Tobacco and E-Cigarette Products (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (20:23): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Tobacco and E-Cigarette Products Act 1997. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (20:24): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to introduce a bill that will arguably have some of the most positive and life-changing impacts of any legislation this parliament has seen.

South Australia has been at the forefront of a great deal of groundbreaking Australian legislation. We have been a world leader in many legislative reforms and other changes to our system, particularly in establishing a democratic system of government and extending and protecting the political and social rights of our citizens. The South Australian parliament has a proud history of leadership, innovation, courage and commitment to the greater good for the greatest number of its citizens.

South Australians undoubtedly enjoy an exceptional standard of living in the best state and the best country in the world. This bill reignites the trailblazing legislative tradition that has been a feature of South Australian government since the nineteenth century. It exemplifies the primary responsibility of government: that is, to protect its citizens, particularly the vulnerable, from harm.

This bill gives South Australia the opportunity for revolutionary change to our health and wellbeing and, consequently, our healthcare system and economic prosperity. It has one purpose, and that is to radically reduce the harms that smoking tobacco has been proven to cause. It gives us the opportunity to arrest the enormous and burgeoning cost that tobacco imposes on our health, social, economic and financial wellbeing, and our overall quality of life and productivity in South Australia.

This legislation supports a new generation of non-smokers to eventually make smoking tobacco a relic of the past, where we did not know any better. It aims to reduce the disease and harms known and proven to be caused by smoking. The fact is that there is no financial, health or indeed any other benefit of smoking. No parent wants their child to ever smoke, no parent wants their smoking to impact on their children.

It is an indisputable fact that less than 10 per cent of our population smoke and, of these, 65 per cent to 80 per cent—depending on which source is quoted—would like to quit. Sadly, there is no such thing as a healthy smoker; even in smokers who give up, some damage is permanent. Sadly, many ex-smokers suffer disease in later years despite quitting, as health issues created by smoking can be the cause of many later life issues.

It is an indisputable and widely accepted truth that if tobacco products were introduced to the market today they would never satisfy any of the regulatory processes now in place to protect consumers, and would never be approved for use.

There have been a number of very positive policy responses in recent years, but the key one—which is still a huge issue—that this bill addresses is supply. The effectiveness of some of these initiatives, such as health warnings on packaging, limiting advertising, not displaying these products in retail settings, crackdowns on illegal tobacco and the like, have been very encouraging, and must continue.

Whilst smoking rates are slowly decreasing and young people in the 18 to 24-year-old age group have a very negative attitude to smoking, all of the expert advice, academic research and policy response evaluations tell us that we need a multifaceted approach to reduce smoking overall.

We have come a long way from the days when advertising portrayed smoking as cool or even beneficial. I am old enough to remember when menthol cigarettes were promoted as soothing the throat. There was no mention of oesophageal or lung cancer back then. I can also remember seeing advertisements in magazines and newspapers where doctors and dentists were promoting smoking and tobacco. It is absolutely outrageous that that would happen.

It is worrisome to see a recent phenomenon of young American wannabe celebrities trying to associate with this image, which I hope our health-conscious young people see as very unattractive and not to be emulated. I will just recount another famous late celebrity and the message he delivered from the grave, which was the great Yul Brynner, the actor who died from lung cancer. I still clearly recall his message. If I can put on a Yul Brynner accent, I will. 'Whatever you do, just don't smoke,' said Yul Brynner. That message was delivered to an international audience well after he had died from agonising lung cancer, cutting short a brilliant acting career.

However, we have not dealt with supply. This bill does not make tobacco illegal, rather it is a rational, reasoned, evidence-based response to protect the next generation from the damage caused by the current extensive availability and use of tobacco products. It is part of a suite of policy initiatives to make smoking a behaviour of the past. This bill aims for as high a proportion as possible of never smokers in South Australia.

