Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I continue my speech from yesterday. Given the decades that we have known that tobacco is deadly, there can be no more excuses about advertising of tobacco in any of its forms when we all know that they are advertising a deadly product. It is interesting that Australia has moved some way when it comes to tobacco advertising, and now the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Amend­ment Bill 2010 addresses those mobile devices, tablets and other technological devices that advertising can still filter its way through.

Other countries are not quite up to where Australia is, and that is why a number of countries look to Australia for guidance as to how we move forward when it comes to tobacco advertising. It is quite humorous, I suppose, but interesting and alarming in a sense that recently at a cricket match here in Australia, with India playing, there were some Indian spectators in the crowd holding up signs, some of which we probably thought were supporting their Indian team players, which I am sure they were there for. But actually they were holding up signs written in Hindi supporting tobacco companies and tobacco advertising so that those watching back in India could see certain tobacco products being supported and displayed through the broadcasting that was done here in Australia, which is an interesting take on advertising and an interesting way to advertise tobacco and tobacco products by our Indian friends. However, this is something that is not permitted in Australia, and I understand that as soon as the officials were made aware of this those placards and signs were taken down.

But what we are talking about today is not the advertising of tobacco at our sports fields. We have ended that some time ago, as I talked of earlier. Today is about prohibiting the advertising of tobacco on our other technological devices—our mobile phones, our iPads or tablets and any other kinds of technological devices that come into the market as we move into this technological age. As we find ourselves ever more relying on the world wide web for increasing amounts of information, we can clearly see the need for a review of rules and regulations pertaining to advertising in such mediums, such as those referred to in this amendment bill.

This bill introduces some very important changes. They will put a stop to big tobacco promoting and advertising their products in our online environment. The President of the Australian Council on Smoking and Health and antitobacco advocate, Mike Daube said:

Cigarettes are now being heavily promoted on the Internet, and there are serious concerns that both online advertising and social networking sites are being used to promote tobacco to young people.

We must head them off; beat them to the punch. We know that big tobacco are sneaky and we have to continue to play tough. And we have been doing that. We have been going there to win this fight to ensure that we reduce the amount of advertising out there when it comes to this deadly product of tobacco.

This bill will go some way in doing just that. It will take away yet another avenue for this deadly product to be promoted. Let us not forget that when this product is used as intended by its manufacturers it will kill. This is a product that is legal by default. Should a company try and introduce such a product in Australia today, it simply would not be considered, not even for a moment. I commend this bill to the Senate and encourage all my parliamentary colleagues to support it.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I strongly support the government's intentions in relation to the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Amendment Bill 2010. The internet and electronic media are fast becoming the biggest loophole across many areas of government regulation. The internet has stretched to cover every facet of our lives. We email instead of talk. We can share photos and music and movies with the tap of a finger. And we even use the word 'google' as a verb. We can now carry the world in our pocket. But, like the real world, the virtual one has its dangers.

Contrary to what some vested interests say, I am not in favour of a nanny state. I do not support excessive government regulation, and I think most people are able to make up their own minds. But I do not agree that dangerous products should be easily available or that they should be promoted as fun or fashionable. I think Senator Singh in her contribution and Senator Urquhart before her well outlined the health risks involved in smoking and the terrible human toll.

Everyone knows that tobacco is highly addictive. Everyone knows the chemicals in cigarette smoke slowly destroy you from the inside out. According to figures from the medical journal the Lancet, over five million people die from tobacco related illnesses each year. It is the world's leading cause of preventable death. I do not think anyone could argue that we should not discourage people from smoking and that we should not regulate the sale and advertising of what is a legal product. We already have measures in place to do this in the real world. It follows that in the virtual world, which is now so integrated with the real world, we should have the same measures in place.

