You don't need to be signed in to read BMJ Blogs, but you can register here to receive updates about other BMJ products and services via our site.

Australia

Australia: progress on Tasmania’s tobacco free generation legislation

15 Jul, 16 | by Marita Hefler, News Editor

Kathryn Barnsley, University of Tasmania

In 2012 and 2014 we reported that the Australian state of Tasmania was developing mechanisms for implementing the tobacco free generation (TFG).

Tasmania has been paradoxically both a leader in legislative reform and a laggard in allocating resources to tobacco control.

The Public Health Amendment (Tobaccofree Generation) Bill 2014 was tabled in the Tasmanian Parliament in November 2014 by an Independent MP Hon. Ivan Dean. The Bill proposes to phase out the sale of tobacco products to any person born after the year 2000. The Bill is a measure to curtail supply; smoking would not be criminalised and there would be no penalties for using or possessing tobacco. The Bill was referred to a Parliamentary Committee in March 2015. It has been debated and scrutinised for well over a year. The committee was asked to look at the workability and practicality of the Bill.

The Committee, brought down its report in July 2016, making the following key findings:

  1. There does not appear to be any significant legal impediment to the operation of the Bill in delivering the policy intent.
  2. The Parliament should take a measured and cautious approach in considering a Bill which could limit or ‘extinguish’ fundamental rights relating to age, equality and liberty.
  3. The Bill raises some practical legal issues in relation to online sales and the impact of the Bill on tourism/tourists. The proposer of the Bill may wish to give consideration to amendment of the Bill to avoid negative impacts on tourism.
  4. Should the Bill be supported, appropriate education programs would be required to effectively implement the Bill. This would incur a cost and would be a matter for the Government of the day.”

A number of submissions were made including one from Lois Ireland, a retailer, who said:

“I made a conscious decision to stop gaining a profit from sales of a product that I knew to be highly addictive and that was causing long term health issues with those who I knew personally as members of my community. I knew they would go elsewhere to purchase their cigarettes but I did not wish to be further implicated in their poor health choices.

As a result, I fully endorse any moves that make it more difficult for young people to take up/continue smoking, despite any effects such measures may have on businesses. To be honest I’d be happy to see a ban on all sales – think how much lower our hospital costs would be!”

Other submissions were made by the tobacco industry and their front organisations including the Alliance of Australian retailers (AAR) which was set up to lobby against plain packaging – but seems to have extended its reach. The UK University of Bath website has exposed AAR as a tobacco industry front organisation.

The Cancer Council of Tasmania (CCT) carried out two surveys of public opinion on smoking matters including questions on TFG. The CCT survey shows that 75% of Tasmanians support the idea of a tobacco free generation, an increase on previous surveys.

The Bill: 

  • WILL prevent the sale of tobacco products to persons born since the year 2000, that is, members of the tobacco-free generation.
  • NOT prevent members of the tobacco-free generation from smoking, or attempting to purchase tobacco products. Members of the tobacco-free generation would not incur any penalties for smoking.

The Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commissioner has written to the Parliament to advise that the Bill does not constitute unlawful discrimination.

A number of lawyers and an international human rights expert also provided reports and advice to the Committee. Dr. Gogarty from the University of Tasmania said there was no legal impediment to the Bill, but expressed concerns about age discrimination and liberty. A comprehensive response and rebuttal to Dr. Gogarty’s advice was provided by Barrister Neil Francey, who says that Dr. Gogarty abandons a strict legal approach and adopts an “extreme libertarian” approach.

Ethicist Dr van der Eijk added, relating to the absence of a right to smoke. “It is highly unlikely that, given the toxic and addictive nature of smoking, it can be defended as liberty right……and children’s rights.” Also, “Smoking can also not be defended as a privacy right.”