It unapologetically and unashamedly opens the door to what is possible and what we as legislators can do right here, right now. Put simply, this bill makes it an offence to sell tobacco products to those born on or after 1 January 2009. This will mean that anyone who turns 15 or younger in 2024 will never legally be sold tobacco products.

This bill is deliberately silent on the retailing of tobacco products. It does not limit the number or types of retail outlets that are licensed to sell tobacco in South Australia. Thankfully, South Australian outlets are licensed and well regulated, unlike New South Wales and Victoria. Indeed, tobacco outlets have dramatically increased in those unregulated jurisdictions in recent years such that there are now tobacco outlet turf wars playing out interstate where anyone can retail tobacco and the soon to be completely illegal vape products. Thankfully, we have not seen that here.

Selling illegal tobacco will still be illegal and I would like to also point something else out here that disturbed me. Last week, I saw a packet of illegal tobacco that carried on the front that 'smoking kills' and a warning label. This is totally outrageous. It was an illegal tobacco product and it was trying to, I guess, in some way get some kind of recognition for a health message that was on it to almost deflect interest from the authorities. It is absolutely outrageous that they would resort to that level.

This bill will improve and increase overall enforcement of tobacco controls, not lessen them. It does, however, ban vending machines that are still legal in a select few venues, such as pubs and casinos. With less than 10 per cent of the population still smoking tobacco, any counterargument that the proportion of people buying illegal tobacco will increase as a result of this bill, given the crackdowns on illegal tobacco, is not an argument against this legislation. Indeed, it supports the need for clear and enforceable regulation of supply.

The bill has some of the elements of the legislation passed and then repealed on a change of government in New Zealand. Under intense pressure from the tobacco industry, the New Zealand government repealed the bill to fund promised tax cuts. This was despite bipartisan political, community and voter support for the legislation. The UK government introduced legislation modelled on New Zealand's bill. It has been met with substantial bipartisan support. The progression of that legislation will have to wait until their forthcoming elections are over.

We here in the South Australian parliament can take the lead on this issue and provide tangible benefits to future generations of South Australians. We can be recorded as the first parliament to make significant progress in protecting our next generation from harms of smoking. I would like to here make reference to a private member's bill that was introduced in the House of Assembly on 4 June 2009 by the then Leader of the Opposition, the member for Davenport, the Hon. Iain Evans. This was probably a piece of trailblazing legislation by Iain Evans. He introduced his private member's bill and he said the reason that he was doing it—remember, this is 2009—was simple:

The current legislation essentially provides that those who sell cigarettes to minors are fined quite heavily; in fact, in some cases they can lose their licence.

He wanted to take it a lot further so that those who give cigarettes to minors, including parents, would also suffer a fine. He found that there was:

…a loophole in the law that those 15, 16 and 17 year olds (and those are the people the law targets) who sit around and smoke suffer absolutely no penalty. Minors are fined for all sorts of things, such as littering, evading and paying their bus fare to school and speeding. They can also be dealt with for under-age drinking.

He felt that young people should also be fined if they were caught smoking. His Tobacco Products Regulation (Prescribed Smoking Age) Amendment Bill then went further, and I will just quote something Iain Evans said in his second reading speech on 4 June 2009:

It seems to me that if a company came to the government today and said, 'We have a product that you can tax; it will only kill 15,000 people a year but you can tax it,' I do not think that the government would licence it. I do not think that the government today would licence that product for sale. Every year we have product recall because of health reasons: poisoned meats or products that are out of date that are going to cause health issues—they are withdrawn because of the health impact. So, I do not think that a government would licence another type of product that would kill 15,000 a year.

That was in 2009. Mr Evans went on to say:

What this bill provides is that if that is the view then it should be phased out. Let us draw a line in the sand and say this: 'All existing smokers can still smoke,' subject to whatever the laws are, as in you cannot smoke in dining areas and those sorts of things. So we are not taking away their right to smoke, but we can say to the next generation: 'We are actually going to have a smoking age that lifts every year so that, in effect, the next generation cannot smoke.' They do not get a criminal conviction, they simply get an expiation notice, and so it is phased out over 70 to 100 years.

