HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2007-11-21 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

TOBACCO PRODUCTS REGULATION (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Second reading.

The Hon. J.D. HILL (Kaurna—Minister for Health, Minister for the Southern Suburbs, Minister Assisting the Premier in the Arts) (16:03): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading explanation inserted in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

This Bill seeks to amend the Tobacco Products Regulation Act (1997) by banning tobacco products from counting towards the accumulation of points or any other reward, discount or benefit associated with customer loyalty and reward schemes, and banning the purchase of tobacco products from an unattended vending machine.

Through these two reform measures, the government is building on existing tobacco control restrictions to reduce the harm in our community from smoking.

The Government's primary objective is to improve the health of all South Australians, particularly our young people.

We want to reduce the senseless loss of South Australians whose lives have been shortened by their addiction to tobacco smoking.

One key factor that influences the uptake of smoking is ready access to tobacco products. By requiring that all tobacco product vending machines can only be operated via a token or remote control, or similar system, the Government is ensuring that individuals must approach a staff member to obtain cigarettes from a vending machine rather than operate the machine by themselves. This will further prevent access to, and impulse purchases of, tobacco products by young people.

Our intent is to reduce incentives to buy tobacco and reduce access to tobacco products by young people. The Government aims to prevent experimentation with a product that is highly addictive and is the single greatest cause of premature death and preventable disease.

Turning to the first measure, reward schemes, under section 42(1) of the Tobacco Products Regulation Act 1997, it is currently illegal for a person to provide or offer to provide a prize, gift or other benefit in order to promote the sale of a tobacco product.

There is an exception if the scheme applies equally across a whole range of products in the store or supermarket. Consequently, the current customer loyalty and reward schemes are legal because the reward applies to all of the products at the supermarket or store, not just tobacco products.

The inclusion of tobacco in these schemes may induce greater consumption of tobacco products as some customers may spend more on bulk tobacco products such as cartons in order to reach the threshold for a reward.

Closing this loophole, by excluding tobacco products from a reward scheme, is likely to reduce tobacco consumption rates and sends prospective customers a clear message that tobacco smoking is not an activity worthy of a reward.

The second reform relates to the use of vending machines for tobacco purchases.

Currently, liquor licensed and gambling premises are restricted to one vending machine for each premises. This vending machine must be located in either a specified gaming area or, in the case of a liquor licensed venue, be operated by obtaining a token or some other assistance from a staff member. In the latter case, most hospitality businesses use a remote control facility to enable a purchase of a tobacco product.

The Government proposes to further strengthen the Act by restricting a customer's direct access to a tobacco vending machine. As a result of this amendment, a customer will no longer be able to buy tobacco products directly from a machine. In future, a customer will require staff assistance to activate the vending machine by either a token or remote control in order to buy a packet of cigarettes. Introducing this additional step into the purchasing transaction will make it very difficult for a minor to buy tobacco through a tobacco vending machine.

This further restriction on the use of a tobacco vending machine is another important step along the Government's path to reducing smoking rates both among young people and the population at large.

The Government plans to introduce these two new reforms on 1 June 2008 so that it is not a busy retail time of the year for these changes to occur. The Government also recognises the challenges for vending machine operators in converting existing machines that are in operation. The Bill has the following provisions to allow vending machine operators sufficient time to ensure all their machines have appropriate staff intervention mechanisms installed:

all new tobacco product vending machines placed into operation after the commencement of the measure must have an appropriate staff intervention mechanism;

existing machines at the time the measure commences that do not have a staff intervention mechanism must be converted to an appropriate mechanism (or replaced by a machine with a staff intervention mechanism) by 1 June 2010.

The Bill also repeals the now redundant section 34 of the Act.

The Bill (as a result of amendment in the Legislative Council) prevents the sale of tobacco products by retail if the order for the tobacco product was received by mail, telephone, facsimile, internet or other electronic communication.

I commend this Bill to the House.

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 section 30—Sale of tobacco products by retail

This clause inserts a new subsection (5) into section 30 of the principal Act, prohibiting the sale of tobacco products by retail if the order for the tobacco product was received by mail, telephone, facsimile, internet or other electronic communication.

5—Repeal of section 34

This clause repeals section 34 of the principal Act.

6—Substitution of section 37—Sale of tobacco products by vending machine

This clause substitutes a new section 37, limiting the sale of tobacco products by means of a vending machine. Such a machine may now only be operated by or with the assistance of venue employees, including by means of remote control or by the provision of tokens for use in the machine.

