Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

) ( ): I move:

That this House:

(1) recognises that:

(a) there are about three million Au stralians who still smoke; and

(b) tobacco is a le thal product, killing around 15 000 Australians every year; and

(2) calls on all Members and political parties to immediately stop accepting political donations from tobacco companies.

The Leader of the Opposition likes to say no. In fact, he is good at saying no—he is addicted to it. He should say no to political donations from tobacco companies. Why? Because three million Australians smoke tobacco. Smoking is one of the leading causes of preventable death and disease among Australians, killing about 15,000 Australians a year. On average, the life expectancy of people who smoke is 10 years less than that of lifelong nonsmokers. Tobacco smoking not only causes diseases but impedes treatment. Smokers' wounds take longer to heal and they use hospital services more than nonsmokers. Second-hand smoke is a serious health hazard: it contains 250 toxic substances, some of which are in the worst categories of cancer-causing substances.

In 2008, the Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing estimated the social and economic cost of tobacco use to Australian society was $31.5 billion each year—and that includes of course the health costs. That is an increase of 50 per cent from the last estimate in 1998-99. That represents 56.2 per cent of the costs of all drug use—including alcohol, illicit drugs and tobacco. Research in the Medical Journal of Australia states that a fall of just over five per cent in smoking rates would save $4.5 billion to our national economy over the next 37 years. The smoking rate is much higher in Indigenous communities: one in two Indigenous Australians smoke and one in five will die from smoking related diseases.

The tobacco companies form a powerful, global cartel. They spend tens of millions of dollars annually on marketing and they employ highly skilled lobbyists and advertisers to maintain and increase tobacco use. Fortunately, unlike in many parts of the world, tobacco use is on the decline in Australia. Too often tobacco use is perceived to be solely a question of personal choice. The World Health Organisation tells us that tobacco users are aware of the health impacts and really want to quit.

The coalition parties are addicted to the political donations from tobacco. The Liberal and National parties have accepted a combined $3 million in donations from big tobacco, with more than $1.7 million of that coming after 2004 when, fortunately and bravely, the Australian Labor Party stopped accepting these poisonous donations. The Leader of the Opposition needs to kick his habit. As a former health minister, he knows that tobacco kills Australians each year and brings suffering to families across the country. Accepting donations from big tobacco is not acceptable given what we know about the dangerous nature of these substances. When will the Liberal and National parties stop defending big tobacco and start defending the health of Australians? When will they kick their habit of accepting money from those who manufacture these lethal substances? Why do they not give up on big tobacco? It is possibly because they are struggling to match the efforts of previous coalition administrations.

In 2009-10 British American Tobacco gave $130,385 to the national and state divisions of the Liberal Party, and $14,650 to the National Party—a total of $145,035 from British American Tobacco to the coalition. In 2009 Philip Morris gave $103,945 to the Liberal Party and $43,100 to the National Party—a total of $147,045. We know that big tobacco cannot be trusted with the facts.

This federal Labor government has acted on these matters. We have increased the tobacco excise by 25 per cent, we are restricting internet advertising of tobacco products and we are introducing mandatory plain packaging of tobacco products. This is supported by the Cancer Council, but, sadly, those opposite will not support it. We have launched the largest ever national tobacco campaign.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition: it is time to kick the habit. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: it is time to quit. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: it is time to stop the donations. We know that this is important. We know that smoking kills; it is as simple as that. Those opposite should have the courage of their convictions and stand up for the health of the Australian community and stop the donations.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Laura Smyth (La Trobe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise more out of pity than I do out of a genuine need to debate this motion. Realistically, this motion is a desperate bid from the Labor Party to try to create a political diversion in question time. With the mover of the motion not being able to fill five minutes on his own motion, we see just how desperate a bid this is to create a political opportunity for the Minister for Health and Ageing and her little sidekick, the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing. I think this is a desperate attempt from a desperate government that has big issues on its plate that it cannot deal with. Telling fibs to the Australian electorate prior to an election and then changing its mind straight after the election has probably been its biggest issue.