I do not know whether we can stick around that long. I think it needs to be done pretty quickly now. A hundred years is way down the track and—

The Hon. R.A. Simms: Labor, get your skates on.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Exactly. Mr Evans says:

In this particular bill I have picked a date so that anyone born after 1 January 1993 cannot smoke. I am not so naive as to say that there would not be a black market, but if we could reduce the level of smoking to the same level of illegal drug use that exists today, then you would reduce the number of deaths by 1,100 a year in South Australia. About 100 people a year die from a drug overdose: heroin, cocaine, amphetamines, etc. If you could reduce smoking to the same level of illegal drug use you would save 1,100 lives a year in South Australia, accepting that there would be a black market.

That was the Hon. Iain Evans in 2009 with his private member's bill. Here we are today, reflecting a similar action, and I hope that it is followed by the other members.

I would also like to point out another email that I received today. It came from Professor Jon Berrick. I will read out his email:

Dear Frank,

Good luck with your endeavours to introduce a tobacco free generation type of law in South Australia, using a fixed birthdate.

You may be aware that attempts were made by a Tasmanian MP Hon. Ivan Dean, to introduce such laws in Tasmania in 2014. Based on the work of Prof. Jon Berrick, Ivan was supported by all Tasmanian Health groups, and myself as convener of SmokeFree Tasmania. The Bill was never voted on and Parliament was prorogued for an election, so the bill lapsed. The current Liberal government has made it clear they will not support it.

I will just correct myself regarding this email I am quoting from, 'Dear Frank'. I did get an email from Professor Jon Berrick, but this one has come from Dr Kathryn Barnsley, retired convener of SmokeFree Tasmania. Dr Barnsley goes on to say:

You may also be aware of jurisdictions which have achieved this reform such as Brookline, Massachusetts. Professor Jon Berrick is always up to date with what is happening internationally, and may be prepared to assist you.

Which he will. Dr Barnsley continues:

Under the current Liberal government smoking rates in Tasmania have actually INCREASED—unlike every other state. There is no interest from the Liberal government in Tasmania in reducing smoking rates. They are both incompetent and disinterested in health. They are happy to continue with ambulance ramping and increased hospital crises, juggling patients with smoking induced heart attacks, strokes, COPD and many many cancers.

The South Australian Labor Malinauskas government appears to be both very concerned about health issues, and is a competent government, so you may have more success in SA.

I hope they hear that message and heed it. Dr Barnsley continues:

The major obstacles that you will face will be, no doubt, the tobacco industry—which will establish front groups to oppose the legislation—including funding and infiltrating peak retailers associations. Other groups which might oppose it are civil libertarian lawyers. You will hear many nonsense arguments about 'prohibition'—this is not prohibition because there will be hundreds of shops selling tobacco and thousands of older generation smokers—who are unaffected by this legislation. This is a gradual phase out of tobacco sales—not a 'ban.'

Some 'tough on crime' conservatives will insist that children or minors who attempt to buy cigarettes should be punished or fined. This should be resisted strongly. It is not the users who are the problem, it is the 'pushers and dealers' of these toxic drugs. Supply, not demand, needs increased regulation.

An argument for birth date laws which is pleasing to State Treasuries—is that it costs almost nothing to implement.

Attached [are] some documents which may assist—including the Legislative council committee Report—which concluded that there were no legislative obstacles to this reform.

Once again—we wish you well in your endeavours!

in peace

Dr Kathryn Barnsley

(retired convener—SmokeFree Tasmania)

I commend Kathryn for sending me that email. I also seek leave to table that report, the Parliament of Tasmania Legislative Council Government Administration Committee report on the Public Health Amendment (Tobacco Free Generation) Bill 2014

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I have consulted widely on the bill, as you have no doubt heard, and it has received overwhelming support, as you have no doubt heard, not just from the anti-smoking lobby but from parents, community members, academics, medical and health experts, smokers and non-smokers alike. I have not spoken to one person who would advocate for or recommend anyone smoke tobacco. Indeed, I have had so many constituents express their regret for ever taking it up and their sadness at having to deal with often tragic health consequences for themselves or loved ones.