7—Amendment of section 42—Competitions and reward schemes, etc

This clause prevents a person from awarding points or providing other benefits or things (as part of a reward scheme or similar scheme) for the purchase of tobacco products, and provides a defence for a person who has done so if it was not practicable for the person to identify the particular item or items purchased that gave rise to such awarding or provision.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:04): I acknowledge that I have received the second reading explanation from the minister. For the purposes of this debate, I will assume that it significantly replicates what was moved by the minister in another place. This is what it largely appears to do, although I am not sure I can see reference to the Hon. Sandra Kanck's amendment in the minister 's presentation, which I am quickly trying to absorb. However, I will refer to that in the contribution I am about to make.

This bill seeks to amend the Tobacco Products Regulation Act 1997 by removing the ability for tobacco products to be included within reward points schemes and make it more difficult to purchase tobacco from vending machines by, essentially, requiring the purchaser to seek staff assistance. When the bill was debated in the other place, the Hon. Sandra Kanck moved to amend section 30 of the Tobacco Products Regulation Act to prohibit a person selling a tobacco product by retail if the order for the tobacco product was placed by mail, telephone, facsimile transmission or internet or other electronic communication. This is included in the bill, so it appears that the amendment was successful.

The opposition's position is that measures to remove the ability for these products to be included in a rewards system and to make it more difficult to get access to them through tobacco vending machines are like many initiatives that purport to assist in the reduction of smoking, particularly in young people, at first blush to be applauded. However, the government has made a quantum leap—in the Hon. Gail Gago's presentation and now in this minister's—that this would improve the health of all South Australians, particularly our young people, and that in some way there would actually prove to be a direct correlation between a reduction in smoking and the product accessibility reform proposed in this bill. The opposition questions the validity of that claim.

I note from the debate in the other place that the Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse (whose portfolio, of course, covers alcohol as well as other drugs) was invited to present any data, material, or precedent or identify some region in the world where this has had a demonstrable effect. Of course, when we look at these initiatives we have to look at the other side of the ledger and identify whom it will affect. For example, will it positively affect the young smokers whom we are trying to assist to either rid themselves of the habit or discourage from even attempting to start smoking? Who will be adversely affected by the introduction of this measure? Will it be the shop proprietors, licensed premises and the like, and will the inconvenience, cost or risk to those persons be commensurate with the benefit achieved?

Where is the evidence to show that, if we do impose this obligation on people in the community, this new regime will have a demonstrable beneficial effect? Regrettably, nothing has been brought forward as a result of that invitation to the minister, and that is of concern to the opposition. Measures such as this appear at first blush to have possible benefits, but there is no direct evidence to support that. On the other hand, this bill seeks to introduce a regulatory regime which will cause a major inconvenience to some people.

The Hon. Michelle Lensink in another place—who is the opposition's excellent spokesperson on mental health and substance abuse—took the trouble to contact a number of interested parties that would be affected by this legislation. In saying that, I do not think that she asked young people whether they want to be restricted from access to cigarettes. We all know about the reality that underage smoking is out there.

More than the measures proposed in this bill, the real questions that must be asked to ensure their benefit are what are we doing about ensuring that they do not use their friends who are over 18 years, for example, to go into shops and purchase cigarettes for them? What are we doing if underage children who attend school, for example, are caught with a packet of cigarettes in their possession? What are doing to empower principals and other community leaders, who have direct responsibility for children, to confiscate those cigarettes? What we are doing about it? These are the sort of real questions that we need to be asking.

It seems that these two measures, as I said, introduce restriction and regulation at a cost to some of these other stakeholders. In that area, the shadow minister and opposition spokesperson consulted with the State Retailers Association, which indicated that it is not opposed to the proposal of loyalty schemes, although it would clearly have an economic impact on retailers. The Foodland Group made it very clear in its correspondence in response to the invitation to comment that it is opposed to them. Foodland is undergoing changes on its sites at present as a result of other initiatives introduced by the government, which are now in legislative form, and which had opposition support. We are prepared to support good ideas. However, both groups—the State Retailers Association and the Foodland Group—have expressed the concern that they do not see these as having any serious beneficial impact on young people.

Not surprisingly, the Australian Hotels Association does not have any problem with loyalty scheme reforms—possibly because it will not affect many of their members—but it does, of course, accommodate vending machines for tobacco products in most of its licensed premises. This is something to which the association has given careful consideration. It appears to the association, and the opposition would agree, that this level of regulation creates further work for the hotel staff without dealing with the problem of youth smoking.

I come to the amendment introduced by the Hon. Sandra Kanck, which has the opposition's support, which had safe passage through the other house, and which is now incorporated in the bill that we are considering. The Hon. Sandra Kanck essentially wants to prohibit the sale of products through electronic means. This amendment actually forms the basis of a bill that she introduced into the parliament, I think, some months ago—it may have been late last year—but in any event, she introduced the initiative. It was opposed; it certainly lapsed. She was keen to introduce it into this bill, so she presented it. As best as it can, in dealing with internet purchasing or other electronic communications, it is designed to restrict access, for example, for young people purchasing packets of cigarettes through sites such as cheapsmokes.com.

