Sam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

At the outset I just want to say that nobody wants to see Australian children having access to vaping products or becoming addicted to vaping, and I think that's the sentiment across this parliament. So, the debate is: what's the best way to reduce Australian children's access or addiction to vaping or their trying vaping in the first place? That's the debate we're having. It's a little bit like emissions reduction: we all want to see emissions reduction; it's not about 'if' we act; it's about the 'how'. And we should have that debate about the 'how'.

It's clear that the current prescription-only model is failing, with only around 10 per cent of vapers purchasing their product legally through prescriptions. We're very concerned that entrenching this existing failing model will not prevent children from having access to vaping products—it hasn't so far—and will further drive the sale of these products to the black market.

The government has also failed to establish or fund its promised illicit tobacco and vaping commissioner. And the resourcing of enforcement measures at the borders and the point of sale has been grossly insufficient. Critically, the government has failed to explain how their legislation will prevent children from accessing vaping products, how it will not further fuel the black market and how they will adequately fund enforcement measures, both at the border and at the point of sale, and measure the success or failure of the policy.

It would be irresponsible not to demand further investigation into these issues through a Senate committee inquiry before we finalise our position on this legislation. And we will not stand in the way of this legislation passing through the House so that we can thoroughly scrutinise this critical issue in the Senate. And the government's failure to control the illicit vaping market and its failure to protect children against the proliferation of vaping products means that greater scrutiny is absolutely essential.

Now, just to say a bit on the black market, currently the vaping black market is estimated to be worth $1 billion, which is fuelled by the importation of more than 100 million illicit disposable devices each year. We have seen, particularly in Victoria, the consequences of fostering a lucrative black market in tobacco and vaping—a string of fire bombings and other serious crimes that have occurred during a brutal turf war between criminal gangs fighting to control the market.

The latest National Drug Strategy Household Survey found that one in 10 Australians under 18 are current vapers. This represents a fourfold increase since 2019—an unacceptable situation. In Victoria alone the black market for vapes has been valued at up to $500 million. Critically, the government has to explain how this legislation is going to be enforced, how it will prevent children from accessing vaping products and how it will not further fuel the black market.

Now, one of the great contributions to this debate and to this legislation has come from the member for Cowper, and I know it comes from the member through lived experiences and through a desire to achieve what we all want to achieve, which is reducing vaping, amongst children particularly. He makes sense. He criticises the government for failing to control the illicit vaping market and failing to protect children against the proliferation of vaping products that have exploded in availability through a black market driven by organised crime. The member for Cowper is alarmed, as we all are, at the proliferation of vaping amongst young people. The member accepts the reality that a $1 billion black market vape trade exists in Australia, fuelled by the importation of more than 100 million illicit disposable devices each year. And he recognises that the resourcing of enforcement measures at the borders and at the point of sale has been grossly inefficient.

I think the most important thing the member for Cowper brings to the table is that policy measures such as prohibition have historically not worked. Now, it takes humility to admit when your policy wasn't quite right. But it's also necessary for us to look at what we've tried to do with the best of intentions as a parliament and change our approach if the approach isn't working, and that's what the amendment from the member for Cowper seeks to do.

I notice that the AMA and some other health experts support a prohibition model, and people say, 'Oh, we have to listen to the AMA; they're the experts'—or other health groups. No-one's arguing that vaping is good for you. No-one's arguing that vaping is good. And the AMA are not experts in public policy or how to enforce or encourage certain behaviour in people. So, whilst I respect the AMA and I respect their position, I think this is about the mechanism we use in order to get people to stop doing a certain thing. The debate in this place is about prohibition versus a regulated model.

I just want to draw attention to my good friend the member for Higgins, who I think is making a good contribution in this place. But she made the point earlier that it was a Labor government, with Nicola Roxon as the health minister, who led the charge on reducing smoking with plain packaging and a regulated model putting money into advertising. Well, that's the model we're talking about here for vaping. What Labor did then—they didn't prohibit smoking, because they knew that wouldn't work, because they knew it would lead to a black market—was a regulated model. And I support some of the things that were done during that government, which the member for Higgins told us about. But it was a regulated model and involved using the revenue to try to drastically reduce the number of people smoking—and it's had some good effects. What we're saying is that that model can work in this case, and that's the important point I think we need to make.

There's no doubt that vaping is out of control, I hate seeing it; we all hate seeing it. We hate seeing children having access to these products. We don't know what's in them. They're imported. They're not subject to any control in manufacture or requirements to be upfront or to identify what's in them. The current situation is unsustainable. How will we protect our children if all we do is create a bigger black market? As with tobacco, the rewards are worth the risks for criminals. Losing shipments at the border is not a deterrent; the ones that inevitably get through more than make up for it.

In clear acknowledgement of their lack of action on enforcement, the government supported the coalition's amendment to establish a new illicit tobacco and e-cigarette commissioner within the Australian Border Force. We've called for the urgency of putting the commissioner in place to adequately address the tobacco and vape black market, but the government has failed to do so. The Albanese government must come clean on this legislation and say how it will be enforced, how it will stop the illegal trade flourishing and how it will protect Australian children.

In conclusion, I want to commend the member for Cowper on the approach in his amendments. It comes from lived experience. When we have people who have expertise in certain areas—and law enforcement is part of the expertise of the member for Cowper—we should listen to those people. When I was elected, this was not an issue that I came to this place with a specific view on. I was happy to listen to both sides. All I want to see is less vaping—and no vaping amongst people who are under 18. How do we best do that? It's the how, not the if. I think that previous approaches to the reduction of smoking, through a regulated model, indicate that that's the direction we should go in and that the prohibition model, particularly as it's currently being operated, is not working. Again, we all want to see an end to this. How do we do it? We need to have a constructive conversation and be prepared to change our position as the evidence mounts.

See this speech in context