HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2007-11-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

TOBACCO PRODUCTS REGULATION (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 23 October 2007. Page 1082.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (11:48): This bill could be described by some as reform, a word that I think is often over-used. When a sensible, commonsense person looks at it, I think the question they would ask is: what difference will these measures make on behaviour in terms of smoking uptake? Essentially, what the bill aims to do is remove the ability of tobacco purchases to contribute to the collection of reward points in schemes including FlyBuys and petrol discounts; and the other part of it is to reduce the accessibility of tobacco products through purchases via vending machines.

We consulted with a few stakeholders who will be affected by this legislation. The State Retailers Association says that it does not oppose the bill. A letter from John Brownsea dated 2 October states:

As regards reward points (petrol discount) on tobacco sales, the removal of that concession will have an impact on retailers and then the two major supermarkets primarily. The vending machine issue does not affect any of our members so we have no comment...

The Hotels Association also is not opposed, although it says that it does not believe that it will have a great effect on reducing the number of minors purchasing tobacco products because minors are already forbidden by law from entering gaming areas, and that these changes would just create further work for hotel staff in operating the vending machines. It is also not opposed to restrictions on the relationship between tobacco products and loyalty schemes.

However, the Foodland group (which was one of the groups most impacted upon by the changes to government regulations stipulating the way in which their tickets are displayed) is quite irritated. Some months ago the government changed the laws and came up with some options which I think are somewhat pedantic. Originally it intended to go down the path of insisting on a standardised font, which was Times New Roman. What evidence the government has that a standardised font and all the colour of the tickets must be identical (that is, white) is beyond me.

I will put that on the record as a question about which I will seek from the government a response concerning any evidence that that will make a difference to the uptake of smoking among minors. In doing so, I would require some sort of solid research, not something involving a Mickey Mouse study or some bright idea that someone had at 3 o'clock in the morning. Quite frankly, these things do have an impact on organisations. While it is all very well for the government to say, 'We are changing the way that tobacco products can be displayed,' and so forth, it is not contributing anything towards the cost of implementing those changes.

That change I just referred to was borne largely by the Foodland supermarket chain, which is largely independent, with a number of family owned supermarkets, and that has been at some expense. They were notified several months ago, and I believe the effect of those regulations came in on 1 November.

I wrote to the minister on that issue, and I am grateful for her response. There was another round of consultation with retailers, in particular between August and September, and I believe that the issue that is before us was also consulted on. I will put this as a formal question: I would also like the minister to list by name each of the organisations which provided a response to that consultation and what its concerns were.

I would expect that particularly the Foodland group would say to the government exactly what it hast said to us, which is that this new round will cause it some considerable expense. If it had been done as one package of 'reforms' it may have been a little easier for it, but for the government to continually drop in these bills which in reality cost a lot for retailers but do not have much impact on smoking rates I think is most unfair.

I turn to the matter at hand in the bill, and I will read into the record the response I had from Foodland. This is from Mr Russell Markham, who is the Chief Executive of the Foodland group. He writes:

I respond on behalf of The Foodland group in South Australia to the changes that the State Government currently proposes to the Tobacco Products Regulation Bill 2007. All Foodland stores are independently owned and operated, and we currently have 98 supermarkets trading in metropolitan and regional South Australia. We are a diverse group resulting in our stores using up to eight different types of checkout software systems at the point of purchase. Approximately 70% of our retailers are involved in a form of loyalty program which usually gives a saving on fuel purchases. Should loyalty systems on tobacco be banned our software systems will require reprogramming or even replacement at the retailers cost.

There is no easy way to complete reprogramming as a group and it therefore becomes a store level issue which is a considerable inconvenience to the retailer. Register dockets will be required to print more information to separate these items from the standard grocery bill. Dockets would be longer and as an aside we would use more paper rolls in our registers. It is estimated that conversion to a new system would cost an average of $36,000 per store which is additional expense carried by the retailer to implement another government initiative. We are currently converting our cigarette display areas now to comply with the last changes by the minister. This new proposal would necessitate the changing of existing point of sale signage referring to loyalty schemes, again additional expense involving printing new internal posters and employing sign writers to repaint the exterior signage on our buildings.