I brought this issue to the house some time ago to the extent that I highlighted how this is occurring, and that it does provide, as it says, 'cheap smokes'. It avoids, of course, a lot of the taxes that apply to tobacco products by sale through the internet. I am told that, even though some of these providers still have the warnings on their packets, if and when the children receive these products when they acquire them in this way, they still have not been influenced, obviously, by the new display that is normally presented to them at any place of sale other than electronic purchasing outlets.

Therefore, I think that the Hon. Sandra Kanck's amendment has merit, and I am pleased to see that members in the other house also took that view. If we are to have these measures to assist young people then at least we better have one that will do some good. The opposition considered whether the prohibition against sale of tobacco products, through these indirect orders, could disadvantage people who are housebound. Again, it is important that we look at how we might inconvenience some people because they have no other way to purchase tobacco products.

For the purposes of helping us deal with introduction and addiction to smoking by youth—we know that the X and Y generations in particular have a heavy reliance on, use of and access to internet products and purchasing, and even as a major communication tool—the possible inconvenience or disadvantage to those who are housebound is outweighed by the objective merits of the amendments. For that reason, the opposition supports that initiative.

The submission presented by the Foodland Group was quite extensive and it has been recorded largely in debates in another place. Therefore, in the interests of brevity, I will not repeat the submission. It was a persuasive submission and one which the opposition considered had merit and, therefore, it was significant in the decision made by the opposition on this occasion.

We can count, and I only hope that the aspirations, which have been outlined as being the ultimate benefit by these restrictions—namely, the reduction in new smoking and the health of the community—are achieved. I am not overly optimistic of that for the reasons I have given, but at least there is one initiative that has been incorporated that we think will be successful because it is meritorious and, therefore, it has our support.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (16:16): I rise to note the bill briefly. I will be careful not to say that I support it, but I certainly support the comments of my deputy leader. I think we should do anything we can to educate to stop young people smoking. I come from an era where, as young people, we all tried smoking. Luckily, I realised that it is habit-forming and no good for your health and I got rid of it before it got hold of me. It horrifies me to see young people around the streets today smoking.

I can understand a person of my age having an addiction to smoking, and I feel sorry for them because they took it on not realising how bad it was for their health, but today there can be no excuse. We treat smokers like lepers—we make them outcasts—yet, still, we see these young people, for some reason, get carried away, whether it is because of peer group pressure or the old American movies or they think it is macho or groovy to have a cigarette in their hand. It horrifies me, and often I cannot control myself and I tell them that, if they continue smoking, it will be a habit difficult to break.

I have had a couple of colleagues in this house whom I will not name, but one is a lady for whom I have a lot of time, and she is a strong smoker. She is now retired. She has red hair. I have a lot of time for this person and I tried my heart out to convince her that I wanted to know her into old age and that she might not get to old age unless she kicked the habit. She made an attempt, but as far as I am concerned at this point in time she still has that habit.

So, we should do anything we can to prohibit people from picking up this bad and filthy habit. Not only does it cost people their lives but also it is a huge cost to this community and, directly or indirectly, to the Minister for Health who is sitting here. I understand what the minister is trying to achieve with this bill, but the doubt (as expressed by the deputy leader) is whether this will actually do it. It may or it may not; it is doubtful. The concern I have is about who will wear the cost of this and who will wear the cost of altering the vending machines. It sounds like a good idea—

The Hon. J.D. Hill: Those who own them.

Mr VENNING: Those who own them—that is right. Is that the business that has them or the cigarette company that has put them there? In that instance, I do not have a problem with the cigarette company having to foot the bill for modifying the vending machine, although I do have a problem with the shop owner or the business, whether it be the AHA or the like, having to turn around and pay for the cost of changing over the machines.

I share the concerns expressed by the deputy leader. We will do anything possible to get people to break this habit. I think we need to increase and maintain the education program in relation to smoking. I think that we could even more cleverly target students and younger people, particularly in schools. I believe that we ought to be spending more money in years 10, 11 and 12 in secondary school in relation to the habit of smoking: what it will do to you and how hard it is to get rid of. I think it would be wiser to spend more on a program like that. However, as for the rest of it, I am ambivalent, and I share my deputy leader's sentiments about that extra cost.

I cannot see the minister's reasoning behind the reward points and schemes. I do not believe that any young person would start smoking because of reward points or a scheme where the person bought fuel at a fuel station and got points at the grocery shop or the other way around. I do not believe that would encourage any person.

Most people get this bad habit in their formative years and I think that is usually due to peer group pressure. We have to break the nexus for young people with it being macho, groovy, sexy or whatever for a person to have a cigarette. We need to teach them that it is not all they think and that, in fact, it is the opposite: a dirty, smelly habit that will shorten their life. I do not believe that we will divide on this. We will wait to hear what the minister has to say but I note the bill and support the ideals, but I do not support that it is actually going to happen.

