Tobacco and E-Cigarette Products (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 19 June 2024.)

The Hon. S.L. GAME (21:21): I will support any improvement to the health of citizens and fully concur with the benefits of not smoking, being a non-smoker myself, but question whether such a strict ban is the most appropriate regulatory framework to achieve this.

The sale of tobacco products to children is already prohibited, but the Hon. Frank Pangallo's bill will prevent any citizen born on or after 1 January 2009 from purchasing tobacco products. We all agree with current laws that prohibit the sale of tobacco products to children, but this proposal will extend the ban to future adults as well. While the bill has honourable intentions, it is a heavy-handed approach that ultimately treats adults like children rather than empowering adult smokers to quit through their own individual choice and agency.

Is this how free Western democracy should deal with adult citizens who make unhealthy consumer choices? What other unhealthy products should we ban adult citizens from purchasing, then? Alcohol is the obvious one, and we all know how successful the prohibition of the sale of alcohol was. It has already been proven that banning does not reduce demand, it only makes a market go underground. This bill is just a replica of one passed by the left-wing Jacinda Ardern government in New Zealand in 2022 that was later repealed by the newly elected conservative coalition in 2023.

I am prepared to support any reasonable and proportionate initiative that seeks to uphold the health and wellbeing of citizens, but I will always have grave concerns when this involves restrictions on the freedom and rights of adult consumers to make their own consumer choices. I will not be supporting the bill.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (21:22): I rise to indicate that the Greens will be supporting the bill. The Hon. Mr Pangallo and I have disagreed on a few issues over the last few days but we do agree on this issue. I certainly support his efforts to tackle cigarette use, particularly among young people. I think this is a bold step in terms of taking a phased approach to stopping the sale of tobacco products to young people, initially, but of course what this bill does is phase out cigarette use among a whole new generation coming through. I think that is a worthy public policy initiative.

The bill prohibits the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after 1 January 2009, or people who are currently 15 years or younger. I do note that there is an amendment filed by the Hon. Frank Pangallo that changes that date to the year 2007, which would impact anyone who is 17 years or younger. I am happy to entertain that amendment should it be required to secure the passage of the bill through this place.

The Greens have always supported a health approach to substance use. We believe that harm minimisation is the most appropriate way to reduce the adverse health, social and economic consequences of alcohol and other drug use. We want a reduction in high-risk uses of nicotine and tobacco, as we acknowledge that they are substances that cause serious harm.

It is important for us to note that there are supports put in place to help young people under the age of 15 move away from nicotine; however, we note that this is a private member's bill, and those services would need to be provided by the government. I look forward to hearing from the government down the track around what they might do in that regard should this bill become law.

This is an argument that the Greens have made at a federal level. During the time when vaping reforms were passed by the federal parliament in June, the Greens argued that the increase in nicotine dependence is a significant public health problem. We want to keep tobacco and nicotine products out of the hands of kids, but we also want to ensure that people can access support to address their addiction when they need it.

We are pleased that this bill does not take a punitive approach to the possession of tobacco products but instead prohibits the sale of such products to young people. New Zealand was the first jurisdiction to ban smoking for future generations. It was accompanied by other measures to make smoking less affordable and accessible and included dramatically reducing the legal amount of nicotine in tobacco products. At the same time, they increased funding for health services and rolled out additional quitting services.

This was a comprehensive package of reforms and supports that was due to see health benefits at a significant level for people in New Zealand. Unfortunately, the new right-wing government in New Zealand has scrapped these reforms before they were due to be implemented in July this year. I think that is very disappointing. I also notice that the Tory government announced a plan to move down this path but never achieved that. I do hope, though, that governments in other jurisdictions take action on this.

The Greens will therefore be supporting the bill by the Hon. Frank Pangallo as we consider it to be consistent with promoting better health outcomes for people born after the year 2009, but I do want to use this opportunity to call on the government to provide additional services to support people using tobacco products.

In considering this bill, I would urge elected members to consider whether, if we had our time again, we would choose to make tobacco a product available to young people and adults here in our state. The reality is there are significant health risks that flow from tobacco use. We know that it has been linked with cancer. We also know that cigarette butts are terrible for our environment, and I will talk a little bit about that later. Really, if we had our time again, would we go down this path? What this bill does is take a staged approach to phasing out cigarettes and tobacco products in our state, and I commend it.

The Hon. R.B. MARTIN (21:27): Tobacco smoking remains the leading preventable cause of disease and death in Australia. My understanding is that there are around 260,000 current adult smokers in South Australia. Statistics suggest that about two out of three of those people, if they do not quit, will have a cause of death that is attributable to smoking; in other words, the habit will kill them.

