David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of the Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2014 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2014. The excise and excise equivalent in customs duty on tobacco will rise as a consequence of this in four staged increases of 12.5 per cent. The first of these has occurred. It will also index the rates of excise and excise equivalent customs duty against average weekly ordinary time earnings rather than CPI. The net effect of these rises over four years will amount to $6.5 billion over the forward estimates. That will include $560 million of GST, which will be payable to the states, which incidentally bear the brunt, directly and indirectly, of running public hospitals. Against the cost of an average pack of 25 cigarettes, the first increase puts the cost up for consumers by $1.86, the second $4.02 and the third $6.56. We should not shrink from these increases in cost to the consumer because it is the government, at least in this country, that bears the responsibility for managing the health of those same consumers either directly or indirectly. If health were the sole responsibility of citizens of this nation, I could see why they would object. But we are all beneficiaries of a wonderful health system that is paid for by the government. So it is well within the remit of any government that is responsible for funding such a scheme to enact measures that will lead to a reduction in the health burden.

To put things in perspective, smoking is the single largest preventable cause of death and disease, both worldwide and here in Australia. We could run through a litany of diseases, though the ones that spring to mind are cancers, and lung cancer in particular. But the end organ damage of the horrible habit of smoking goes well beyond cancer of the lung. Smoking increases the risk of many other cancers: throat cancer, cervical cancer—even bowel cancer has a doubling in the risk if one smokes—along with cancers of the bladder, kidneys and oesophagus. But the things that really lead to major morbidity and death are heart disease—coronary heart disease in particular—and damage to the peripheral arteries of our bodies. One sees people with gangrene of their toes and feet; amputees; people with longstanding and slowly creeping emphysema, where patients slowly suffocate because they smoke the essence of their lungs away; or people spending their life attached to oxygen bottles, or wheezing and coughing their way through winter, interspersed with three or four hospitalisations.

It is not just the smoker who suffers from smoking, unfortunately. Their families suffer. In particular, they suffer from the scourge of passive smoking. Initially that was thought to be drawing a long bow, but now there is overwhelming evidence that passive smoking does cause damage to those who inhale. Imagine young children with two smoking parents in a small house: they would be getting the hazards of smoking from a very early age, particularly if their parents are heavily addicted smokers.

We know that increasing the cost prevents early uptake, and I will mention some figures later for young smokers. Also, if the cost is prohibitive, not only does that reduce the lure of smoking to young teenagers and those even younger, but also it puts a brake on even the most voracious physical addiction because of the sheer cost. So, even though it is an excise and a revenue-raising exercise, which everyone realises, it is a very powerful health improvement vehicle. It is preventive, and it reduces and limits harm. If you halve the amount you smoke, your lung cancer risk reduces, and similarly with other cancers. The greater the volume of nicotine you put between your lips and inhale into your lungs, the greater the risk of emphysema and bronchitis, and the same applies to all those other diseases I have mentioned.

We know that these benefits will occur because we have statistics to back that up. Overall, in 2001, 27.2 per cent of the Australian populace was smoking. With the increase in costs, that has dropped down to 20 per cent. Amongst females, as opposed to overall, a 21 per cent incidence dropped to a 16 per cent incidence. If you look into it in more detail, amongst the more socially disadvantaged the effect is just as great or greater. Amongst Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders, for instance, the overall smoking incidence was 49 per cent. In 15- to 17-year-olds, those who are enticed by the social prop that cigarettes are or by the social acceptance of smoking with their friends would stop and think if the cost were prohibitive. But by the time people are 15 years old up to five per cent of males and one in 10 females are already smoking regularly. Amongst another very vulnerable group of youths, young teenage mothers, the incidence is 35 per cent. Amongst those with chronic mental illness it is about 32 per cent. So, as we can see, the scourge of smoking and the ravages that it causes affects those who are most vulnerable, and also those who will then turn to the health system to salvage their problems later on in life.

So, what is better than solving problems? It is preventing them. An increase in costs will cause some social disharmony amongst those who are unfortunately addicted to smoking and get pleasure from it. I understand that; everyone understands that. But if, as I mentioned earlier, you then turn to the state to fix your problems, when you get your peripheral vascular disease or emphysema or asthma and you want your asthma puffer drugs on the PBS and you want to be able to see the doctor and get your antibiotics to fix up your pneumonia, well, the government is saying: we think this is not a good thing, and if we can add this to the suite of manoeuvres that will reduce this burden on society then well and good.

The cost of smoking does not work alone as a prevention. It is coupled with smoking cessation manoeuvres. One only has to think of the Quitline which we have seen ads for on TV, or nicotine replacement therapies that are also advertised on TV—both of these are funded by the Medicare system. With these increases we expect to see, over the forward estimates, a 60,000 nominal reduction in active smokers. That does not account for people who have reduced the volume of their smoking, which will also add a benefit. And if you look at the cost of Medicare, one or two hospitalisations with this could be $20,000 or $30,000 at least to a public hospital budget.

One thinks of all the presentations to general practitioners with all the various complaints—high blood pressure, chronic heart disease, chronic asthma, chronic bronchitis—and all those visits to oncologists treating not just your lung cancer but your cervical cancer, bowel cancer and bladder cancer, let alone the unsightly ageing effects of smoking. If teenagers were aware of the dermatological impact of smoking on their good looks, they would think twice, but what will make them think twice even sooner is if the cost is $25 as opposed to $20. It sounds hard, but it seems quite logical to me.

When the government brings in costs like this, there will be, undoubtedly, some complaints from people who, as I mentioned, are addicted to it, but we cannot resile from making hard decisions that in the long run will benefit the whole community. I commend these changes to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. They are common sense. They are a financial burden on the addicts, but the addicts will hopefully get a better outcome because they will not be in hospital as much. They will not be buying as many asthma puffers. They will not be taking as many blood pressure pills. They will not have to deal with the stack of cards that can be dealt them when they get a malignant disease. I commend these amendments and the associated legislation to the House because overall the nation will be better off.

See this speech in context