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

I move:

That the requested amendments be agreed to.

As the House would be aware, the government is committed to reducing the national smoking rate to 10 per cent of the population by 2018 and to halving the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smoking rate. This bill is a crucial step in the government's antismoking action, which includes a 25 per cent excise increase which was announced in April 2010, record investment in antismoking social marketing campaigns, legislation to restrict advertising of tobacco products on the internet, listing of nicotine replacement therapies on the PBS and investments in Indigenous tobacco control.

The Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill introduced plain packaging, which will remove one of the last remaining forms of tobacco advertising. It will restrict the use of tobacco industry logos, brand imagery, colours and promotional text on tobacco products and their retail packaging.

I am pleased about, and want to acknowledge, the support of the Liberal opposition for this legislation, both here and in the Senate. The bill was passed by the House of Representatives with the accompanying Trade Marks Amendment (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Bill on 21 August, and passed with amendments in the Senate on 10 November.

The government's amendments to the original bill supported in the Senate ensure that there will be sufficient time for the industry to comply before the penalty provisions commence. This followed, of course, the delays in considering the bill in the Senate and intense discussion from the industry asserting that they would not be able to meet the initial time lines in the bill.

The bill, as it currently stands, does not alter the approach to plain packaging of tobacco products but the bill does change the dates following the amendments from the Senate. The bill now proposes that most of the preliminary provisions that previously commenced on 1 January 2012 will now commence on royal assent. The offences relating to prohibition of manufacture of noncompliant product in Australia will now commence on 1 October 2012, and the remaining offences relating to the retail sale of noncompliant product will now commence on 1 December 2012.

In addition, the commencement clauses 17 to 27 are in line with the commencement of the manufacturing offences on 1 October 2012. This is intended to make clear that these provisions have no legal effect independent of the offences in chapter 3 and the enforcement provisions in chapter 5 of the bill. This is supported by the new provision at clause 27A to state that sections 18 to 27 have no legal effect other than to specify requirements, and permit regulations that specify requirements, to be made for the purposes of the definition of 'tobacco product requirement' in the bill.

Finally, paragraph 18(3)(c) addresses a technical implementation issue. It will allow the use of rounded corners on the inside lip to avoid the need for a change to this part of the manufacturing process, which would be difficult to achieve within the proposed implementation time frames.

I am very proud that this legislation has received the support of this House and the Senate. I hope that the Liberal opposition, as they have indicated, will support this change. It means that Australia, next year, will be the first country in the world to introduce plain packaging legislation. Australia, again, will be leading the way, as it has for many decades, in taking tobacco control measures to the next step. I commend this bill, with its amendments, to the House.

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Primary Healthcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising to speak on the amendments to the Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011, I would like to thank the minister for acknowledging the support of the opposition for the principal plain packaging bill. We did support that bill in the House of Representatives and we supported it in the Senate. I also want to indicate that the opposition will be supporting the government's amendments to their own bill.

The most important of the three amendments deals with the time lines. I would like to spend some time addressing, specifically, the time lines. It was in June 2009 that the Preventative Health Taskforce, in a draft report, first recommended moving to the plain packaging of tobacco. And that was reconfirmed in their final report of September 2009. In April 2010, the government announced that they would implement plan packaging from 1 July 2012. The draft plan packaging legislation was released for consultation on 7 April 2011, and the House first saw the final bill when it was introduced into the House of Representatives on 6 July 2011. That bill was passed by the House on 24 August 2011. It was brought on for debate in the Senate for the first time on 11 October 2011, and that debate was adjourned by the government. It was finally passed and the debate concluded in the Senate on 10 November 2011.

At all times in this process, the opposition has been in the hands of the government. The government have set the time of the release of their draft legislation and the timing of the introduction of the bill: the timing of when it was brought on in the House and the timing of when it was brought on in the Senate. I notice that the minister, in October and November, blamed the opposition for delaying the passage of the bill. A press release of 12 October 2011 from the minister's office states:

… delaying tactics by the Opposition have ensured that the legislation won’t pass this week and again call into question their commitment to this landmark public health reform.