The statistics and data related to smoking are sobering. These are well-established and indisputable facts. In 2022-23, 8.3 per cent of Australians smoked daily. This equates to 1.8 million people. A large proportion of smokers are older, 20 per cent in their 40s, 19.5 per cent in their 50s, 14.4 per cent in their 60s. Smoking above 40 years old contributes to well over 50 per cent of the smoking population.

The National Drug Research Institute at Curtin University concluded that in the 2015-16 financial year the total cost of smoking in Australia was $136.9 billion—$19.2 billion in tangible costs and $117.7 billion in intangible costs. Tangible costs include loss of economic output, absenteeism, primary health care and informal carers. Intangible costs include premature mortality and ill health from smoking.

We can add to these costs the cost of tobacco-related litter removal in Australia, estimated at around $73 million per year. This is an issue that the Hon. Robert Simms is taking a strong interest in. Perhaps we can go a long way, should this legislation be successful, in ridding our waterways, our footpaths, our drains of tobacco-related litter, which comprises of plastics as well.

Tobacco use is the leading risk factor contributing to disease burden and deaths in Australia. It contributed to almost 20,500 deaths, 13 per cent of all deaths in 2018 alone, and was responsible for 8.6 per cent of the total burden of disease in Australia in 2018. This goes up to 12 per cent for First Nations people. First Nations people like Tom Calma have been wonderful advocates against tobacco use by First Nations people but, like many Closing the Gap indicators, this presents a larger gap to close.

In 2018, 25 per cent of smokers were on a pack a day. At current costs these people would save $13,000 a year, not to mention the health and productivity benefits. Long-term smokers die, on average, 10 years earlier than non-smokers. In 2019, people with mental health conditions were twice as likely to smoke daily as people who had not been diagnosed or treated for mental health conditions—that is 20 per cent compared with 9.9 per cent. People who smoke are more likely to experience social isolation and loneliness, while cutting down on smoking is associated with a reduction in suicides and depression.

The only group who have not decreased their daily smoking rates are those aged 60 and older. People living in remote and very remote areas were 2.9 times as likely to smoke daily (that is 20 per cent) as people in major cities (7 per cent). Sixty-seven per cent of people would like to quit and intend to do so in the future. Nearly 30 per cent of people attempting to quit in 2022-23 failed. Nearly half of people (45 per cent) were motivated to try quitting because they thought that smoking was affecting their health or fitness. Most smokers would tell you that they know it is very harmful to them and their families but that it is very hard to quit.

The average age at which young people smoked their first full cigarette was 16.3 years in 2016. I will make a confession here: I think I was 12 years old when I smoked my first cigarette, and I was 32 when I smoked my last one, after suffering a heart attack. I went cold turkey and I have not touched a cigarette since then.

Whilst the uptake of smoking has been falling, smoking initiation typically occurs as a young person. While smoking is gradually declining across other age groups, due in part, no doubt, to a wide range of initiatives in recent years, as outlined in the Australian National Tobacco Strategy 2023-2030, there are strong concerns about the association of smoking with vaping and the potential of increased smoking rates in young people. Thankfully, passive smoking is now better controlled due to public smoking restrictions. In South Australia it has been illegal since 2007 to smoke in a car with a minor present. We were the first jurisdiction to introduce these laws but, sadly, SAPOL tell me they still detect people doing just this.

Concerning information from Victoria indicates current tobacco smoking by 14 to 17 year olds has increased from 2.1 per cent in 2018 to 6.7 per cent in 2022. That is a huge increase in only four years when the trend is ordinarily downwards. The Cancer Council tells me that young people who vape are approximately three times more likely to start smoking cigarettes. Due to the increasing incidence of vaping there is increased susceptibility in both younger and older school students to start smoking.

