Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. What action has the government taken to remove glamour from cigarettes and reduce the influence of tobacco companies? What reaction has there been and what is the government's response?

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Banks for his question. I am very proud to say that today I introduced into the parliament the world's first legislation for the plain packaging of tobacco products. This legislation means that all tobacco products sold in Australia will, in the future, have no industry logos, no brand imagery, no colours and no promotional text. They will just be in a drab, dark brown pack with health warnings that will cover 75 per cent of the front of the pack and 90 per cent of the back of the pack. Those who manufacture, sell or distribute tobacco products could face fines of over a million dollars if they breach this legislation. I am pleased to say that at last the Leader of the Opposition—although he has been dragged kicking and screa­ming—has indicated that the Liberal Party will support this measure, which I hope will be followed through on. However, I did notice last night in the House that the member for Mitchell put on the record his opposition to these measures. He outed himself as one of the supporters of tobacco in the Liberal Party room. He said that plain packaging was 'an example of ill thought-out proposals put forward by government committees' and that this was 'a ridiculous form of nanny state legislative response to ordinary, everyday problems'.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! There is still a general warning. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, the opposition understands there is a general warning and therefore is operating in an environment of listening to the minister's response. But I ask you, Mr Speaker: what is going to stop this kind of slagging and bagging of members of the opposition, which only invites a response from the opposition?

Mr Albanese interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House will resume his seat. First of all, I invite the Manager of Opposition Business to withdraw a remark that has got a lot of response from within and outside the chamber. I have been charitable enough to indicate that I do not believe that the perception is correct, but I cannot propose that to be the intention. So I would ask the manager to withdraw that remark.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, if there is any offence taken to a currency that that remark has had attached to it, I withdraw it. But I still make the serious point about the minister's attack on members of the opposition, notwithstanding the general warning.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I will respond to that. That was the second point. I am thankful that you have made the admission that, because of the new environment just for this question time, people are listening—

Mr Pyne interjecting—

I take that in the spirit that it was offered. I have indicated that the complication for any occupant of the chair is to allow debate either way. You know that I have perhaps been easier than I should have been about debate within the questions. When you look at the standing orders—and this is my reading of them—if debate is directly relevant, it is allowable. On this occasion, I would say to the minister that she should relate her material in a directly relevant manner in her response. I would not want to be a member of the commentariat who indicated that I did not think it was relevant to mention the member for Mitchell in a question that talked about glamour, but I think we do know that there has to be a confinement in the response to its direct relevance.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think perhaps amongst the hubbub people did not understand that I am actually quoting from a speech that the member for Mitchell gave last night in opposition to the plain packaging legislation that has been introduced in the parliament today—the very question that I have been asked. What the member for Mitchell said was that he did not think this sort of legislation was a decent response to 'ordinary, everyday problems'. The reason I quote this is that I take issue with the inference that it is ordinary, everyday Australians who are the ones who are not being harmed; in fact, 15,000 Australians each and every year who still die from tobacco related illnesses. If that number was distributed, the member for Mitchell, like every member in this House, would see on average 100 people die every year in his electorate because of tobacco related illnesses. I think that is an everyday problem that ordinary Australians do face and it is why we are taking action on plain packaging.

Opposition members interjecting—

The interjections we hear from those opposite just show that they are still reluctant converts. And we know why they are reluctant converts, because they are receiving thousands and thousands of dollars in donations all the time and they are embarrassed about it. The member for Goldstein, the member for Indi, the member for Sturt are all receiving thousands of dollars in donations still, and that is why they are so reluctant to support this legislation.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will resume her seat. And the minister has concluded?

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given the circumstances of the House that you have insisted upon since the beginning of question time, which is entirely within your power to do so as the Speaker, how is it in order for the minister to deliver that diatribe and then simply say she has concluded her answer and face absolutely no admonition?

Ms Roxon interjecting—

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! One would have noticed that many people either in the chamber or in the galleries—I do not know what is going out on the air—probably did not hear the conclusion of the answer because I allowed, even though there was a general warning, a response that, having been here for 25 years, I understood the answer would get. I indicate that the question about whether the minister had concluded was to ascertain whether it had to be brought to a conclusion by the chair. You can scratch it on a barrel that I sat a minister down; I do not really mind. I am again indicating that, whilst it might be considered by some to be over the top and it might be considered debate over and above what one would expect in response, once debate is allowed in the responses this is what is going to happen. I have been saying this, I now realise, for many years, even before I was the Speaker. I think that the problem we have not got our heads around is that if you want to have question and answer, have a question and have an answer; do not have debate entwined in it and do not have things being done to get 10-second grabs for other purposes. The member for Forrest has the call, and I expect that the whole chamber will take note, as has been described, of the circumstances that we find ourselves in.