In the same press release, the minister herself said:

Given the delays in passing the Bill caused by the Opposition, the Government now has no choice but to reconsider the impact on implementation timeframes.

Subsequently, the minister made an announcement that the time frame for implementation of the bill would be delayed by five months.

The House and the Senate have spent a matter of hours debating this legislation, so there has been no delay. There has certainly been no delay caused by the opposition, because, at every point in time in the scheduling of this bill, the opposition has been in the hands of the government. It is clear that the original time frames were not realistic at the time that the plain packaging bills were introduced. If we consider the introduction of the GST—the A New Tax System—we realise that that legislation was in place more than 12 months before its implementation, and, although that was a much bigger reform, it is clear that a reasonable time for small businesses to comply with new legislation is something in the order of 12 months. The problem with this bill is that in April 2010 the government made the announcement that plain packaging would come in more than two years later, but there was a 12-month delay before anyone saw the draft bill. That is where the principal delay has occurred. The minister has repeatedly said that the delay in implementation of the bill was caused by the coalition's stalling tactics in the Senate. On behalf of the opposition, I reject and repudiate that.

I take the opportunity now to remind the minister of some comments she made on 24 August about the implementation of a neutral track-and-trace regime. The opposition now offers the implementation of such a regime as a suggestion—as just one element in combating illicit tobacco—in the context of tobacco control. It is done in a number of jurisdictions such as California, Massachusetts and Canada, all of which, like Australia, have excellent reputations in the area of tobacco control.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the comments of my colleague Dr Southcott, the member for Boothby. In his remarks, he touched on the consideration being afforded to businesses, particularly smaller businesses, in the transitional arrangements in the Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill. As Dr Southcott outlined, the coalition have at times been portrayed as not being as supportive, as we in fact have been, of the measures in this bill, and that is unfortunate. However, the particular concern which has exercised my mind is the way that small retailers are so often caught at the pointy end of changes such as those that will result from this bill. If we look at a range of earlier measures—for example, the graphic health warnings introduced at the retail level on 1 March 2006 and the reduced fire risk cigarettes which were phased in from 23 March 2006—and at the available lead-in periods of four and six months respectively, we see that the small business community was able to make the required transitions during its nonpeak periods. But the revised date for the implementation of the new arrangements in this bill creates quite a narrow window in which the manufacturers, and in turn the retailers, must comply with the new arrangements. In fact, the revised date is 1 December, which is right in the middle of the peak period for many retailers.

We are not of a mind to amend the bill—it has had a rather interesting journey thus far—but we are very concerned about the narrow window of time and that it will fall in a peak period for many small retailers. I urge the minister to reassure the opposition and the small retailers that there will be a collaborative and facilitative approach to the transition period rather than a punitive and strict compliance regime. I ask this in good faith and in the spirit in which the opposition have been supportive of what the government has been doing on plain packaging. Also, in consideration of the very real life workplace responsibilities that smaller retailers would face at the coalface, I ask the minister to consider a moratorium of prosecution during the first three months of the transitional period. That is not to say that the minister's enforcement activities would be completely truncated but rather to remind her that, where an inadvertent error may have been identified, the risk of a very heavy $220,000 fine would bankrupt most small retailers.

There is an opportunity to be supportive and collaborative in this transition period. There is an opportunity to facilitate the handling of inappropriate stock and its return. There is an opportunity to realise that the time around 1 December is a Christmas and summer peak period for retailers, with much on their plate, and that this is a difficult and unprecedented time to ask them to make a transition of the kind demanded by this bill, especially given that they are faced with a very heavy penalty if they get it wrong. I ask the minister to consider making a declaration or providing this House with some reassurance that the real-life challenges which small business retailers are facing are understood by the government and that, where an error is identified, guidance, coaching and facilitation will be the order of the day for the first three-month period. Frankly, Minister, small retailers are absolutely terrified. They have been subjected to local councils sending in people who are probably a good foot taller than me and who might well be a third of my age!

