, is that despite evidence that we hear—and there are claims from both sides in relation to this—until the TGA makes such a ruling, then this product ought to be regulated. Whilst we acknowledge that there is support for e-cigarettes internationally, particularly in the UK, there is also opposition to it from many sources both here and internationally, including the Cancer Council, the Heart Foundation and the Australian Medical Association.

Indeed, a World Health Organization report in 2014 recommended that e-cigarettes should be regulated to protect public health and ensure that the public has reliable information about risks and benefits. It should concern all of us that a study recently published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health found that vaping may have a gateway effect and lead young people to taking up smoking cigarettes.

It should also concern all of us, and the Minister for Health, that the SAHMRI key smoking statistics for 2017 revealed that 16.5 per cent of people aged 15 years and over and 14.3 per cent of young people aged 15 to 29 smoked, which is higher than the previous years at 12.3 per cent for this same age group. Aside from nicotine, the potential effects on children of the other chemicals in e-liquid are yet to be established. It is absolutely reasonable to adopt a cautionary approach to protect young people's health. Young people are vulnerable to the marketing and advertising of e-cigarettes. Even those who have never smoked traditional cigarettes are increasingly interested in trying the devices.

Last month, it was reported that the US Food and Drug Administration is considering a ban on flavoured e-cigarettes as it grapples with the epidemic of youth e-cigarette use that threatens to create a new generation of nicotine addicts. Manufacturers offer and market e-cigarette flavours that clearly appeal to minors, including chocolate and bubblegum flavours, and use animated figures to appeal specifically to children. I recall the debate that took place in this place some years ago in relation to fruit flavoured, I think it was, cigarettes and the fact that the previous government was very swift in taking action to ensure that those products were banned from sale in this jurisdiction.

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: Thanks to Gail Gago.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Absolutely. This should concern every parent because young people are more likely to develop stronger nicotine dependency than those who start later in life due to the addictive properties of nicotine affecting their growing brain. Consequently, I will be asking the minister questions in relation to the issue during the committee stage of the bill. We need much more information on the growing trend, and that information must be independent. I think that is one of the keys here: it has to be independent, it has to be free from interference from vested interest groups and it has to be evidence based.

It is concerning that the Sydney Morning Herald earlier this week reported a charity spearheading efforts to legalise nicotine vaping in Australia has accepted funding from an overseas group with clear links to tobacco multinationals. The Australian Tobacco Harm Reduction Association, the doctor-led charity that has driven much of the debate in the past year, says it does not accept donations from tobacco companies or their subsidiaries. However, it has been reported that ATHRA accepted a one-off, unconditional donation of $8,000 from UK harm reduction organisation Knowledge-Action-Change, which supports vaping and has accepted money that originated from tobacco companies.

There exists a fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between the tobacco industry's interests and public health policy interests. It is well documented that tobacco giant Philip Morris—and I met with stakeholders from Philip Morris during my term in federal parliament when they told us that they were announcing that they were getting out of the conventional cigarette business, because they should—is increasingly looking at new business opportunities like e-cigarettes. In fact, I think the feedback to me at the time was that they were moving completely out of cigarettes and completely into e-vaping, which I thought was quite remarkable given their position in the tobacco industry.

Given that research into these new products is not conclusive when comparing smoke-free products to traditional cigarettes, which took decades to be proved as a known carcinogen and public health hazard, we must tread very carefully. We just do not know at this stage if the so-called benefits of e-cigarettes are real or all smoke and mirrors—pardon the pun. To that end, SA-Best welcomes the announcement last month from the federal health minister, Greg Hunt, of an independent inquiry into the health impacts of nicotine e-cigarettes. This comes after a federal parliamentary inquiry into the use and marketing of e-cigarettes earlier this year opposed legalising nicotine e-cigarettes.

Returning to the bill, it 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 interest 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 to regulate e-cigarettes in broadly the same way that tobacco products are regulated.

The bill includes bans on the following: selling e-cigarette products to children; using e-cigarettes in smoke-free areas under the act; retail sale of e-cigarette products without a licence; indirect sales of e-cigarette products; e-cigarette advertising, promotions, specials and price promotions; retail point-of-sale displays of e-cigarette products; and selling e-cigarettes from temporary outlets such as sales trays and vending machines.

In addition to the regulation of e-cigarettes, the bill has a number of enhancements that have arisen from an independent review on South Australian tobacco legislation commissioned by SA Health in 2017. These include improvements to the definitions, the repeal of unnecessary provisions, adding expiations to offences where they currently do not occur and improving the functions of certain provisions. The government's bill also incorporates some adjustments to maximum penalties and expiation levels in line with CPI indexation as the levels have not been adjusted since 1997 and are out of date.

On behalf of SA-Best, I filed an amendment to increase the penalty under section 38A(1) of the act in relation to the sale and supply of tobacco products to children. It provides for an increase in the expiation fee and doubles the maximum penalty proposed in the current bill, which we believe is currently inadequate to capture the gravity of the offence, particularly in light of increased smoking rates amongst young people previously referred to.

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Am I boring you?

The PRESIDENT: Leader of the Opposition, that was unparliamentary. Show some respect for the member.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Subsequently, the opposition filed its own amendment—I believe that is the Hon. Kyam Maher's amendment—in relation to the same section, which provides for an even steeper penalty regime for the sale and supply of tobacco products to children in line with the penalty provisions for selling alcohol to minors under the Liquor Licensing Act as amended. We have considered that amendment and determined that we prefer it to our own amendment, so we will not move ours, but we will support the opposition's amendment. It is clear that provision cannot proceed unamended—on that, I think, we agree.

In closing, I think that there is a great need here for the government to work with the industry that has established a business model around e-cigarettes. I do not think that you can just go in overnight and say to them, 'Sorry, your business model is no longer going to be allowed,' and therefore they effectively have no business overnight. I think that it is going to be very important to work with that industry to ensure that they are able to transition to the regulatory regime being proposed. I will pose some questions to the minister during the committee stage of the debate in relation to that aspect of this bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.S.L Dawkins.

At 18:30 the council adjourned until Wednesday 24 October 2018 at 14:15.