According to the Interactive Advertising Bureau Australia, online advertising revenue in Australia reached $1.256 billion for the six months to 30 June 2011. That represents a growth of 19 per cent compared to the same period in 2010. By comparison, the broader Australian advertising industry grew just 1.1 per cent, using the same time periods. The IAB also predicted that the online industry would grow exponentially to over $3 billion this year. We should not discount the power of advertising in social networks where word of mouth can spread to literally thousands of people every time someone update their status. The dream endorsement for many companies is no longer a quote from a movie star or sports­man or woman, but from a blogger or even everyday citizens tweeting about how much they like their product. This kind of 'real' promotion is the new gold standard, because people are more likely to believe their friends than advertisers. Of course, some advertisers try to buy in to this promotion, paying well-known bloggers to promote products or by creating what seem to be 'spontaneous' campaigns. What people may not believe if it comes from advertisers, they may believe if it comes from their friends or someone they look up to.

I congratulate the government for recognising the need for reform in this area and for targeting this dangerous product. However, there are other equally important loopholes to close. Online sports betting is now pervading almost every aspect of sport, from advertising on the field and during breaks in the telecast to odds being quoted in the commentary. It is good to see that there is some movement in relation to dealing with that. Unscrupulous operators promoting their games through Facebook or other social networking sites encourage players to buy virtual objects with real money, including gambling chips that can never be cashed out. To paraphrase the Reverend Tim Costello, gamblers can now lose their homes without ever having to leave them.

This sector is urgently in need of greater regulation and protection for consumers. If the government acknowledge that there needs to be greater regulation in internet advertising as part of a comprehensive harm minimisation strategy, they also need to consider the effect of unregulated or poorly regulated gambling activities on the net. This bill constitutes an important reform. I congratulate the government, but I ask them to look further. I will be doing my bit to assist the government by introducing legislation to tighten up the regulations for online advertising for gambling products. That must be the next step. I also look forward to hearing from the government how they will be monitoring the success of these regulations by monitoring tobacco take-up rates, particularly amongst young people. Presumably that information will be available as part of ongoing health surveys. I think this is a good piece of legislation. I hope it is as successful as it is intended to be. I think it will be largely successful. The next step must be online gambling advertising promotion.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Amendment Bill 2010. The Gillard government is committed to the health of the Australian people. That is why we are investing money in improving health services and we place such a strong emphasis on preventative health. We want to prevent illness and disease because we know that it is cheaper than treating illness and will avoid unnecessary suffering by those with illnesses.

In 2009, the then Minister for Health And Ageing, the Hon. Nicola Roxon, MP launched the National Preventative Health Strategy. This strategy provides a plan for tackling the burden of chronic disease caused by obesity, tobacco and excessive consumpt­ion of alcohol. It focuses on primary prevention and uses all relevant arms of policy and points of leverage from both the health and the non-health sectors. The strategy comprises three parts: an overview, a roadmap for action and technical papers focused on the three key areas of obesity, tobacco and alcohol. The Council of Australian Governments has agreed to attempt to reduce the daily smoking rate among adults to 10 per cent by 2018 and to halve the daily smoking rate among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. In order to achieve this target, we still have some work to do, and that is why this bill is before the Senate. Approximately three million Australians smoke every day. We know that smoking is destructive. Cigarette smoking is the major cause of lung cancer. It is responsible for causing up to 90 per cent of lung cancer. Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in Australia. Across the nation 15,000 people die each year as a result of smoking and it costs the Australian economy over $31 billion per annum. The burden of disease and illness resulting from smoking should be regarded as a national public health crisis. This bill is one of a raft of preventive health measures this govern­ment is using to tackle this crisis.

The bill will ensure consistency when it comes to tobacco advertising and will achieve a number of positive changes. It will amend the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 to accommodate the changes in technology that have occurred since that legislation was passed. The bill will make it a specific offence to advertise or promote tobacco products on the internet and all other electronic media, including future technolo­gies. We all know how quickly the rate of technological change is occurring. Unless advertising complies with state and territory legislation or Commonwealth regulations, it will be an offence to advertise. It will also allow for regulations of internet tobacco advertising and online sales to be similar to those placed on over-the-counter sales. The legislation will also make changes to online tobacco sales so they are governed by the same rules as the sales made in shops.