It is very concerning to see the emergence of a new illegal trade in nicotine pouches. The nicotine in these pouches is derived from tobacco. As part of my research, I have discovered that you can buy illegal nicotine pouches online in a range of harmless-sounding flavours, such as 'deep breeze', by ticking a box that you are over 18 and proceeding to the checkout at a cost of $21 per packet. The medical warning, in tiny print, says that you should seek professional medical advice before using nicotine pouches.

As Associate Professor Becky Freeman, from the Prevention Research Collaboration unit at Sydney University, has commented:

…the industry is introducing more products to maintain its future revenue stream as reforms restrict access to vaping products, targeting young people.

It was disturbing to see a report, an excellent report actually, on ABC television, regarding these new nicotine pouches and the enormous number—I believe it was almost 1.8 million pouches that were seized by border security in the past 12 months alone. It gives you an indication how far criminal organisations are willing to go to not only get people addicted to illegal products but also to profit from poisoning people. Again, this is why we need legislation like this.

There is limited freedom of choice for those who are under the control and menace of nicotine addiction but we, as legislators, must do all that we can for future generations. I applaud the federal government for their ban on disposable vapes from January this year, and I support their efforts to further reduce access to vapes, including considerations of flavourings, ingredients and packaging. I strongly support the legislation currently being considered in the federal parliament to increase the controls on vapes.

Seventy-eight per cent of Australians agreed on banning all additives in cigarettes to make them less attractive to young people. For the same reasons, a majority of Australians supported the banning of vapes which can deliver nicotine or attractive-sounding colours. People have no idea of the toxic substances that are in vapes. I have seen somewhere that there could be up to 200 different substances in them that are considered toxic. Why would you allow this to happen? Why would you encourage this to happen? Why would you not do anything about it?

In some good news, the proportion of never smokers in Australia increased to 55.7 per cent in 2017-18. The bad news is that this means that 45 per cent have smoked. The proportion of secondary school students who have never smoked increased from 77 per cent in 2011 to 82 per cent in 2017, while the proportion of young adults aged 18 to 24 years, who have never smoked, increased from 64 per cent in 2007-08 to 75 per cent in 2017-18. As I have already highlighted, it is this group that this bill focuses on. If we can make smoking history for the next generation we will have not only saved them the economy, the health system and productivity from the enormous harms of smoking, but we will have actually saved lives.

Sixty-five per cent of Australians agreed on raising the legal age for the sale or supply of tobacco products to those aged 21 years and over. Where this has been implemented overseas, for example, in Hawaii, the effects were a decrease in smoking, but on its own this has been shown by numerous studies to be insufficient. I believe an even higher number of South Australians will agree with the intent of this bill to raise the age of smoking so that if you were born on or after 1 January 2009 it will not be legal to purchase tobacco at all or other related products.

This legislation specifically targets this age group with the intent of protecting them from the harms of tobacco. Imagine a whole new generation and their children not knowing the scourge of tobacco and nicotine. If there are well established scientific research and evidence-based arguments and proof of the dangers of smoking, why is tobacco—such an accepted and tolerated addictive, toxic and harmful product—still readily available to anyone over the age of 18?

The answer to that question is fourfold, but has one central premise: addiction. Firstly, tobacco companies worldwide are addicted to the profits they make from smokers. These companies are projected to generate $US965 billion in 2024. Whilst some tobacco companies pivoted their businesses to vapes, in Australia the vape industry has been unregulated and populated by a huge range of wholesalers and retailers, so it has not provided the certainty or income that tobacco companies have been accustomed to in regard to tobacco.

With the option of diversifying their businesses into vaping closed off in Australia, these multinational tobacco companies and the underground operators have shown that they will do anything to protect their business, for example, the new nicotine patches I just referred to. However, if tobacco corporations were a country, they would still be the 19^th wealthiest nation in the world. I will say that again—take note of this: if tobacco corporations were a country, they would still be the 19^th wealthiest nation in the world. Make no mistake, they will do anything to protect that, as we saw in New Zealand.