Tobacco has a huge impact on the health of individuals and on the lives and wellbeing of our families. It also creates a huge demand on our health system. The impacts of smoking are estimated to cost our state health system in excess of $2 billion each year. The honourable member's bill proposes an incremental ban on the sale of tobacco, called the smoke-free generation model, as well as a ban on the sale of tobacco products via vending machine.

In terms of the vending machine ban, this is a measure that the government supports in full, and in fact it has been included in the government's Tobacco and E-Cigarette Products (E-Cigarette and Other Reforms) Amendment Bill 2024, which was introduced on 28 August 2024 by the Minister for Health and Wellbeing in the other place. The South Australian government took this proposal to public consultation in 2023, and it was widely supported.

The bill before us also proposes a smoke-free generation model. This involves banning the sale and supply of tobacco to those born in or after a specified year, thereby preventing the sale of tobacco to the next generation. Such a legislative approach was passed in New Zealand and was incorporated in a bill before the Parliament of the United Kingdom. However, it was repealed by a subsequent government in New Zealand, and the UK bill was interrupted by their general election.

If South Australia were to introduce such a model, it would be world leading. As a jurisdiction with a history of world-leading innovation across many spheres, it is a matter worth consideration. The smoke-free generation approach constitutes a major policy reform; therefore, it is a decision that needs a commensurate level of investigation and consultation to fully explore the financial, legal and social implications of this approach.

Preventative Health SA is currently conducting analysis and providing advice to enable government to make a fully informed decision on how a smoke-free generation model could be implemented and realised in practice. This includes an assessment of the legal implications, enforcement frameworks and business and economic impacts. Following this comprehensive assessment process, the state government will be able to consider a fully informed decision on this model. We are not opposing the bill at this stage, which will allow further consideration between the chambers before the government develops its final position.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (21:30): I rise today as the lead speaker for the opposition on this bill. The Liberal opposition will not be opposing this bill, but we do have some serious concerns. We have concerns that a blanket ban across an age bracket will drive tobacco and e-cigarettes underground and young adult consumers will buy cigarettes on the black market where no-one pays tax and products are completely unregulated.

The illicit trade in tobacco products, according to the World Health Organization, and I quote, 'poses major health, economic and security concerns around the world'. That organisation estimates that one in every 10 cigarettes and tobacco products consumed globally is illicit. We do not need to encourage that figure to rise further.

Our investigation has informed us that multiple studies demonstrate laws which rely on prohibition to reduce the prevalence and harm from drugs generally fail to achieve their aims. We cite a lack of evidence to support this blanket ban approach. The New Zealand legislation has been reversed. The United Kingdom has yet to implement and enact their own version of this legislation. The data simply is not there to show that it works.

What is known is the very real problem of black market trade and this is of great concern to our party. We already have bans on smoking in public places here for the public health of our population. There are multiple other public health measures in place to reduce the prevalence of tobacco and e-cigarettes.

Concerningly, this may be viewed as an attack on civil liberties and a prohibitionist approach. We believe, as a core party principle, in the freedom of the individual, as an adult, to make their own decisions and choices with the information available to them. There is nothing in this bill to stop young adults purchasing cigarettes across the border. The impact of a single slate measure on a national public health issue is minimal.

However, I do want to be clear that our party does support appropriate public health measures for South Australians and we appreciate the honourable member's intent of the bill. We would like to see some further evidence and work done by the government on the concept of a ban like this to ensure it will be effective and we encourage the government to do that work.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (21:32): I thank all honourable members for their contributions. This bill is nothing short of a declaration for the health and wellbeing of future generations. It is our chance to create a smoke-free generation to ensure our kids and grandkids never fall victim to the deadliest addiction our society faces. That is what it is about. It is not about civil liberties. It is about trying to stop a generation from being addicted to something that kills and I have not heard that in the arguments from the Liberals.

From the outset, I have one minor amendment to the bill, with the act coming into operation, if it passes the lower house, on 1 January 2025. The age definition of designated person in the bill requires the amendment from 1 January 2009 to 1 January 2007. Just to be clear to the members who have some doubts, including One Nation: smoking is the largest cause of preventable death and disability in Australia.

Every year, over 20,000 of our loved ones die due to smoking-related diseases. That is more than 50 lives lost every single day. It contributes to 8.6 per cent of Australia's burden of disease—12 per cent for First Nations people—and almost 70 per cent of those who currently smoke would like to quit. If we do nothing, the next generation will continue to bear this burden. This bill is an opportunity to turn the tide.