This bill will improve the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992, the TAP Act, which was introduced by the Keating Labor government. The TAP Act was designed to comprehensively ban tobacco advertising in Australia. Now that we are in the 21st century we have new technology and the current legislation does not cover all advertising media. This is a key area we need to rectify. We know that young people love their technology and this, combined with the fact that modern methods are exempt from advertising prohibition, means that they are exposed to tobacco advertising. We need to have a consistent approach to the advertising prohibition on tobacco to protect people from the temptation advertising often presents. The bill will allow regulations to be made which could cover aspects such as size, content, format and location of internet tobacco advertisements. It will also be possible to regulate for the inclusion of health warnings, warnings about age restrictions on the sale of tobacco products as well as information about fees, taxes and other charges that may be incurred when purchasing the product. Age restricted access systems for allowing people to access tobacco advertising may also be regulated. After all, what parent with a young child wants them exposed to tobacco advertising online?

The bill will ensure that penalties for internet advertising will be consistent with those applied to other types of advertising. The penalties for failing to observe tobacco advertising regulations will be set at a maximum of 120 penalty units, and this is equivalent to $13,200 at present. This is a large amount of money to most people and, hopefully, the prospect of a fine will make most people think twice about disregarding the regulations. The bill will complement other measures the government has introduced and the ones we are still working to implement.

The Gillard government values the health of all Australians and we want people to make informed decisions about their health and to do what they can to prevent illness. One thing people can do is choose not to take up smoking. Those people already smoking can choose to cut back or, better still, stop altogether. In 2010 this government increa­sed the excise on tobacco by 25 per cent. On its own, this measure is expected to cut the number of Australians smoking by around 87,000. Last year the government offered smokers support to quit by subsidising nicotine patches and the anti-smoking drug known as Champix through the Pharmaceut­ical Benefits Scheme for the first time. This was just another way to reduce the smoking rate in Australia. We have a history of coordinated plans at federal and state level to reduce smoking. Through historic bans on smoking in workplaces and public areas and through prohibiting advertising, we are making it less likely for people to take up smoking. As has been said, this is particularly important for our young people as we want them to not smoke to begin with. We all know it is better to not start smoking than to become addicted and then have to work hard to give it up. We are also making record investments in anti-smoking social marketing campaigns.

The government also implemented plain-packaging legislation to make tobacco products less attractive to consumers. On 31 May last year I joined the then Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon MP, and my colleague Senator Carol Brown, who is in the chamber at the moment, to sign the plain-packaging pledge in Canberra on World No Tobacco Day. On 21 April I joined with Minister Roxon and, once again, my federal parliamentary colleague Senator Carol Brown and the then Chief Executive of the Cancer Council Tasmania, Mr Darren Carr, at the Royal Hobart Hospital to promote plain packaging. The legislation passed through parliament on 10 November last year. The government's plain-packaging legislation means that from 1 December consumers will see cigarette packs with no colours or logos. Instead they will see more prominent health warnings and each time they see these warnings they will be forced to think about the damage that their smoking is doing to their health. They will know that each cigarette is doing damage and that, ultimately, their life will be shortened by smoking. It is estimated that the cost to Australia's economy from the impact of smoking is more than $31 billion per year. The savings we can make by reducing the number of smokers mean that there will be more money available to improve treatment of other illnesses. Our motivation for this legislation, as I said, is a healthier Australia and to avoid costs that a healthier nation will no longer have to meet or that can be redirected to other areas.

Let me recap exactly what this Labor government has done in preventative health since coming to office. We sought to establish a preventative health agency so that we had a national approach to health strategies and research. We have protected people, especially young people, from the dangers of binge drinking by introducing a tax on premixed drinks as well. In our first term in government we invested more money in preventative health than our predecessors, the Howard government, did in their almost 12 years in power. Interestingly enough, the Labor Party no longer accepts political donations from tobacco companies. We decided it was not ethical to accept money from these companies when their products cause such harm to consumers. Because of this, the tobacco companies know that they need to get the support of the opposition if they are to stop the government from passing our legislation. It seems that those opposite do not have the same problem accepting money from tobacco companies, which is a shame. In the last election campaign, $5 million was spent by the tobacco industry to target the Labor Party. There was one reason for this campaign and one reason only: the industry knew that their profits would be negatively impacted if the legislation was passed.