Mrs Elliot interjecting—

I know that is hard to imagine, Ma'am! The small retailers are at the pointy end of so many of these changes, whether it be the display bans—which, to bring about, small business incur another cost—or even the penalties they face for inadvertently selling to an under-age person, where the under-age person gets away scot-free. In a small corner store, half-a-dozen large adolescent males urging a shopkeeper to sell them tobacco can be quite intimidating. The small retailers are at the pointy end to begin with and, with these changes, they are again at the pointy end again, during a peak time in their business. There is no time during the year when their prospects to make a profit are as bright as over the Christmas-New Year period. To contend with this change and the risk of a penalty at this time is quite terrifying.

So, rather than reopening the bill, I see the way forward being a moratorium for the first three months on prosecution and on those stiff penalties. I am very hopeful that the minister will be able to give that reassurance and give some encouragement to the small businesses at the pointy end of yet another change in this space. (Time expired)

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising to speak on the motion, I want to reiterate the issues that have largely been addressed by the member for Dunkley and also by the member for Boothby beforehand. Proposed section 31(2) of the Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011 is of concern. That is where a retailer who contravened the act and sold non-compliant products would be liable for a penalty of up to $220,000. That would kick in from 1 December 2012. The member for Dunkley certainly put it very aptly: December is the busiest month for most small retailers and a time when stock management is particularly difficult. The fact that we have a short window of time between when the manufacturers of these products start supplying retailers with compliant product and when they have to stock the shelves with it means that you are going to have retailers who are out of pocket. They are going to have considerable amounts of unsold non-compliant product.

Mix-ups do happen, particularly with smaller shops, where younger people and perhaps people for whom English is not the first language often work, and mistakes are easily made. If you have a whole heap of non-compliant stock sitting there that is yet to be returned to the manufacturer, the question is whether you can return it and get compensation. I do not know the answer to that, but the fact is that a mistake could be made and non-compliant stock could be sold. It concerns me that a $220,000 fine could be imposed for an accident that, given time, could be completely averted.

If this kicked in on 1 March 2013, it would probably be better for everyone involved, but that would require a further amendment. It would be preferable to me, and obviously to many shopkeepers, to know their exact legal standing. But, if the minister was so kind as to offer a moratorium—as the member for Dunkley has suggested—on fines for small businesses, that would be good. Mistakes may be made during the Christmas rush, with all the day-to-day stuff that small business retailers have to contend with. I really do urge the minister to look at that option. If that was done, these concerns would be addressed.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to start by thanking the shadow parliamentary secretary, Dr Southcott, for his work in this area. I also thank the shadow minister for small business and my other colleagues who have raised legitimate questions for the minister. There are serious concerns at a small business level. These are people who want to do the right thing, who have the right intent, but do not have the great resources of government to introduce what are dramatic changes to the way in which they retail products. I endorse those calls and ask—I am sure the Minister for Health and Ageing will take up the request—that the minister directly respond to what are reasonable suggestions. I think they are a demonstration that the coalition does believe that small business are in a difficult space, and it is not unreasonable in the circumstances to ask the minister to respond accordingly.

I also wanted to touch on two other issues. I know that time is against us at the moment, but I want to say to the minister that the government's attention must redouble in terms of Indigenous smoking rates in this country. People can be optimistic or pessimistic about the Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011 and the measures. My judgment is that, in Indigenous communities, this will have very little impact; nonetheless, it is for government—and for the opposition, in a constructive way, to support government—to introduce changes which will have tangible and positive outcomes for people living in Indigenous communities, particularly young people living in Indigenous communities, as well as young people living across the country.

The take-up rate is still too high, although much of the work that we did when we were in government and that Tony Abbott did when he was health minister has resulted in positive outcomes, downward trends, that have put us in a position that the world is enviable of. But we need to make sure that as a country we continue to put in place mechanisms which will have positive outcomes in those particular hot spots of tobacco use. A significant cultural change needs to take place. It will provide government with ongoing difficulties—there is no question about that. It will provide government with resourcing questions.