So it is with a bit of pity that we waste the parliament's time with this motion when there are so many other important things we could be talking about, particularly from a minister and a government mired in hypocrisy when it comes to this issue. The Minister for Health and Ageing gets in here every day—and I am sure we will see the theatrics again today—and tries to create a big storm about donations, but she was the beneficiary of corporate hospitality from Philip Morris. I am sure that everyone knows that the Minister for Health and Ageing is a huge Lleyton Hewitt fan and she was so desperate to see Lleyton play that she went ahead and accepted corporate hospitality from Philip Morris. I think it just shows the hypocrisy. There is nothing wrong with accepting corporate hospitality—I am sure that all members on both sides do—but there is something very wrong with the hypocrisy of a minister who comes into this place day after day and tries to suggest that, in effect, taking donations from organisations makes you corrupt, accessible to corruption or that your policies are being influenced by those donations.

If that is the case then let us just go through the record on donations and the use of Commonwealth money by the Labor Party. We know that each member of the Labor Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the trade union movement in this country. The trade unions pay a hell of a lot of money to have that right over each of those members. We know in the last three years, leading to the 2010 election, that the Labor Party received some $20 million from its trade union masters—just at the federal level alone. Coincidentally, in the last two budgets the Labor government has handed the trade unions $20 million. What a coincidence! In the last two budgets the taxpayer—including everyone sitting in the gallery watching this debate—handed $10 million to the Trade Union Education Foundation. Another effort this year can be found on page 148 in the budget papers, for the information of the member for La Trobe, where the unions were handed another $10 million for another fund, the Building Australia's Future Workforce fund:

The Fund will provide … $10.0 million … to unions to enable them to provide tailored information and education resources to their membership.

And, of course, to complete the money-go-round of Labor Party and trade union donations there was $20 million from the unions to the Labor Party and $20 million back to the unions from the Australian taxpayer through the Labor government. Absolute, utter hypocrites! These people get in here and waste the parliament's time on matters relating to donations. They are complete and utter hypocrites. They spend their time getting their union masters to get them elected and then they give them back their money in government. They come into this place and waste the time of this parliament when we should be debating complete fibs about carbon taxes. We should be debating the integrity of a government that says one thing and then does another directly after an election. In the last parliament the now Leader of the Opposition outlined in this place on many occasions the complete rort that was Centenary House. Some members in this place remember the rort that was Centenary House. For those who do not remember, that was the deal the Labor Party gave themselves in a previous government, where they organised to have $36 million fleeced from the Australian taxpayer to pay for over-the-market rents from the ANAO at Centenary House in Barton.

This motion should be treated with contempt, because that is what the Australian Labor Party are showing by putting it to the parliament. This is a complete and utter joke. We know the record of the Minister for Health and Ageing in taking corporate hospitality from tobacco companies. We know this is a desperate attempt by the Labor Party to divert attention from the ongoing crisis, which is their base walking away from them because they fibbed to the Australian electorate before the last election. (Time expired)

Laura Smyth (La Trobe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This motion, as all of us on this side of the House know, is about one thing: backbone. Either you accept donations from the tobacco industry and compromise your political views and your judgment on important issues of public policy or you take a stand and say that no amount of money is worth compromising good policy. Despite fairly valiant but quite sad attempts by the coalition to avoid taking a position on political donations from tobacco companies, this is an issue that we know all parties must face up to. If the coalition cannot stand up to big tobacco, how can we ever believe that it will stand up to big polluters? How will it ever stand up to people who do not want to distribute the profits and the benefits of the mining boom amongst ordinary Australians?

We have already seen in the last couple of weeks that the coalition will not even stand up for mum and dad shareholders on the issue of excessive executive pay. When it came to the vote, they backed executives over consumers and shareholders. They tried very hard to camouflage their position. They made all the right noises about the forgotten shareholders and standing up for forgotten consumers, forgotten employees and forgotten customers, but when it came to the vote they voted to look after executives.

This motion is yet another a litmus test for the coalition. Are they able to take tough decisions or will they simply dance for the highest bidder? Will they oppose good policy because their wealthy benefactors crack the whip? Who is in fact running the show for the opposition? Is it the member for Warringah? Is it Senator Minchin? Is it big tobacco or big polluters? Is it tobacco sceptics this week, or climate sceptics? Which big lobby group has its hands on the purse strings this week?