The coalition does not share the Gillard government's passion for preventative health. It has blocked many health reform bills put before the parliament, including the Australian National Preventative Health Agency Bill 2010. Only recently it tried to block the government's plain-packaging legislation. Fortunately, it did not succeed on this occasion. My colleague from the other place the Hon. Craig Emerson MP, Minister for Trade, recently said, 'The Liberal mantra is why put off to till tomorrow what can be put off forever,' and that does seem to be the approach that those opposite take on a lot of these tough decisions. If we all shared that sentiment, we would not achieve anything in this parliament.

Thankfully, on this side we believe in getting things done. We think this is very important to the future health of Australia, to the health of individuals within our great nation. We do not want to see people unnecessarily ill or, in a worst case scenario, dying. We think it is important that this legislation is passed by the Senate. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I start by thanking senators for their contributions to the debate on this Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Amend­ment Bill 2010. The passage of this bill is another important step towards reducing the national smoking rate to 10 per cent of the population by 2018 and halving the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smoking rate in that time—the goal of our government. Since the passage of the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act in 1992, the use of the internet and other electronic means as advertising mediums has become increasingly widespread. Unregu­lated internet advertising undermines the effectiveness of the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act. It can weaken tobacco controls by allowing sales to minors, promoting smoking and permitting the purchase of cigarettes without graphic health warnings.

The amendments we are dealing with today will make it a specific offence to advertise or promote tobacco products on the internet and all other electronic media and future technologies unless compliant with state and territory legislation or Common­wealth regulations. They will also enable the making of regulations in relation to internet tobacco advertising to be similar to those placed on over-the-counter sales and online sales will no longer be different.

I welcome the comment of the member for Boothby during the passage of the legislation through the other place when he said:

The coalition are supporting the passage of this legislation because we recognise there is more to be done in the area of preventative health and there is still more to be done in the area of tobacco control.

The member for Boothby is absolutely correct. There is still more to be done. I encourage him to start by looking in his own backyard. Let him start by getting the Liberal Party to break its own expensive habit with big tobacco. Let us recall that in 2009-10 the Liberal Party accepted over $292,000 from big tobacco in political donations. In 2008-09, the Liberal Party accepted nearly $300,000 from big tobacco. That is over half a million pieces of silver from big tobacco swelling the coffers of the Liberal Party. Half a million dollars may be the price for this opposition for hire, but what is the price paid by the many thousands of Australians who have died as a result of smoking? Even their own side have been finding them embarrassing. The Premier of Western Australia supports the Labor position of not accepting donations from big tobacco. The position of the opposition on tobacco controls lacks legitimacy and I am afraid is an embarrassment.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells attempted to attack the former Minister for Health and Ageing, Ms Roxon, in her contribution. I thought her attack somewhat hollow. Let us recall the recognition that Minister Roxon has received from the Australian anti-smoking community and internationally as a result of her extraordinary leadership around the question of tobacco control. She received the Nigel Gray Medal, awarded every two years by the Australian tobacco control community to recognise an individual who has made an outstanding contribution to tobacco control. She also received the World Health Organisation Director-General's Special Recognition Certificate recognising Minister Roxon's unwavering leadership in the field of health which described the proposal to introduce plain packaging as a bold and breakthrough approach. They are not awards given lightly and they are awards given to a minister we have had in a government that is committed to preventative health in this nation and particularly through limiting the use of tobacco products.

Our government is committed to imple­menting comprehensive strategies to further reduce smoking rates in Australia. These reforms put Australia at the forefront of international action on tobacco control and build our commitment to world-first legislation to mandate plain packaging of tobacco products by July 2012; a 25 per cent increase in tobacco excise from 29 April 2010; a record $85 million investment in anti-tobacco social marketing, including a $61 million campaign launched on 30 January showing that every cigarette you smoke brings cancer closer; access to nicotine patches through the PBS; and a $5 million investment in Quitline services. I am afraid the choice could not be starker; the choice could not be easier. I commend this bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.