Tony Sheldon (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

As deputy chair of the inquiry, I commend the report to the Senate. I will not seek leave to continue my remarks, thank you, Deputy President. The Senate inquiry into tobacco harm reduction heard repeatedly the most effective way to reduce rates of smoking prevalence in Australia is a combination of preventing people taking up smoking whilst also helping people to quit. It was in this spirit that this report calls for Australia's approach to e-cigarette regulation to not neglect one of these objectives in the pursuit of the other. As such, the inquiry's majority report provides a fair and accurate summary of the evidence presented to the committee. It was conducted to the highest standards of integrity and impartiality, and it has provided a number of commonsense recommendations to the Australian federal government. These recommendations range from the need for renewed investment in evidence based strategies to reduce tobacco use and take-up—in particular, a new anti-smoking campaign—for the Australian government and parliament to continue to listen to and accept the advice provided by the independent Therapeutic Goods Administration; the implementation of an evidence based regulatory framework for nicotine, e-liquids, flavourings and colourings for use in e-cigarette devices; and continued support for independent research into the health effects of e-cigarette use.

I want to put on record that I deeply value and appreciate the personal testimony provided to the committee by smokers, ex-smokers, e-cigarette users and other individuals, whether it was through submissions, by contacting my office directly or by those who appeared at our public hearings. Your views and opinions were heard by all senators on the committee and were taken into consideration in the finalisation of this report. It is clear that a large number of e-cigarette users are people seeking to make positive improvements in their lives and health. We applaud them for taking action to quit smoking.

There is no doubt that quitting smoking is difficult. In many cases it can take years and many attempts. It severely affects the health and wellbeing of thousands of Australians as well as the lives of families and friends. It remains the leading cause of preventable death and disability in Australia, killing more than 15,000 Australians every year. Those who use e-cigarettes as a method to quit should not be treated as criminals, nor forced to break the law. That is why this report supports a sensible, evidence based, precautionary approach that streamlines and clarifies the legal pathways and avenues for obtaining nicotine for e-cigarette use. Such a pathway should be informed by the evidence and expert testimony. That is why the majority report submitted to the Senate recommends that the Therapeutic Goods Administration continues to oversee the classification of nicotine and the assessment of any e-cigarette product as a therapeutic good and that the Australian government and parliament accept the Therapeutic Goods Administration's advice.

It has become quite trendy amongst some politicians to reject the advice of experts in matters such as health, and we've heard a lot about that today. Some politicians think their role in this place or in the House is to peddle the latest popular internal craze or conspiracy theory, instead of listening to the people with the years of experience and knowledge to advise in these areas. When it comes to health, spreading misinformation is not only irresponsible; it is dangerous.

Labor is committed to the important and independent role of the TGA in informing and setting policy in this area and across the health space. Subsequent to our report, the TGA has made its decision with regard to the classification of nicotine, which allows for a streamlined prescription pathway for its use in e-cigarettes as a form of smoking cessation. This decision presents the federal government with the challenge of ensuring that such a pathway is one that juggles the needs and wellbeing of e-cigarette users while preventing a new generation of young people becoming addicted to or dependent on nicotine or tobacco.

A number of senators on this committee were also rightly concerned with ensuring the inquiry was held to the highest levels of transparency and integrity in accord with the principles set out in article 5.3 of the World Health Organization's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. These principles call on lawmakers 'to be alert to any efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine or subvert tobacco control efforts'. To fulfil our responsibility as signatories to this convention, I took it upon myself to ask a number of witnesses who'd made submissions to the inquiry or appeared at either of our two public hearings to make declarations about any links to, or assistance they'd had from, companies involved in the sale of tobacco. The declarations are now a matter of public record.

The extent to which e-cigarettes represent a disruption to the profits of the tobacco industry was a point of much debate during this inquiry. However, one need only look to the paid advertisements placed by Philip Morris on the website of The Australian newspaper in December, advocating for a deregulated e-cigarette market under the guise of science. The failure of previous governments to prevent the widespread addiction and death associated with the commercialisation of traditional combustible cigarettes is perhaps the greatest public health policy failing in the previous century. That the same companies that have profited from lifetimes of addiction, illness and death are advocating for the broad commercialisation of e-cigarettes should give policymakers pause when considering easing regulation around e-cigarettes. Taken in conjunction with the uncertainty regarding the relative harms of e-cigarettes or associated products such as colours or flavourings, the most sensible approach is clearly a precautionary one. It's one that seeks to balance the possible benefits of e-cigarettes and their usage alongside the emerging harms. It is this precautionary approach that the majority of senators on the committee chose to endorse.

The committee heard on multiple occasions that visiting a medical professional greatly improved the chances of an individual quitting smoking. It stands to reason that locating access to nicotine for e-cigarette use within a medical setting can only improve any smoking cessation effect. Some have criticised the approach because no other country has yet adopted it. These people forget that Australia has been a world leader on tobacco control measures, and on the regulation of e-cigarettes we are again.

Moreover, there is no international consensus with respect to how to best regulate e-cigarettes. There are substantial differences in the way these products are regulated across the United Kingdom, Europe, New Zealand, within the United States and across South America, and there have been mixed results. Across the ditch in New Zealand, where there are more liberal laws regarding e-cigarettes, there has been a spike in their use amongst young people, as well as an increase in the youth smoking rate. The relatively short period of time in which these products have been available has not yet provided the sufficient longitudinal evidence to say conclusively whether these products are less harmful that traditional cigarettes at all. This alone should be the greatest argument for the continuation of a precautionary approach.

I thank my colleagues for their deliberations, for their input and for their attention in this very important matter. I also want to thank their staff, as well as my own staff, for their work on this inquiry, for responding to correspondence and to stakeholders from right across the debate, as well as helping us to get across all the important details of this issue. Finally, I also thank the committee secretariat, in particular Patrick and Caitlyn, for their patience and attention to detail.

Question agreed to.