Then he poses a question which I will ask the minister to formally respond to as well:

Is the government proposed to contribute some or all of this additional cost?

If so, how much? I suspect the answer will be 'zero'. He continues:

In regards to vending machines, we do support the proposed legislation to restrict access. It is hypocritical to push regulations and fines on our retailers and at the same time allow unlimited access on vending machines to minors.

I think he does not quite understand that that is not actually the case at the moment anyway. He continues:

As you are aware we can be severely fined for supplying cigarettes to minors in our stores. In conclusion if cigarettes are a major health issue then they should be totally banned.

That is a view shared by a lot of people who are frustrated with continual tinkering with tobacco legislation. The letter continues:

The ongoing amendments to the tobacco laws inconvenience supermarket retailers and we believe do not address the core issue of the addiction. We note that there have been minimal disruptions to the dedicated retailers such as Smoke mart in the new legislation. I am personally a non smoker and do not support the habit of smoking but it is still my view that the banning of loyalty schemes will not reduce the number of current and potential smokers. It is not the primary reason why a smoker purchases their product—

which I strongly agree with—

and they will adjust their method of purchasing to any new restriction. I hope you understand the position of the Foodland group in regards to these changes and we will continue to closely monitor the progress of this bill in the coming weeks.

I note that the Hon. Sandra Kanck has filed some amendments to this bill. I intend to speak later on her particular measures in private members' business but will briefly say that we will be supporting the Hon. Sandra Kanck's amendments, which I understand are identical to the bill that she also proposes as a private member, and I will outline my reasons for that in that speech.

As a non-smoker and someone who loathes cigarette smoke, abhors the sight of young people smoking and knows what they are going to regret perhaps 20 or 30 years down the track, I believe that we should do everything we can to prevent youth smoking but, quite frankly, this measure is a complete nonsense, and we will not be supporting this bill.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (11:58): South Australians, along with other Australians, are facing the effects of increased living costs such as mortgage repayments and high petrol and grocery prices. ABS data shows that living costs for working families increased by 3.1 per cent over the past 12 months. That is one percentage point higher than the growth in general inflation. Over the past five years living expenses have increased by 18 per cent, leaving little wonder why people are going to such lengths to save money in every possible manner. Motorists have easily embraced the concept of the discount fuel voucher available through various supermarket chains.

In 2005 it was estimated that up to one million motorists used fuel vouchers at service stations across the country. I can only imagine that this figure would have increased considerably since then. I am greatly concerned about the high cost of living facing Australians; however, I am disappointed that our current laws encourage the purchase of tobacco through supermarket outlets by rewarding customers with discount fuel vouchers. The cost of living is an issue that desperately needs to be addressed by our federal colleagues. Importantly, our laws must be altered to prevent a person benefiting through the current reward scheme when buying tobacco products.

The current scheme, which allows this to occur, could encourage greater consumption of tobacco products as some customers may be encouraged to spend more on bulk tobacco products in order to reach the required amount for a reward. The current laws are sending the wrong message to smokers, particularly young smokers: smoke tobacco and your local supermarket will reward you with discounted fuel. Many initiatives have been taken by this government to curb the staggering effects of smoking, and it is vital that we continue to fight—

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Your attitude is you will do everything, as long as it does not cost Foodland any money. It is a case of: we will stop kids smoking, but let us make sure Foodland does not foot the bill.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Mr President, can you give me some protection against this outrageous attack?

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Many initiatives have been taken by this government to curb the staggering effects of smoking, and it is vital that we continue the fight against this addiction by taking action on this matter. Each week around 30 South Australians die from disease caused by smoking tobacco. Our primary objective must be to improve the health of all South Australians, and this cannot occur if we allow supermarkets to reward customers for buying tobacco products. That is why this bill seeks to amend the current Tobacco Products Regulation Act. The bill will ban tobacco products from counting towards the accumulation of points or any other reward, discount or benefit associated with customer loyalty or reward schemes. Closing the current loophole will send a clear message to retailers and customers that tobacco smoking is not worthy of any form of reward.

The bill also aims to prevent the impulse buying of this highly addictive drug by ensuring that cigarette vending machines, irrespective of their location, can only be operated through staff intervention—by a token or remote control activation or similar means. The introduction of this amendment will make it difficult for a minor to buy tobacco through this source. Around 75 per cent of all smokers start smoking daily before they turn 20, which highlights why we must discourage the uptake of smoking at all levels of sale and ensure that tobacco products are not really accessible to young people. These new reforms, if successful, will be introduced on 1 June 2008, which will give retail outlets time to adapt to these proposed changes. Tobacco causes more ill health and premature death in Australia than any other drug. Smoking-related disease contributes significantly to the total disease burden in Australia, ranging from heart disease to lung cancer.

Not only is the list of health implications from smoking extensive for an individual but it also causes large financial burdens on our health systems. Results from a study published by the Medical Journal of Australia predict that a 1 per cent drop in smoking prevalence could save around $20.4 million in health costs. Tobacco smoking does and will continue to affect all South Australians, either financially or through health implications. With continuing support of members of both houses, we will be able to restrict and reduce the harm smoking has on our community. Smoking results in the senseless loss of 1,200 South Australians every year. I support the bill, as its primary objective is to improve the health of all South Australians, particularly the young.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON (12:05): I had not intended to speak on this matter, but the Hon. Russell Wortley's gratuitous comments prompted me to rise to make a brief contribution. I commend the Hon. Michelle Lensink for her second reading contribution. She has highlighted the fact that this measure is not supported, ostensibly, by any form of research or empirical data. Personally, I am deeply sceptical of measures of this kind. The government has produced this bill, and we hear the Hon. Russell Wortley delivering a diatribe against smoking. I agree, as would everybody, with the proposition that smoking is a health hazard, that it is a cost to the Australian community, to the individuals who smoke and to those who have to inhale the smoke of others, which is considerable.

Measures of this kind, which are designed to harass members of the community who are minded to smoke and have the effect of also providing impediments to the way in which people carry on lawful business, are to be deprecated. If measures of this kind are supported by evidence that shows that the introduction of these measures will lead to a reduction in the level of smoking in the community, or will dissuade persons who are minded to take up smoking from doing so, let us see the evidence. Let us see the research that has been undertaken. Let us see whether that research has been validated by experience, whether there have been trials and the like that demonstrate the need for a provision requiring a vending machine to be operated by a staff member of, for example, a hotel. Let us see the evidence.

Too often in this area we find hypocrisy on the part of government. If the government was serious about reducing the level of smoking in the community, why do we not see real restrictions, for example, banning smoking of the substance? Here we have a product that it is legal to use in Australia, that is heavily taxed (and governments are the beneficiary of that taxation), yet on the other hand, whilst benefiting from the collection of taxation, they talk about health messages and the like but are not prepared to ban or restrict. The government is more interested in harassing businesses and smokers.

The Hon. R.P. Wortley interjecting:

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: The Hon. Russell Wortley says, 'Let's protect our kids.' What sort of easy, shallow, and empty rhetoric is that? Let him and the minister produce the evidence that shows that this measure will be effective.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Minister Assisting the Minister for Health) (12:09): I thank all honourable members for their valuable contributions to this debate. It is an important piece of legislation that we believe will make an important contribution in our fight to reduce smoking in our community. We know that smoking has a significant adverse impact on our health and costs the community a considerable amount of income, not to mention the impact that it has on families. Again, I thank members for their contributions and look forward to the matter being dealt with expeditiously through the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: Mr President, I draw your attention to the state of the council.

A quorum having been formed:

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