In this parliament we are dealing with the tough issues—issues that cannot and should not be determined by vested interests; issues that test all of us. It is important to listen to community perspectives in the policy debate and to listen to different perspectives, but there is a vast difference between taking advice and taking orders. We know that tobacco smoking is the leading preventable cause of premature death and disease in Australia. We know that smoking leads to a wide range of diseases, including many types of cancer, heart disease and stroke. We know that tobacco smoking costs our economy around $31.5 billion and that 84 per cent of new lung cancers in men and 77 per cent of new lung cancers in women result from smoking. We have heard that the Cancer Council of Australia estimates that smoking claims the lives of more than 15,000 Australians each year. If we are really talking about forgotten families, let us have a chat about the families of those 15,000. Let us talk about their dependants—their kids, their husbands, their wives—their friends and the colleagues they leave behind.

That is why those of us on this side of the House decided it was impossible to accept political donations from tobacco interests. I am confident that some on the other side of the House share that view, but unfortunately the vast majority of those on the other side of the House appear to have ducked the issue. The ALP knows it is not possible to legislate effectively to decrease the effects of tobacco while accepting donations from tobacco companies. Australians should be asking why other political parties do not do the same.

We know that tobacco companies have donated $3 million to the Liberal and National parties over the last 12 years. We also know that those parties are dragging their feet on the issue of plain packaging for cigarettes, something that doctors and other health professionals have been calling for to try to curb the rate of smoking, particularly in the group most vulnerable to tobacco marketing: young people. British American Tobacco states clearly in its charter that the political donations it makes are given specifically to influence the debate on issues affecting the company and its business. In fact, its website states:

Such payments can only be made for the purpose of influencing the debate on issues affecting the company or Group.

There is no escaping it: tobacco companies expect results from their donations. Tobacco companies expect to sway the views of political parties that accept their donations. They have no other purpose. There can be no other conclusion.

When questioned about all of this, all the Leader of the Opposition can feebly say is, 'They've wasted their money.' I think most of us would consider that money given to the coalition is a complete waste, but it really is insulting to the Australian public to expect them to believe that political donations from tobacco companies will not have an influence on the opposition's policy position. Australians need to ask themselves how a party that can do the bidding of tobacco companies, polluters and other big vested interests can still say that they stand for forgotten families.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate on this motion on political donations from tobacco companies is nothing more than a diversion from the main game in Australia at the moment: the carbon tax and asylum seekers. The government has found itself in a downward spiral of polling across the nation, and this is a poor attempt to try to divert attention away from what is a critical situation for this nation.

I will start by stating that the coalition does not encourage smoking. We never have and will not ever. I will elaborate on the coalition's position on smoking over the last couple of years. Statistics show that under the coalition government there was a decline in smoking rates across Australia. Under the coalition government the prevalence of smoking declined from 21.8 per cent in 1998 to 16.6 per cent in 2007, a substantial decrease. These rates were amongst the lowest in the world. The decline was amongst the biggest falls among OECD countries, and the fall in the smoking rate for women was the greatest among OECD countries. It was at that time that Tony Abbott, who was then the Minister for Health and Ageing, introduced the current graphic health warnings that you see on cigarette packages today. It was the coalition that first proposed an increase in tobacco excise in 2009, a measure taken onboard later by subsequent governments. It is very, very difficult for the government to go and take the moral high ground on this debate. We hear figures bandied about along the lines of $3 million that the coalition has accepted—over the last 10 years, mind you, and on a downward trend—from the tobacco companies. But what they omit to say is that, at the very same time, the Labor government have taken over $20 million in donations from the union movement, some of which has been derived from problem gambling. It is worth noting that Australia has the lowest smoking rate per capita in the world and yet it has one of the highest gambling rates in the world.

With reference to the $20 million received over the last period of time from unions, this budget also allocated a $10 million kick-back to the unions for various reasons, including the development of web pages. Ten million dollars? I created a web page in my electorate the other day for $2,300—quite a significant difference in cost-effectiveness, but then that goes to the moral high ground that Labor want to take on the issue of smoking.

I also pick up the point that Labor actually need to stand up to the unions and say, 'No longer will we take money from the unions that has been derived from problem gamblers.' I have some stats here on problem gambling in Australia. First, 40 per cent of all money lost on pokies comes from problem gamblers. In addition, there are probably about 100,000 addicted gamblers, with an additional 200,000 at significant risk. And poker machines can take up to $1,200 an hour out of mums' and dads' and working families' pockets, per machine around the country. The Alfred Hospital cite figures that one in five people who present in emergency rooms for attempted suicide have some type of gambling issue as their primary cause of attempted suicide.

