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

First of all, I congratulate the member for Kingston for bringing this private member's motion to this place. I think most of us know about the health impacts of smoking and passive smoking. We have heard for years all the findings and all the results so I do not think we need to review the science on this topic. I hope that, at least here, people are prepared to accept what scientists have put forward over many years—even if people feel a need to doubt the outcomes of scientific research in other areas of human inquiry. So I propose not to review the proposition that smoking is harmful.

The motion before us states there is significant evidence of the effects of tobacco packaging. A not insubstantial number of references are listed in the Cancer Council Victoria's publication of May 2011 entitled Plain packaging of tobacco products: a review of the evidence. The publication is available online at cancer.org.au. This publication cited the 1995 Canadian review of the role of tobacco packaging entitled When packages can't speak: possible impacts of plain and generic packaging of tobacco products. This review's conclusion pretty much sets the scene for all subsequent papers. I quote:

Plain and generic packaging of tobacco products, through its impact on image formation and retention, recall and recognition, knowledge, and consumer attitudes and perceived utilities, would likely depress the incidence of smoking uptake by non-smoking teens, and increase the incidence of smoking cessation by teen and adult smokers.

Since then, Canada has produced at least half a dozen papers: 'Plain packaging and other tobacco issues: a survey of grade 7 and grade 9 Ontario students',Institute for Social Research Newsletter, 1995; 'Impact of plain packaging of tobacco on youth perceptions and behaviour, Report of study 1', Health Management Associates, 1993; 'A study on youth smoking: plain packaging, health warnings, event marketing and price reductions', University of Toronto, 1995; 'The effect of plain packaging on response to health warnings', American Journal of Public Health; 1999; 'The impact of cigarette package design on perceptions of risk', Journal of Public Health, 2009; and a very important one, 'Deadly in pink: the impact of cigarette packaging among young women', Tobacco Control, 2011.

Australian researchers have published: 'Smokers' and non-smokers' reactions to standard packaging of cigarettes', University of Western Australia, 1993; 'How does increasingly plainer cigarette packaging influence adult smokers' perceptions about brand image? An experimental study', Tobacco Control, 2008; and the list goes on. 'Adolescents' perceptions of cigarette brand image: does plain packaging make a difference?' Journal of Adolescent Health, 2009; and 'Effects of increasing size of health warnings on plain vs branded packs', Society for Research in Nicotine and Tobacco 17th Annual Meeting, Toronto, 2011. And New Zealand published 'Effects of dissuasive packaging on young adult smokers', Tobacco Control, 2010.

In my own literature search, I happened to find: 'Effects of dissuasive packaging on young adult smokers', by Hoek et al, October 2010, which concluded:

Plain packs that feature large graphic health warnings are significantly more likely to promote cessation among young adult smokers than fully or partially branded packs. The findings support the introduction of plain packaging and suggest use of unbranded package space to feature larger health warnings would further promote cessation.

The research is substantial. We have seen research that has been done for well over a decade on this particular issue. There is no escaping the reality that packaging itself positively markets tobacco, and that this marketing also detracts from our health warnings on that packaging.

Australians want neither pro-tobacco marketing nor nobbled health warnings. I note that even the opposition now, only now, agrees with us. I have had a number of constituents contact me as instructed by Big Tobacco, campaigning against the government's policy of plain packaging. Most have been fearful of the measure, but have not really been able to explain why. Other constituents support the policy. One wrote on 29 June:

The tobacco companies are asking us to contact our MPs regarding plain packets on tobacco. Anything the Government of any colour does to annoy and do down the tobacco lobby is OK with me, so go ahead.

I commend the motion to the House. (Time expired)

See this speech in context