But what we do not need in this space is more health bureaucrats, which is what we have seen in other parts of this health portfolio. I want to make sure that the measures the government puts forward—and the coalition would be happy to support—are practical measures which would go to reducing smoking rates, particularly, as I say, in Indigenous communities. I might close on this note. I do not wish to seek to raise the tempo in this chamber. I think the member for Boothby aptly put the argument before. But the fact is that the coalition has not sought to block or slow down the passage of this legislation in the Senate. I thought it was churlish, I might say, for the minister to put out a press release—I am sure it was done by a junior staffer in her office—to suggest that somehow we were complicit with big tobacco or other companies in slowing down the process. Of course the truth came to the surface when within a matter of days the minister was out making a plea on ABC radio, asking health groups and other informed constituents to lobby her own Senate colleagues to get out of the way, to stop slowing down their own bill and to get on with the passage of the legislation. Eventually the minister came clean. I think that is worth putting on the record, because those sorts of press statements I do not think add to the maturity of this debate. The coalition's position has been made very clear by Dr Southcott and others as part of their contributions.

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to put in a plea for small businesses because, when this legislation was being discussed and it was certainly in the public arena, small businesses accepted the fact that there was a need to take the preventative health measures. However, in this instance I would appreciate the Minister for Health and Ageing looking at a moratorium that would allow small businesses to have that leeway. The genuineness of their concerns have been expressed to me. Certainly, they support the preventative health measures that you have been inspired to put in place. On that basis, Minister, I will cover just that because I am conscious of your time and certainly would appreciate a moratorium.

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

I thank the members who have asked these questions and I know that it is done in good faith. Certainly, after the views that I am sure I have not been the first minister to express about the other place, I did not want to be in a position in which we missed this window of opportunity to be able to pass this legislation today before question time, particularly when the Liberal opposition have made clear that they are keen to be part of this historic day. So I am going to very quickly address the questions that have been raised, noting that they are ones that we are quite comfortable to have ongoing discussion with the opposition about.

I do believe with the new changed time frames that small business not only have the opportunity and notice far in advance now of when these changes come into effect but also the change dates from when a manufacturer can stop producing non-compliant products to when they have to be sold in the retail facility has now increased with this change. It has gone from six weeks to two months. So it does actually mean that the flush-through has a longer period of time. It will require, of course, attention being paid by both the manufacturers and retailers in the ordering practice when you get close to that period of time for the change. But they will have more than 12 months notice that this is coming. I am comfortable to talk more closely with the opposition about any particular proposals they have. I recall from my earlier briefings that there would be problems with a moratorium as such, in that we would probably need a legislative base to do that, which I do not think is being proposed. But I am happy to take that on notice and look into it further.

I understand that the member for Boothby today asked us again to consider these track-and-trace provisions. I think when we were debating the matter in the House previously there was a suggestion that this was already an accepted international practice, when I think the negotiations about the broader international approach that should be taken is still ongoing. We are very conscious that as a government we do not endorse tobacco products. We do not believe that we should be in the business of in any way misleading people that tobacco is safe. We do fear that a number of the track-and-trace provisions would be ones where the government would need to give an imprimatur to a particular product and we would not be interested in pursuing something that might mislead people.

I also very much welcome the member for Dickson's questions about Indigenous smoking—an area in which I also know the member for Hasluck has a keen interest. I do want to urge those opposite, though, to understand that the intensive work being done by our Aboriginal health workers and tobacco workers is very hands-on, very much out in the field, very focused on individual families and communities. I do not think calling those people 'bureaucrats' actually is doing credit to the type of work that they are doing to change practice within the communities. But, again, I think that is a good area where we can continue to work together.

I really thank the House. I think Australians can all be proud that we are leading the world with this measure and I hope that it means that we will see our smoking rates continue to drop.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(Dunkley) (13:42): Minister Roxon, thank you for that open door about the moratorium—or at least a process of facilitation rather than enforcement. We are keen to work with the minister on that, particularly as the enforcement agency arrangements are still a work in progress. We are encouraged by her openness to have that conversation.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Question agreed to.