Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Clauses 57 and 58, page 53 (line 3) to page 56 (line 17), omit the clauses.

(2) Clause 60, page 57 (lines 1 to 16), omit the clause.

(3) Clause 63, page 58 (lines 3 to 11), omit the clause.

(4) Clause 67, page 63 (lines 2 to 30), omit the clause.

These amendments are important to ensure that all the loopholes in relation to this bill are closed. The bill as currently drafted provides for exceptions when it comes to advertising in relation to those points of sale and in relation to advertising on airlines. It's not clear why the government intends to keep these loopholes open at this time. The government has indicated that it wishes to be hard on vaping. We know that the statistics are damning, that vaping is a serious risk to our young people and is leading to increasing rates of smoking amongst young people, which is incredibly concerning.

These amendments, while not dramatic, are nevertheless important in closing those loopholes. Amendment (4) is in relation to clause 67, which is quite extraordinary, I suggest to the House—that the government, whilst claiming to be going strong on vaping, is nonetheless allowing for an exception in this legislation such that sponsorship and political gifts from vape companies should remain allowable. This is directly contrary to the expectations of our communities, parents and young people. If the government feels that vaping is a sufficient health risk to our population that we are restricting the use of nicotine and non-nicotine vapes other than for prescription, then why is it allowing a loophole for donations and gifts to be made to political parties from vaping entities? That is quite extraordinary. I have put to the health minister that really this exception should not be permitted.

The other amendments go essentially to areas of permitted publication where there are loopholes that have been left in the legislation. I urge the government to close those loopholes to ensure that we do not let these vaping companies, which are ultimately extensions of tobacco companies, find the cracks in order to go and market to our young people and ultimately have that negative impact on their health.

Many in my electorate are incredibly concerned, especially parents of teenagers, among whom we know that the growing impact is incredibly concerning. As I mentioned in my previous speech, there are also concerns about the way in which vapes are so directly marketed to young people under the cover of shops that look like lolly shops, through the use of colour, fun marketing and flavours. This is all very insidious marketing to young people. So, all loopholes must be closed when it comes to those marketing and permitted publications. But the most important loophole that must be closed is this exception in relation to political donations and gifts.

Ged Kearney (Cooper, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Warringah for putting her amendments forward. The Australian government is committed to taking strong action to reduce smoking and stamp out vaping, particularly amongst young Australians. While I know that the amendments proposed by Ms Stegall are in line with this intention, they need to be carefully considered to ensure that there are no unintended consequences. The Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 has been carefully designed to introduce broad bans on e-cigarette advertising and sponsorship in line with existing tobacco advertising prohibitions. The exceptions proposed in the bill are narrow in scope and are intended to ensure that the bill is in line with international and constitutional obligations and takes a balanced approach to implementation, compliance and enforcement. The exceptions in clauses 57 and 58 are not intended to allow unfettered advertising of e-cigarettes at physical premises or online. They are intended to allow the Commonwealth to regulate the appearance of such advertisements—for example, price lists—in the limited circumstances in which they are permitted to appear.

Removal of the exceptions would raise practical questions about the extent to which e-cigarettes can be marketed or sold at all. The government has committed to separately introduce new controls on e-cigarette importation, contents and packaging and is currently working to address the black market through the therapeutic goods framework and stronger border measures. Regulation of marketing of e-cigarettes is more appropriately addressed through these reforms.

The exception in clause 60 is a protection for telecommunications and online service providers who are unlikely to have direct knowledge of the publication of advertisements. It does not prevent action being taken against the person who prepares and publishes the advertisement. Removal of this exception would effectively create a proactive responsibility for telecommunications and online service providers to monitor material that is published, raising the advertising prohibition for e-cigarette advertising to a level more consistent with regulation of e-safety, which considers content such as child abuse material and terrorist related activities.

The exception in clause 63 applies only to advertising published on international flights. It does not apply to domestic flights. It's not practical to enforce an offence outside of Australia and its external territories. Unless an advertisement is broadcast on the plane while it is sitting on the tarmac, it would be very difficult to determine that an advertisement published on an international flight occurred within Australia.

The exception in clause 67 was introduced in view of taking a balanced approach to constitutional requirements. Prohibition of political donations and electoral expenditure, which amounts to an e-cigarette sponsorship, would be better addressed explicitly and through broader regulation of political donation than by addressing e-cigarettes in isolation.

