Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It was a bit confusing with some of their speeches, particularly Senator Boyce's. She has probably got a vested interest because of all the donations that go to that side of the chamber. There has been a concerted program by the tobacco companies to undermine this legislation. It is why we know that this legislation will help a great deal to reduce people's addiction to tobacco products. If the industry were not so afraid that they were going to miss out on their dollars and on making a financial contribution to the Liberal campaign at the next election, they would not be attacking us in the way that they have been.

Just to get a perspective, let us look back at some of the history of plain packaging. This can only be a very potted history. In June 1986, 25 years ago, a motion put forward by Gerry Kerr at the Annual General Meeting of the Canadian Medical Association in favour of plain packaging for tobacco products was supported. In May 1989, a similar call for 'generic' packaging came from New Zealand. This was followed by calls for the same in Europe and Australia. In January 1994, British American Tobacco told the Australian government that plain packaging was contrary to 'intellectual properties and rights advocated by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade'.

By May 1994, this claim had been broadened to contravening the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, GATT; the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA; and the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. In July 1994, World Intellectual Property Organisations, WIPO, told British American Tobacco that there was no contravention of the Paris convention. Later, WIPO incorrectly reconsidered its position. By 1995, the Australian health minister rejected plain packaging on international trade and legal grounds. This dishonest ploy by the tobacco companies had been successful in Australia and Canada.

So what have we seen this year from the tobacco industry? Not much that is new: claims about trade agreements; intellectual property; the need for the Australian government to pay huge compensation to the tobacco industry; lobbying US congressmen and foreign countries like Malaysia to oppose Australia's plans; claims of an increase in illegal importation of tobacco; an expanded black market; shortages of supplies; and that tobacco prices will drop dramatically.

I will deal with the last point before I respond to the other claims. It is a bizarre statement that the tobacco industry suddenly believes that their products are of minimal value. Give me a break! Adam Smith in his An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations in which the famous 'invisible hand' appeared also talked about the moral and ethical behaviour necessary for a market to operate satisfactorily and to benefit the community. These obligations seem to have been completely lost on the tobacco companies. But, in fairness, there might be the odd Australian company to whom this could also be applied.

In dealing with the other issues, I will rely heavily on the help of the Victorian Cancer Council. Let us look at some of these issues. It won't work, so why do it? As the number of design elements on cigarette packs decrease, so does the level of positive perceptions people have about smoking. Research concludes plain packaging is likely to reduce the appeal of smoking to teenagers and adults, make health warning messages on packs more prominent and stop smokers incorrectly believing that some brands of cigarettes are less harmful than others.

Plain packaging was rejected in the UK and Canada. Canada and Britain, along with Australia, have signed an international World Health Organisation, WHO, treaty that recommends its members pursue plain packaging. Canada has actually announced its intention to proceed with plain paper packaging. The British government has stated that it will consult on options to reduce the promotional impact of tobacco packaging, including plain packaging, before the end of 2011. So Australia is again leading the way. Plain packaging is also being considered by the European Union and New Zealand. A plain packaging bill has been introduced in the French National Assembly. Every state in Australia has already moved to make it illegal to have cigarettes on display.

So, if you cannot see them, how will plain packaging make any difference? Both display bans and plain packaging are important elements in reducing avenues for tobacco industry promotion and the recruitment of new smokers. Once out of the store, cigarette packs act as mobile advertising for the brand. Smokers display the pack approximately 10 to 15 times a day as they light up. They often leave them out in social situations where others will see them. Plain packaging will end this form of promotion.

Plain packaging laws will result in the government paying compensation to tobacco companies for acquisition of their property and breach international trade agreements. The government will not be acquiring trademarks or any other property from tobacco companies. It will only be restricting the tobacco companies' use of their trademarks and packaging. This is not illegal. For this reason, there will be no need to compensate tobacco companies for acquisition of property. Plain packaging will not disadvantage imports or restrict international trade. International trade agreements do not create a right to use trademarks and, in any case, they allow for member countries to implement measures necessary to protect public health.

Plain packaging will make cigarettes easier to counterfeit and increase the trade in illicit tobacco products such as 'chop chop'. There is no evidence that plain packaging will lead to an increase in illicit trade in tobacco products. Tobacco industry claims about the amount of illicit tobacco purchased in Australia have been found to be exaggerated and misleading. The plain packaging legislation will allow tobacco companies to continue to use covert anti-counterfeit markings on their products. This is the tip of the iceberg and pretty soon public health organisations will be calling for the plain packaging of other consumer products.

Tobacco advertising was banned in Australia in 1976. In 35 years, no other product category has been banned from advertising in Australia. The reason tobacco has been targeted in this way is that it is unlike any other product on the market. It kills half of all long-term users and 15,000 people in Australia every year. Restrictions on the packaging of tobacco products are warranted because of the dangerous nature of tobacco. If the government was actually serious about stopping people smoking, it would ban the sale of tobacco. It will not though because of the tax it brings in. If tobacco was introduced to the retail market today, there is no question it would be banned. Unfortunately, though, the dangers of smoking only became apparent in the fifties, a time when half of all Australians smoked. Although we have made significant inroads into smoking rates since then, more than three million Australians still regularly smoke, many because they are addicted to nicotine.

Once again, I want to put on the public record congratulations to the minister, along with this government, for taking the initiative of undertaking the reform that was necessary because those opposite failed to take the appropriate action in the 11½ years that they were in government. I commend the bills to the Senate.