Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing, I present the committee's report entitled Advisory report on the Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011 and the Trade Marks Amendment (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Bill 2011, together with the minutes of proceedings. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with this report.

Leave granted.

The bills were referred to the committee by the selection committee on 7 July 2011. At the outset, I wish to comment briefly on the decision by the House of Representatives Selection Committee to refer these bills to the Health and Ageing Committee. While the referral provided an opportunity to consider the potential health impacts of the legislation in detail, the committee is aware that much of the debate surrounding these bills relates to economic or legal issues and their impact on the tobacco industry. While these issues have been briefly noted in the report, the committee considers them to be beyond its remit. It is for this reason that commentary in this report is largely confined to the health related aspects of the proposed legislation and the impacts on health that this bill would have.

I understand that the Trade Marks Amendment (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Bill 2011 was last week referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. The Senate committee has been asked to inquire into the constitutionality of the provisions of the bill. This process will provide an avenue for those who wanted more detailed consideration of this aspect of the proposed legislation.

However, I am speaking today in my capacity as Chair of the Health and Ageing Committee. I have been pleased to have the opportunity to consider the health impacts of this legislation with my committee members and, clearly, the main objective of the proposed tobacco plain packaging legislation is to reduce the harmful effects of tobacco by lowering tobacco use through reducing the appeal of tobacco products and increasing the impact of the graphic health warnings on packaging.

The effect of the provisions set out in the Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011 will be to make it an offence to sell, supply, purchase, package or manufacture tobacco products or packaging for retail sale that are not compliant with plain packaging requirements. These offences will apply to manufacturers, packagers, wholesalers, distributors and retailers of tobacco products in Australia who fail to comply with the plain packaging requirements.

The main objectives of the accompanying trademark amendment bill is to ensure that applicants for trademark registration and registered owners of trademarks are not disadvantaged by the practical operation of the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act. With a specific focus on the health related aspects of the proposed legislation, the main issue considered by the Health and Ageing Committee was whether there is sufficient evidence to indicate that tobacco plain packaging will improve health outcomes by reducing tobacco use. Overwhelmingly, public health advocates and preventative health experts expressed the view that the evidence to support plain packaging as an effective tobacco control measure is sufficiently robust to proceed. Although it is not a silver bullet, tobacco plain packaging emerged as one measure with the potential to contribute to a suite of tobacco control measures that are already in place, such as increased excise, indoor and outdoor smoking bans, increased access to nicotine replacement therapies and continued education about the harmful effects of tobacco. Over the last two decades, Australia has made significant progress in reducing tobacco use, and I quote from a recent OECD report which makes the following observation:

Australia provides an example of a country that has achieved remarkable progress in reducing tobacco consumption, cutting by half the percentage of adults who smoke daily …

So already, Australia has shown itself to be a world leader in tobacco control.

However, this is not the time to become complacent. Rather, Australia should continue to innovate, to maintain momentum and to decrease tobacco use further. Reducing tobacco use would not only save many thousands from unnecessary suffering and premature death but would also lessen the social and economic burden of smoking, which is estimated to cost the nation somewhere in the region of $30 billion each year. By supporting passage of the proposed legislation, the committee believes that Australia will once again be in a position to take the lead in the implementation of progressive tobacco control measures—a role it has willingly taken in the past. And it is with a focus on the beneficial health outcomes for Australians that I conclude by providing my complete support for the proposed tobacco plain packaging legislation. I commend the committee's report to the House.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I rise to speak on the report on the Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011 and the Trade Marks Amendment (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Bill 2011. I also congratulate the chairman of the committee who has just made his statement on the report. The report makes two recommendations. The first is:

Recommendation 1

The Committee recommends that the House of Representatives pass the Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011.

The purpose of the Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011 is to improve health outcomes for Australians by reducing the use of and exposure to tobacco products by removing one of the last forms of tobacco advertising. As outlined in the explanatory memorandum, the bill will make it an offence to sell, supply, purchase, package or manufacture tobacco products or packaging for retail sale that are not compliant with plain packaging requirements. As the Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011 includes restrictions on the use of trademarks on tobacco products and the retail packaging of those products, the Trade Marks Amendment (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Bill 2011 was introduced on the same date to complement the main bill. In her second reading speech, the Minister for Health and Ageing explained:

This bill amends the Trade Marks Act to allow regulations to be made in relation to the operation of the Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011. The objective of any such regulations would be to ensure that the practical operation of the Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011 does not prevent businesses from registering new trademarks, or from protecting registered trademarks against infringement.

Recommendation 2 was that the House of Representatives pass the Trade Marks Amendment (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Bill 2011. On 7 July 2011 the House of Representatives Selection Committee referred both bills to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing for inquiry.

Prior to introducing tobacco plain-packaging legislation the Australian government committed to consult broadly. The consultation process was administered by the Department of Health and Ageing. During the consultation DoHA met with representatives of the tobacco industry on a number of occasions to discuss issues of concern. DoHA also met with a number of retail organisations, including the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, the Australian newsagents association, Master Grocers Australia, the Service Station Owners' Association, the Tobacco Station Group, the National Independent Retailers Association and the two major supermarket chains: Coles and Woolworths. There are many small businesses and business associations who felt that the consultation process was poor and that they did not have enough time or opportunity to present or submit to this inquiry or to DoHA. The outcome of the DoHA consultation was described as follows:

There was strong support for the Bill amongst the public health and non-government organisations …

Some submissions opposing the Bill claimed a perceived inadequacy of evidence to justify the plain packaging measure; a potential for detrimental impact on the tobacco industry and retailers; and the potential for the Bill to be in breach of national trade mark and intellectual property rights as well as international law obligations.

Several submitters who did not support the introduction of plain packaging believed that there would be no health benefits at all. Some claimed that it would have unintended health consequences, leading to an increase in smoking or an increase in medical problems, due to the consumption of illegal and unregulated tobacco products. Some submitters also suggested that plain packaging would make it easier for tobacco products to be counterfeited and that increasing cigarette prices would be a more effective mechanism to reduce the smoking rate. It was also argued that plain packaging would force manufacturers to compete on price rather than brand, with the unintended consequence of reducing the price of tobacco products. The report also quotes those against the bills as saying:

Moreover, in promoting the plain-packaging proposal, the Consultation Paper fails to look at its impact on prices of tobacco products. Price is regarded as the single-most-important determinant of smoking behaviour, with higher prices leading to substantial reductions in smoking rates. By removing the only non-price factor that brands can use to inform customers and to compete, the only remaining form of competition will be price. Lower prices have long been shown to increase smoking rates. While Australia has significant taxes on tobacco, there are still substantial price differentials between branded and generic cigarettes in Australia's market. By removing trademarks and all other brand imagery and information from the packs, price competition is expected to intensify, which would likely increase tobacco consumption, especially by youth.

In sum, Australia's health justification for plain packaging is not supported by actual evidence and seems more likely to cause an increase in smoking rates, not a reduction.

The committee then went on to ask the representatives from DoHA whether the department was satisfied that sufficient evidence had been established to support plain packaging. It was informed by DoHA:

We absolutely have sufficient public health evidence to go forward with this legislation. This is as good a set of public health evidence as you get for preventative health measures.

The coalition support these bills going forward, but may not always agree with the process on the consultation that was taken during the committee inquiry as well. We would like to say that we do support this and that we will not oppose these bills.