Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Plain packaging of cigarettes has been seen as one part of the manifold strategy in deterring people from smoking, a practice that clearly leads to exceptionally bad health outcomes and, indeed, death. Therefore, anything that is capable of reducing the smoking levels within our nation ought to be considered. I confess that I for one remain to be fully convinced as to the efficacy of plain labelling, but I am willing to agree to the Tobacco Plain Packaging Amendment Bill 2018, which is designed to enforce the law with regard to the plain packaging strategy.

This bill will, as the explanatory memorandum outlines, provide greater flexibility for enforcement, with more people in authority empowered to help enforce the law. The bill will enable the government to respond more flexibly to noncompliance with the tobacco plain packaging legislation. The bill will provide the Department of Health with access to a wider pool of officers eligible for appointment as authorised officers, providing greater flexibility to respond to any organisational or administrative changes which may occur in the future. Importantly, the bill does not change the plain packaging requirements and will not impact the obligations of tobacco manufacturers, distributors or retailers.

In fighting the scourge of cigarettes, I encourage the government and all law enforcement bodies to take a considered approach. Regrettably, despite all the approaches that we have taken within the community, the rate of smoking in Australia is in fact still increasing. This is despite the ever-increasing taxation burden, the ongoing education programs and the banning of the plain packaging labelling.

In relation to taxation, I make the observation that I believe we are getting to a stage—if the threshold has not already been reached—whereby the ever-increasing taxation has now allowed tobacco to be able to be used as a profitable subject for the black market. As the price increases, so the smuggling of the tobacco increases and becomes more profitable. We have seen, from our neighbourhood within this region, the ever-increasing importation of illegal tobacco products, and, indeed, the growing of illegal tobacco in Australia, which is often referred to as 'chop-chop'. I believe not only does it place an unfair burden often on people who can least afford it but it does lend itself to a black market, which, in turn, assists criminal gangs, money laundering and things of that nature. I would invite the government, in considering its strategy in relation to lowering the rates of smoking, to give due consideration to the perverse effect the ever-increasing tax regime actually has on the marketing of tobacco products in the black market.

I would encourage all authorities to work together, and can I express my concern and disappointment that the ACCC did not support the tobacco companies in their bid to work with law enforcement agencies to try to expose and ban the selling of illegal tobacco products through various outlets. The suggestion that these tobacco companies would 'be colluding' seems to me a bizarre suggestion and outcome by the ACCC, which, as I understand it, was largely informed by the medical authorities who took this view that any tobacco is bad, therefore tobacco companies are bad, whereas I have proffered the view that sometimes the enemy of my enemy can in fact be my friend. In these circumstances, I would encourage the authorities to actually work with the tobacco companies to help stamp out the sale of illegal tobacco. That's because, make no mistake, as the regular price of tobacco increases, courtesy of the ever-increasing taxation regime, the profits from the black market similarly increase.

Given that this bill is part of the strategy to reduce smoking and its terrible cost to individuals and the health budget, I want to take this opportunity to encourage the government to give more consideration to the legalisation of vaping or e-cigarettes. I understand that, as part of this proposal, the state governments would have to come on board, as they control the poisons schedules, and nicotine is listed, quite rightly, as a poison. As a nonsmoker, I dare not presume as to why people smoke, but people allegedly enjoy smoking for the nicotine hit, beside the mistaken belief of a perceived sophistication or social acceptance. No matter what one's reason, the inhaling of tobacco smoke is detrimental because of the tars, additives and smoke, besides the nicotine, which is inhaled. Health advice suggests that the nicotine, which provides the double-edged hit and craving, is in fact the least injurious aspect of smoking.

Into this space comes the innovative idea of e-cigarettes, or vaping, which allows people to satisfy their nicotine craving without the tar, without the additives and without the smoke—surely a good thing, yet it remains illegal to sell these products. E-cigarettes are cigarette-shaped electronic mechanisms that allow the inhaling of nicotine through metered doses. Given we don't live in a perfect world, which would see neither smoking nor vaping, it makes good sense to seek to wean smokers onto vaping. Many smokers tell me they would switch if given the opportunity. Many have, in fact, told me that they engage in it illegally, it would seem, with much praise for the benefits, including better health outcomes.

It's a bit like refusing to legislate low-alcohol beer because we don't like the impact of alcohol in society. Most of us accept that, no matter what your view on alcohol, low-alcohol beer is preferable to full strength. So it is and should be with e-cigarettes. Research tells us that those who have switched to vaping have their nicotine craving satisfied whilst reporting improvements in their general health. The European research in particular bears this out. Suggestions that vaping is injurious to health, of course, is not questioned, but, as a substitute for smoking, it is preferable, which is something recognised in many other countries. Most health experts analysing e-cigarettes are of the view that they are 95 per cent less harmful than inhaling tobacco smoke. UK officials believe the e-cigarette has assisted thousands of people to quit the smoking habit altogether.

Reluctance to introduce another smoking type product to the market is understood, but such reluctance needs assess whether the new product is as bad or worse than the current product. Fear that e-cigarettes may encourage young people to smoke has not been borne out by the European experiences, which suggest it is not 'cool', if I can use that term, to smoke them and serves as a reminder to young people of the difficulty of giving up the habit. If so, it would be wise to restrict it, but, when the product is so overwhelmingly better, it is difficult to understand the current rationale. This issue is worthy of pursuit to assist the health of the individual—indeed, the health budget, the individual private good and social public good wrapped into one. It is my view that the time for legalising e-cigarettes, or vaping, has come. In making this contribution, I commend the bill to the Senate.