It is farcical that we are even having this debate. All the data is available for public knowledge. We as a coalition did not shrink away from our responsibility, and our proven track record, for the downward spiralling cigarette intake.

In finishing I want to allude to a quote from ex Prime Minister Rudd—potentially, the way things are going, he could be the next leader of the Australian Labor Party—from 2007. He was quoted as saying on gaming:

What I've said before, and I don't back away from it one minute, is I don't like poker machines. I've said that even though I was working in the Queensland government at the time when poker machines were introduced. That was a decision, together with other decisions, to introduce poker machines which I don't think have been helpful for working families.

I encourage this debate to be done, concluded, so we can get back to the task at hand of debating the state of the nation when it comes to the carbon tax, asylum seekers and issues that impact on families.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Each year 15,000 Australians die from smoking. That means 41 people a day. By the time this debate has concluded, an Australian will have died because she smoked. We also know that smokers harm those around them—children who inhale passive smoke, or the one-in-six babies born to mothers who smoked while pregnant. Smoking rates in regional areas are twice as high as in the cities, and people in the bush have higher death rates from lung cancer, heart disease, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

These are the stark realities of smoking. Yet there remain groups in this place that continue to profit from this reality. The self-proclaimed party of responsibility refuses to take responsibility for the devastating impact of tobacco on Australians' health. And the self-proclaimed party of the bush shows less concern for the health of rural Australians than the property rights of tobacco companies.

Last week I received an email from a constituent about why we should support the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health and Ageing in their efforts to reduce smoking rates. The constituent wrote:

My great-grandfather, grandfather, father and one of my uncles all died from smoking-related conditions. Each of the latter three died 20-30 years before the life expectancy for their generation. My father's addiction contributed to two decades of poor health prior to his premature death, resulting in frequent periods where he was unable to work.

My siblings and I grew up in poverty, the effects of which are still evident, and the taxpayer bore the cost of his many hospitalisations as well as the cumulative years of income support our family depended on in lieu of employment. I say this so that you will understand my absence of sympathy for the 'principle argument', that tobacco companies have a right to make a profit from pushing legal drugs.

I was proud to join the Minister for Health and Ageing and the Minister for Indigenous Health earlier this year at the launch of an ad campaign designed by Indigenous Australians to help reduce Indigenous smoking rates, rates that are twice as high as for non-Indigenous Australians and a major contributor to the life expectancy gap. Yet those opposite seem set on blocking common-sense reforms like higher tobacco excise or the plain packaging of cigarettes. As with their stance on climate change, they are the party of 'no'. There is a precedent for this kind of nay-saying. Former opposition leader Billy Snedden said about the link between smoking and diseases such as lung cancer and heart disease: 'So far I have not seen any conclusive evidence to that effect and, as I understand the position, there is still some argument on the question.' The Leader of the Opposition today is like his predecessor of yore. Mr Abbott's denial of the science of climate change is the modern-day equivalent of Billy Snedden's denial of the link between smoking and cancer.

In Merchants of Doubt, Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway document some remarkable parallels between the debate over climate change and earlier debates over tobacco smoking, acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer. In each case, those opposed to action tried to sow doubt. Oreskes and Conway quote a 1969 memo in which a tobacco industry executive makes clear the strategy: 'Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the body of fact that exists in the minds of the public.'

As late as 1995, Senator Minchin doubted the link between smoking and adverse health effects, yet even he has now come around. If a warhorse like Senator Minchin can change his mind and accept the science, there is hope for anyone. The Leader of the Opposition wrote in his book Battlelines:

Conservatism prefers facts to theory, practical demonstration to metaphysical abstraction; what works to what's in the mind's eye … Conservatives are not optimists or pessimists but realists.

On both climate change and smoking, the science is settled—and the solutions are clear. All that stands in the way are big polluters and big tobacco.

I know there are some in the Liberal and National Parties who are concerned about going cold turkey on accepting donations from big tobacco. But I can assure them that we will help them through this. We can offer them counselling. We will walk them through this. And they will have the best nicotine patch of all: the knowledge that they have, at long last, done the right thing for the health of young Australians.

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This motion is a desperate attempt by this government to divert the attention of Australians from its many failures and from its proposed tax attack on Australian families and businesses. The coalition has a proven track record of decisive action in reducing the rate of smoking in Australia and whilst in government presided over the biggest ever fall in smoking rates. As a result, Australia now has one of the lowest smoking rates in the world.