So what does the bill do? It focuses on one of the greatest public health challenges of our time by prohibiting the sale of tobacco and e-cigarettes to those born after 1 January 2007. By raising the age for the sale of cigarettes incrementally, we aim to stop tobacco from ever becoming part of the lives of young Australians, to create a tobacco-free generation. This is not about taking away a person's choice to smoke, it is about preventing addiction before it starts. Two-thirds of people who try even a single cigarette become daily smokers, most of whom regret ever starting. Just think back to those old commercials of the forties, fifties, sixties and seventies—

The Hon. R.A. Simms: I can't remember those, Frank; I'm too young.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Let me remind the Hon. Robert Simms about the types of commercials that were able to be produced and shown on free-to-air television and in cinemas. You had doctors, dentists, Olympians and celebrities who endorsed tobacco as a health product.

I also heard the libertarian argument, and that collapses under the weight of reality. Once you are addicted, your freedom to choose no longer exists. Addiction robs people of choice. It is not a matter of willpower or discipline, it is about a chemical dependency that takes on average 30 attempts to break. Let's not forget that over four in five smokers become addicted before they turn 20. I actually started smoking when I was 13 and I gave it away when I was 34. I did it cold turkey after I had a heart attack and my doctor warned me that 'if you keep smoking, you're going to die'. I am glad I took his advice.

To those who say that this is a nanny state infringing on personal liberty, I ask you: what is freedom if addiction has stripped away your ability to choose? Is this really about freedom when smoking kills over half of its long-term users? Freedom should mean the ability to live a healthy life free from crippling, life-threatening product.

The Hon. Sarah Game made mention of what other products could we then look at banning. Let me tell you some products that we did ban because they were life-threatening or were going to cause health issues. I do not know whether the Hon. Robert Simms remembers the time when there used to be lead in petrol and in gasoline, and that had to be eliminated because of the dangers. Asbestos: there is another one that was deemed to be a safe product and it was in countless thousands of Australian homes and buildings and everywhere. We know what a killer that is.

More recently, stone bench tops: fortunately, they have been banned because of the dangers they pose. They all had legitimate social uses, but no-one has argued for freedom to expose people to those killer substances, so why should cigarettes—which meet none of today's consumer product safety standards and have no value beyond deadly cycles of addiction—be any different?

Some may argue about legal challenges, but history is on our side. The federal government has faced off against the big tobacco giants before, with plain packaging and other measures, and won. Courts have consistently ruled governments have the right and, indeed, the responsibility to protect their citizens' health and this bill is no different from that.

Will this create a black market, as the Liberals have put it? Well, no. Raising the age for sale will have a gradual impact. We have regulatory structures in place, and just like smoking rates have been falling, they will continue to do so under this bill.

Retailers are licensed and this will not disrupt the retail industry overnight. The economic hit for retailers is actually paper thin. To those concerned about lost tax revenue, let me ask you this: is the cure worse than the disease? The disease is killing our family members at an alarming rate. As the smoking rates decrease, so too will the need for government spending on treating smoking-related diseases and the savings in health care and lost productivity from smoking, estimated at $136 billion in Australia in 2016, will far outweigh any minor dip in excise tax revenue, which in and of itself does not benefit South Australia as it is a federal tax. This bill is not just about health; it is about equity.

To the Greens: I appreciate your support for the bill and stand with you on your motion to tackle cigarette litter. By phasing out tobacco, we will protect public health. To the government: I commend the health minister, the Hon. Chris Picton, on his strong anti-tobacco stand through legislation, including the Tobacco and E-Cigarette Products (E-Cigarette and Other Reforms) Amendment Bill, passed in the other place yesterday, which I will support.

In closing, this bill is about tackling responsibility not only for our generation but for the generations to come. It offers a lifeline to a young, healthy generation, protecting them from the addictive clutches of tobacco and e-cigarettes. I commend the bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Pangallo–1]—

Page 2, line 15 [clause 4, inserted definition of designated person]—Delete '2009' and substitute '2007'

This is to delete the date of 2009 and substitute 2007. This is done in the event, if the bill passes, and comes into effect in 2025. It will capture teenagers once they turn 18, currently the legal age to be able to buy cigarettes.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 5 passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Pangallo–1]—

Page 3, line 14 [clause 6(6), inserted text]—Delete '2009' and substitute '2007'

Amendment No 3 [Pangallo–1]—

Page 3, line 16 [clause 6(7), inserted text]—Delete '2009' and substitute '2007'

These are consequential.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clause (7) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (21:44): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.