Labor has clear commitments to improve transparency and accountability across our electoral system. In June the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters provided its interim report, which supports Labor's proposal for greater transparency and accountability in political donation. The JSCEM has recommended introducing real-time disclosure of political donations and lowering the disclosure threshold to $1,000. If it is supported by the parliament, voters could make their decision at the ballot box with more information about who is backing political candidates, rather than waiting for annual and election returns. The JSCEM's interim report's recommendations include that the Australian government lowers the donation disclosure threshold to $1,000 and introduces real-time disclosure of donations to political parties and candidates and that there are no legislated bans on Australian individuals and organisations that can make political donations to federal candidates and parties. Individuals and parties may choose not to accept donations, and the disclosure threshold amount that applies from 1 July 2023 is more than $16,300 and from July 2022 to June 2023 is more than $15,200. These are the broader political donation provisions that we are making that we believe would be better suited to deal with the sponsorship issue around cigarettes.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a question to the minister. I appreciate where the government is going in terms of political donations, and I support increased transparency and accountability. However, the nature of e-cigarettes in particular means that it goes beyond the transparency and accountability of donations and goes to the heart of whether we should be accepting donations from the providers of e-cigarettes. I'm not aware currently that the Labor Party has made any commitments to this, or the JSCEM review either. I support the amendments moved by the member for Warringah, because I think they would ensure that in this case we don't allow e-cigarettes, which I think we collectively say we really need to stamp out and are a burden on our young people in particular. I don't support that these companies should be able to make political donations, because I think that could compromise our ability to regulate them in the future.

Ged Kearney (Cooper, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the comments, and I hear your concerns, but Labor has a very proud history of political donation reforms. Under Bob Hawke, it was the first to introduce a donations disclosure regime in the 1980s. You may or may not be aware—maybe you are—but, in August 2022, the Special Minister of State asked the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to inquire into and report on all aspects of the conduct of the 2022 federal election, including reforms to political donation laws, particularly the applicability of real-time disclosure and a reduction of the disclosure threshold to a fixed $1,000; potential reforms to the funding of elections, particularly regarding electoral expenditure caps in the public funding of parties and candidates; and the potential for truth-in-political-advertising laws to enhance the integrity and transparency of the electoral system. Whilst I note the member's concern around tobacco particularly, we are confident that those donations will be caught up in that.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

L () (): I thank the minister for her comments and response in relation to the proposed amendments, but I note that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters is silent on sources of donations and where there should be prohibited sources of donations, in particular from sectors that do substantial harm to the health of the Australian people. I note, in that respect, that despite the government's commitments, and while I support the recommendations made by the joint standing committee, they do not address the question of why there should be an exception for political donations or gifts in relation to vaping companies. These are substantially powerful lobby groups—in particular, where the only area for vaping companies left will be with prescriptions, so then we get into the pharmaceutical area.

But we know these products are incredibly pervasive and damaging to the health of Australians—in particular, the health of our young Australians. As such, a tough position from the Albanese government should be to start closing these loopholes. In particular, with a new product on the market such as vapes, it is simply, I would argue, unconscionable to maintain an exception for political donations, which ultimately serve the interests of people in this place, at the expense of the health and wellbeing of Australians. And, as such, it is now the time to close those loopholes. So, while we are considering legislation that now starts to address the scourge of vaping, why would the government have a position that is so contrary to community expectations to go hard on these products and ensure they don't have influence over government decisions when it comes to imposing sanctions? So getting rid of this exception of political donations and electoral expenditure is incredibly important.

We know when it comes to tobacco that the National Party continues to accept donations from big tobacco companies, and clearly this is completely at odds with the health and wellbeing of Australians in their communities. The impacts of tobacco and nicotine on our health are well documented and come at great expense to the overall health and wellbeing of our nation. As such, it is time to close those loopholes, and I urge the government to agree to this amendment and delete clause 67, which provides an exception to political donations and electoral expenditure for vaping.

Ged Kearney (Cooper, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have addressed the issues raised by the member in my previous answers. We are confident that the issues raised will be dealt with elsewhere. We consider this to be incredibly important health legislation, and we just want to get on with passing it. Thank you.

Question unresolved.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As it necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.