This is not an argument about the consequences or effects of smoking on people's health; it is an argument about the rights of individuals and private companies to make donations to whichever political party they so wish. Donations to political parties are often subject to much discussion, but if a legal business wishes to donate funds to a political party of its choice, it is up to the party organisation to decide whether or not to accept those donations. As former Prime Minister John Howard once stated, if donations were given by corporations and individuals carrying on lawful activities there is no reason in principle why the donations should not be accepted. Is the government really suggesting that they too discriminate in whom they receive donations from?

There will always be differing opinions between individuals and groups, based upon many different factors. Therefore, it cannot be argued that a party is influenced by one or any of its benefactors. Previous speakers have mentioned that the coalition parties have received donations from tobacco companies over the last 10 or 12 years. Equally, the Labor Party has received large donations from its trade union supporters. In fact, over the period 2007 to 2010, it received in excess of $20 million in donations from the union movement. It is interesting to note that in the recent budget the union movement was rewarded with a $10 million allocation for a trade union education foundation grant. Previous to that there was another $10 million allocated to the union movement under the Building Australia's Future Workforce program. Equally, if we go a little bit further back in time, we see that the ALP is hypocritical in pursuing this motion when you consider its historical dealings with the Australian National Audit Office in 1993, with a lease that was above market rates of rent and above market rates of annual increases, the end result being that Australian taxpayers have paid more than $36 million over and above the standard market rates of rent for the period of the lease.

The Leader of the Opposition has a strong track record in relation to dealing with the health issues faced from smoking. When health minister, he was responsible for the introduction of the graphic warnings on cigarette packets that we see today. That was made compulsory. Under the coalition government smoking rates declined from a bit over 21 per cent in 1998 to approximately 17 per cent in 2007. These rates were the lowest smoking rates in the world. It was also the coalition that first proposed an increase in the tobacco excise, back in 2009, a measure that has now been adopted by the government.

Any suggestion that we are soft on tobacco companies is just plain nonsense, and the coalition's track record shows this quite clearly. Accepting donations from a particular corporation or organisation does not mean that a party changes its views. Any party should be able to accept donations from any local business or other organisation.

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

I, too, like all the others on this side, rise in support of this motion. I am very pleased to do so on the eve of World No Tobacco Day, which will be observed tomorrow, 31 May, all around the globe, when the message will be given that smoking kills. Certainly, it is a very special message to younger people who have not taken up the habit yet but are being influenced by tobacco companies through their marketing, their packaging and through the colours on the packets. It is a message to them not to take up smoking, because we all know that tobacco kills.

I say this because tomorrow it will be seven years since I gave up. I was an addicted smoker—two packets a day—and I thought I would never give up. The damage that that has done to my body over a period of 30 years of smoking I cannot wish upon anyone. So I am very passionate about this debate.

I cannot believe what I am hearing from the opposite side this morning. Their argument about not supporting plain-packaged products is that the Labor Party receives donations from the unions. I say 'big deal'. I would much rather receive donations from an organisation that sticks up for workers' rights than from an organisation that is selling a product that is doing damage to people's health and that is trying to market their product to younger people, because that is the only new client they have here in Australia. I would rather receive donations from an organisation that assists people—workers—to ensure that they have rights at work. I have no problems with that. They can put up that argument as much as they like, but it is a non-argument; it is just a diversion from the real debate. The real debate is that they are receiving donations from companies that sell a product that is damaging people's health. These companies are looking at marketing their product to new clients, and their only new clients are teenagers and young people. With the laws in Australia not allowing the advertising of tobacco products, their only way of marketing is through packaging. This may not be about people giving up, but it is fundamental when it comes to people taking up smoking. Packaging is the last bastion of marketing that the tobacco companies have left to them.

It is absolutely devastating to know that there are still three million Australians who smoke and put their lives at risk every day and put the lives of others at risk through passive smoking. Smoking affects not just the people who light up but also their friends, families and workplace colleagues—and the consequences for their health can have an impact on their employment as well. Smoking damages not just you but everyone around you. Regardless of how many times you hear it, it is still a shocking statistic that 15,000 Australians die each year as a direct result of cigarette smoking—let alone the people who are dying indirectly from many other causes of tobacco smoking as well. That is 41 people dying every single day directly as a consequence of their smoking. And the Liberal and National parties on the other side are saying it is fine to receive donations from companies that contribute to these 15,000 deaths every year here in Australia.

I am very pleased to speak in support of this motion. Recognising that there is a serious problem is the most fundamental step towards addressing it. In fact, this government is already showing the strongest possible leadership on this issue. As we all know, we have introduced the world's first plain packaging to help people realise what putting a cigarette in their mouth really means: it means you are gambling with your life. I took up smoking when I was a teenager. Without a shadow of a doubt, if the packaging then looked like the plain packaging that we are going to have now, I would have thought twice about whether it was really something cool that I wanted to take up. This is what we are trying to get through to people. That could have saved me from 30 years of smoking and all the damage it has done to me. This is incredibly important because we know that eight out of 10 new smokers are young people. This is who the packaging is aimed at. We know that packaging and branding form a significant part of that appeal to smoke. (Time expired)

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion. There is no doubt that the coalition is the party of effective action on smoking. Our leader, the Hon. Tony Abbott, acted to achieve great reductions in smoking rates when he was the health minister in the Howard government. The efforts of the Howard government on this issue are without peer. I remind members that the graphic health warnings that were introduced by the Leader of the Opposition when he was the health minister in the Howard government remain the only substantial effort made by a federal government to reduce smoking rates in recent history. In 1998 the smoking rate in this country was 22 per cent. By 2005 it had fallen to 17 per cent—the lowest on record and one of the lowest in the world. The Howard government was responsible for this through decisive initiatives and anti-smoking campaigns. I am proud to be part of the coalition, which has acted decisively and effectively with initiatives to reduce smoking rates. This is backed up by clear evidence on these matters. I say again that the Howard government was capable of making decisions and acting decisively with regard to policy and initiation of action.

I am afraid the only thing this government is capable of is politicking. I have provided evidence of this. Last week in parliament the health minister made a number of false accusations about the coalition when she suggested that she was going to introduce legislation on the plain packaging of cigarettes and tobacco. We hold true to our position that we will consider all legislation when we have seen the detail. We will make a decision when we see the bill and any regulations proposed. This is the right course of action.

But I remain a little concerned about whether we will see such legislation, because the government's only real skill is in politicking, not the delivery of programs. There is great hypocrisy within this government. They make a very poor attempt to castigate us for waiting to see this legislation. But, given their failure to deliver workable, effective and cost-efficient legislation on border control, pink batts, capital funding and set-top boxes, there is every reason to be careful about backing anything this failure of government proposes. The Australian people expect the opposition to be critical of any legislation the government proposes, let alone legislation that, it appears, does not even exist yet.

I would like to address the health issues inherent in this motion. We all care greatly about improving the health outcomes for Australians. I hope this is a priority for the government—because it is certainly a priority for the coalition. If we had an Abbott government, we would have seen action since the report on smoking issues was handed down in July 2009. Instead, we have seen several announcements, claims of action coming and claims of legislation coming et cetera. This is typical of this government. If this government is so committed to action on health, why hasn't it acted since July 2009. It has been almost two years and the only thing the government has done is this political stunt motion. This is a suggestion that we might actually see legislation in July—by the second anniversary of this report, we might actually see this government bring some legislation into the House of Representatives.

This demonstrates the Gillard government's idea of priorities. Instead of being concerned enough about the health of Australians to take action in July 2009, they wait two years and instead make a priority of bringing this pathetic political stunt before the House. The Gillard government, faced with an opportunity to address a health problem, decided to do nothing for two years. Trying to score political points is more important to them than any legislation, so that is what they do instead of bringing legislation to the House today. This is the priority for this government: delay and politics instead of real action. The difference between the Labor Party and the coalition is that we actually accomplished something: we did the graphic warnings and we reduced the smoking rate.

I note that this motion mentions that there are three million Australian smokers and 1,500 of them die each year from smoking. I am surprised that, after two years of talking about action and only now suggesting action in July 2011, the government would mention the number of people who actually die each year from smoking. I say again that I am proud of the coalition's record and I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition, when he was health minister in the Howard government, acted to reduce smoking rates. Many people's lives were saved as a result of us taking real action as opposed to the tragic alternative strategy of this government, which was to wait two years and play politics—and maybe there might be some legislation coming towards us in July.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 12 noon, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 34. The debate and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.