The Hon. J.D. HILL (Kaurna—Minister for Health, Minister for the Southern Suburbs, Minister Assisting the Premier in the Arts) (16:22): I thank members for their contribution. I acknowledge that they are generally supportive of the thrust of the government's campaign against smoking although they do not particularly agree with the measures proposed in this piece of legislation. I will just make a number of observations. Something like 20.7 per cent of people in South Australia currently smoke—one in five. So, of the five members over there, statistically, one probably smokes. The incidence of smoking amongst those between the ages of 15 and 29 is about 2 per cent higher than that: 23.4 per cent. The member for Schubert makes a valid point: that kids are smoking at a greater rate than adults. There is a whole range of complex reasons for this. One of the things that I think is most concerning is the increased incidence of television and film showing actors smoking as an incidental part of their acting.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.D. HILL: The deputy leader says that it used to be huge in the 1940s; that's true, and it really disappeared for quite a long time. Over recent years, particularly with the advent of product placement by big companies in American films, and probably other films as well, there has been a greater incidence of smoking, particularly amongst young people. If we only saw in film older, ill people smoking and coughing—which would be a realistic example of what smoking does to you—it might have a positive effect on young people. But to see young, glamorous, attractive, healthy, sexy people smoking in a whole range of situations does, as the member for Schubert said, reinforce the notion that smoking is somehow a cool thing to do. I agree with him completely: we have to do everything we can to try to get that attitude out of the head of younger people, particularly, and older people, too, if we can.

This legislation, containing a number of relatively modest measures, is another advance in doing something to push the point home. The argument has been put by the opposition: where is the evidence to support that it will actually do something? I am not aware of the evidence one way or the other, but I guess that argument is used all the time. Every time the government—whether it is from this side or that side—tries to do something regulatory to deal with an issue in the community, whether it is safety-belts—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.D. HILL: No, I am not talking about you particularly; I am just talking generally. Whenever something new is suggested, it is easy to say, 'Well, where is the evidence to see that it will work?' If it is a new thing, there is no evidence because it is new. So, there is a sense of 'suck it and see'—which is probably a bad pun to make in relation to tobacco use—and this is an example of that. Even if it does not work, it will not do any harm. It will just continue to send the message that tobacco is an evil and government will do whatever it can to make it difficult for those who make a profit out of the sale of tobacco.

I understand that three companies own the tobacco vending machines in South Australia, and they will be responsible for making the changes that are required under the legislation. There is a bit of lead time given to do that, but they are the ones who make a profit out of the sale of tobacco, so it is appropriate, in my view, that they should pay—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Well, that's not a bad thing. If the price of tobacco goes up, that makes it less attractive. We know that the price of tobacco does affect the amount of tobacco that is consumed. That is absolutely demonstrated. In fact, that is one of the reasons there is such considerable taxation on tobacco. If tobacco were sold in Australia at the price that it is sold in some third world countries (where there is little or no taxation), it would be very cheap and very easy for people to get. The fact that it is expensive means that it is difficult for kids to get hold of it.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Well, you may disagree, deputy leader. You have had a chance to speak. I did not interrupt your contribution, so I would humbly ask you, if you would not mind, not to interrupt me when I am making my points. You may disagree with my points, and that's fine; I am making them. I believe there is strong evidence to suggest that there is a correlation between price and the amount of consumption. That may change over time. As the price goes up, people get used to the new price and then consumption goes up, but there is some effect. Even if it is put up by a small amount, it will contribute to the overall campaign against tobacco. It makes it difficult for the people who make a profit out of it. I think that is a good thing. We should make it as difficult as we possibly can for those who make profits out of tobacco. I am all in favour of the tobacco companies having to jump through a lot of hoops before they can sell their product.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.D. HILL: If the deputy leader has a different view, that is fine; she can justify that to her conscience. I am of the view that tobacco is an evil, and we should make it as difficult as we can. We cannot ban it, because—

Mrs Geraghty: Sadly.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Sadly—said by a smoker; that's terrific. You cannot ban it, but we should make it as difficult as we possibly can by a whole range of measures. I think the government has demonstrated over time that it is prepared to put in place a whole series of measures to make the smoking of tobacco less attractive. It has now been banned in hotels and it is no longer legal to smoke a cigarette in a car with a child in it. These are a number of other suggestions that will make the consumption of tobacco that little bit more difficult. In my opinion, that is to the good. I commend this legislation to the house. I congratulate my colleague in the other place, the Minister For Mental Health and Substance Abuse, for introducing it, and I also thank officers Della Rowley and Mark Bandick for their support today.

Bill read a second time and taken through its remaining stages.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT