John Alexander (Bennelong, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Semifinals. According to this minister's definitions, that would place me squarely in the pockets of big tobacco. It is an irony not lost on me that this is the very same minister who was found to have accepted hospitality from big tobacco at the Australian Open championships just a few years ago.

As I mentioned earlier, while the coalition is broadly supportive of the intention of this bill, the devil is always in the detail and we have some concerns to which we will be moving an amendment to improve this legislation. This relates to concerns raised by small business during consultations we have had with the industry—concerns that have fallen on the deaf ears of this government. The coalition's amendment to the Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill will allow the use of tobacco companies' trademarks on one of the two smallest outer surfaces of a cigarette carton. This is designed purely to assist in the retailer's ability to effectively manage their stock that often consists of cartons piled high in a storage facility. This trademark or logo will not be added to the individual packets, which is what the consumer purchases, but just to the packaging of the carton that contains a number of packets, usually eight or 10. This is a common sense initiative. It is an improvement to this legislation that cannot be seen in any way to adversely affect public health and it should be supported by this government.

The second bill, the Trade Marks Amendment (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Bill, was first seen by the opposition when it was introduced into this House by the minister on 6 July. Contrary to standard practice, it was not flagged or issued as part of the government's exposure draft or the legislation's consultation paper that was released in April. As a result the coalition has referred this bill to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to consider the specific provisions, to investigate any issues they create and ultimately to consider their constitutionality.

The grave concern we have for this amendment bill is contained in clause 231A, known as a Henry VIII clause—an exceptionally uncommon clause that gives the minister the power to override the legislation that has been agreed by parliament, through a regulation that requires no parliamentary scrutiny. In this particular scenario, a regulation made by the minister could override the Trade Marks Act, going against the basic legal principle that an act trumps regulations. In the past these clauses have only been used when there are no alternatives, and the lack of inquiry or scrutiny into this rushed legislation has certainly not convinced the coalition that this is the case. The trade marks amendment bill is not a necessary piece of legislation for the government to continue to implement its plain packaging agenda, and therefore we will be opposing this particular bill. We do not agree with the minister being legislated to receive the power to alter or remove trademark rights in relation to the government's plain packaging legislation by overriding the Trade Marks Act through regulations.

As I stated at the start of this speech on this very serious issue, both I and the coalition more broadly have a proven track record on the issues of tobacco control and reductions of smoking rates in Australia. Yet the importance of an issue should not be used as an excuse for the rushing through of ineffective and inappropriate legislation that is designed to create a headline rather than to achieve a genuine outcome. The best legislative response on this matter will be one based on consultation with stakeholders, particularly with the retailers and small businesses directly affected, and not on a grab for power so the minister can fix her mistakes later on.

See this speech in context