Secondly, governments are equally addicted to the excise revenue that tobacco returns to governments. Australia is amongst the highest excise tobacco taxing country in the developed world, ranked seventh. In 2021, tobacco excise collected $14.3 billion, with an estimated additional $1.9 billion evaded by illicit tobacco. Excise will have another increase in 2026 by 5 per cent per year. However, with decreasing smoking rates this excise will decrease in total.

It is estimated that the excise collected may be as low as $10 billion now, which really is a small budget shortfall compared with the health budget gains available through this bill. Governments will more than make up for any lost revenue by reducing the burden from the public health system and the hidden economic burdens, like supporting the families and children of cancer victims, avoiding business closure because of sick employees, and lost productivity from chronic disease such as cancer, respiratory conditions, heart disease, stroke, blood circulation problems, diabetes, infections, amputations, dental problems, hearing and vision loss—all attributable to tobacco use.

With price increases linked to decreasing smoking rates, governments have somewhat effectively used increased excise to act as a disincentive to smoking, but again it is not enough. Increasing the excise on cigarettes has the dual purpose of raising government revenue in a falling revenue environment, whilst having a positive public health impact, because the extremely high prices of tobacco products is a disincentive to smoke.

However, using excise to raise the cost of cigarettes has only been a partially effective strategy to reduce smoking rates. It is perplexing that people who live in the areas of most socio-economic disadvantage are still the most likely to smoke daily, with 13.4 per cent doing so in 2022-23. Lower socio-economic areas in South Australia also have a higher concentration of tobacco vendors, so not only are lower socio-economic area smoking rates higher, but tobacco products, particularly illegal ones, are more accessible.

Again, you have to wonder why this government in the budget increased the funding for additional inspectors with SA Health to crack down on these illegal operators. It needs to be tougher than that, much tougher than that, not this pussyfooting around, knocking on doors to see if they are selling these illegal tobacco products in there. You actually need almost a dedicated unit, whether it is police enforcement or another one, from the government that is probably reminiscent of the 1920s and 1930s prohibition era when you had the Untouchables crashing through the doors of illegal alcohol manufacturers. They need to do a lot more.

The Malinauskas Labor government needs to stop and close these places because every day there are people who are freely able to go in there and buy these products. I know people who do it because they cannot afford it. It seems to me the reason they are not doing it, and particularly in the lower socio-economic areas, is because these people, firstly, cannot afford to pay the high price for the products that can be legally sold and, secondly, because of the cost-of-living crisis governments are reluctant to try to eliminate some form of false pleasure that people get from it.

I sincerely hope that that is not the case, but I suspect that it is why they really do not want to go in harder, because they know there are people hurting economically out there because of their economic policies and they do not want to take something away from them that they can afford. If that is not the case, I would like to hear something from either the Premier or the authorities in relation to that.

In general, areas with higher socio-economic advantage have lower proportions of people smoking daily, with the lowest level of smoking prevalence of 4.1 per cent occurring in the areas of most socio-economic advantage. In other words, in the richer areas, the richer suburbs, smoking has not only been in decline but it is falling to levels much lower than you see in lower socio-economic areas.

As helpful as raising the age limit by a year or two and increasing the excise tax might be, all they do is prolong the problem and put it off to another day, another budget, another government, another generation. You are kicking a can of the proverbial drum along the road. This bill calls for us to show real leadership and think longer term than just an election cycle.

Thirdly, the reason why it continues is because the tobacco industry is a big political donor and sponsor. The Australian National Party remains the last major party in Australia to accept donations from the tobacco industry—shameful. While other political parties have stated they will not accept donations, an explicit prohibition should be made. In 2022-23, the Nationals took $75,000 from Philip Morris and $55,000 from British American Tobacco.

The Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Act, passed in late 2023, includes a general ban on an industry sponsorship by tobacco and e-cigarette manufacturers. However, gifts, payments or reimbursements to politicians and political parties during an election campaign are exempted.

The Hon. R.A. Simms: What?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Yes. Major health groups, such as the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and the Australian Medical Association, have called for stronger provisions to prohibit all forms of tobacco and all vaping industry donations to political parties or individual politicians, including from entities that might be acting on behalf of these industries.

The World Health Organization's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control says parties should not allow any official or employee of government or of any quasi-governmental body to accept payments, gifts or services from the tobacco industry. These donations in themselves have been influential and addictive to some. I will be looking carefully at the government's political donation reforms currently before this parliament to ensure that no political party can benefit from tobacco in any form.

Finally, smoking continues because nicotine itself is addictive. There is also a tiny proportion of smokers who may argue that it is their right to choose to smoke and to kill themselves, and others who will support that right. Frankly, any defence of smoking being a freedom of choice or that, 'We do not want to live in a nanny state,' is a farce, in my view, but they are welcome to hold onto their opinion in the face of overwhelming solid evidence to the contrary. I would challenge detractors to cite one net financial or health benefit to civilisation due to smoking.

Many of our freedoms or behaviours are regulated or curtailed for the benefit and safety of ourselves and others; for example, drink and drug driving limits, speed limits, gun control. The list goes on. Proof of age is already needed to purchase tobacco and alcohol. The bill does not unduly impose a new regime of proof of age at retail outlets for consumers, because we already do this.

The federal government is about to trial proof of age applications to ensure that age limits, in respect to internet access, are workable. I welcome the South Australian government's recent announcement that it is going to propose Australia's first legislation to limit access to social media and online content to children under the age of 16. I also note federal opposition support for a federal bill to do the same. This is exactly the kind of courageous legislation we are renowned for, and this bill is in the same tradition. Its intent is the same: to protect young people from harm and to promote their mental and physical wellbeing.

I have heard arguments that this bill will just force people to buy tobacco products interstate or on the black market. There may be a tiny element of this, just like some people stock up on cigarettes when they travel overseas or some children get access to social media or alcohol and cigarettes using fake identification. However, arguing against tobacco controls is like saying we should make marijuana, cocaine or ice legal because you can get it anyway.

As I have noted, older tobacco smokers will be unaffected by the bill. Nothing will change for them apart from the social norms of smoking tobacco being even less common and accepted than it is now. The bill is aimed at ensuring that young people never smoke. It aims to create a new generation of healthy and happy non-smokers. This is a very exciting prospect, and one I cannot imagine anyone in this place opposing.

We all know the dangers and harms of tobacco, and we have the means and the opportunity in this place, right here and right now, to do something groundbreaking to address this. There are simply no cogent, defensible arguments against this bill. Shame on anybody who tries to present one.

I call on members of the Legislative Council, many of whom are parents, aunts, uncles or significant figures in children's and young people's lives, to support the bill. I am sure there is not one of you has not been personally impacted by the effects of smoking and tobacco on a family member, friend or loved one. Many of you have advocacy, legal, medical, health, social justice, child development, youth worker and union backgrounds, and share the values and beliefs to support this legislation.

We can make smoking history for our next precious generation of young South Australians. This bill will enable you to truly put your hand on your heart and say, 'We, in the South Australian parliament, have really made a difference.'

Finally, I would like to thank Ms Kerry Rowlands, Ms Christine Morris and the team at Cancer Council SA, Associate Professor Becky Freeman at the School of Public Health at the University of Sydney, Professor Caroline Miller, Director of the Health Policy Centre at SAHMRI and professor in the School of Public Health at the University of Adelaide, and countless other experts and members of the public for generously sharing their knowledge, experience and unwavering support for the bill.

I would especially like to thank my senior adviser Adrienne Gillam, who has worked hard in getting the research and in consultation with parliamentary counsel in getting this bill to the stage it is today. With those closing words, I commend the bill to the council.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. L.A. Henderson.