Eminent international Professor of Law, and Professor of Public Policy and Urban Affairs in Boston USA, Professor W. Parmet also commented,

“Critically there is no fundamental right to exercise all of one’s choices without any, even indirect, legal hurdles. If that were the case, cigarette taxes, which also make It harder for some people to exercise their choice to smoke by raising the cost of cigarettes would also violate individual’s fundamental rights. Indeed, all public health laws would violate someone’s fundamental right, as all impose some road blocks on individual choice. ….In debating the wisdom of any particular public health law, it is important not to confuse the question of whether the benefits conferred by the law outweigh the inconveniences and hurdles It imposes, with the question of whether it violates recognized fundamental rights, such as the right to bodily integrity or free speech.”

The current conservative Liberal Tasmanian government has said that it might raise the “smoking age” to 21 or 25 years instead of proceeding with the TFG. This proposal has been met with a deluge of criticism in Tasmania, as all major local health groups support the TFG proposal and there is immense community support. Professor Simon Chapman criticised the raising of smoking age to 21 proposal as a “symbolic political gesture”.

The TFG Bill may be debated in the Legislative Council in August 2016. However, the conservative Liberal government remain opposed to the TFG, and have implemented no new initiatives on tobacco control since being elected over two years ago.

UK plain packs court decision: interests at stake ‘collide in the most irreconcilable of ways’

4 Jul, 16 | by Marita Hefler, News Editor

The decision on 19 May 2016 by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales to dismiss the legal challenges brought by the four multinational tobacco companies against the UK’s tobacco plain packaging legislation was a major blow to the industry. The 386 page ruling addresses a wide range of legal claims and evidence; together with lessons learned from the industry’s failed attempts to overturn Australia’s 2012 plain packaging legislation, it provides an important resource for countries planning to introduce similar laws.

The McCabe Centre for Law and Cancer, a joint initiative of Cancer Council Victoria and the Union for International Cancer Control, has prepared a paper on the UK decision which draws out eight key aspects likely to be of widest relevance to litigation and policy development in other jurisidictions. Included in the aspects of the ruling which are explored and analysed are: the intent and limits of the laws, the conflicting interests of the tobacco industry and public health, the complementary nature of comprehensive tobacco control measures, and the relevance of the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

Some notheworthy points in the analysis:

  • “…the Court points out that tobacco companies overstate the restrictive effects and implications of standardised packaging legislation” (page 4)
  • “The Court noted that the interests at stake ‘collide in the most irreconcilable of ways” (page 4)
  • “The Court notes that not all rights and interests are of equal value or worth. The protection of public health is one of the highest of all public interests. Health is a fundamental right” (page 5)
  • “…the Court notes that effective tobacco control requires the implementation of a number of complementary, mutually reinforcing measures, and that it can be difficult (if not impossible) to evaluate the contribution of individual measures in isolation to the reduction of tobacco use” (page 6)
  • “…the Court recognises that tobacco control does not and cannot stand still if it is to be effective (page 7)
  • “…the Court recognises the fundamental reality of intellectual property rights – they are created and protected to serve public purposes and interests, and are not absolute. Their exercise can be limited or restricted to serve other public purposes and interests. Public health is universally recognised as a public purpose and interest which justifies limitations and restrictions on the exercise of intellectual property rights” (pages 10 and 11)
  • “…the Court explains why, even if standardized packaging laws did constitute an expropriation of property, standardized packaging would fall within the category of ‘exceptional’ circumstances in which it would not be appropriate to require the payment of compensation” (page 13)

The full paper can be accessed by clicking here.

The McCabe Centre for Law and Cancer Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Knowledge Hub provides a public resource on legal issues relevant to tobacco control. Click here to link to the Hub.

 

Industry-funded International Tax and Investment Center responds to criticism by attempting to muddy the waters

24 Jun, 16 | by Marita Hefler, News Editor

Karen A Evans-Reeves, Anna B Gilmore and Andy Rowell

Tobacco Control Research Group, University of Bath,

The tobacco industry is under attack. In just two weeks, in May 2016, its tactic of challenging any law that threatens its profits, took a big hit. The arbitration panel, that tobacco giant Philip Morris International (PMI) had hoped would overturn standardised packaging legislation in Australia, published its full ruling that the company’s self-serving claims were inadmissible. Just days later, all four major tobacco companies lost their challenges against both the European Union’s Tobacco Products Directive and standardised packaging legislation in the UK.

The UK, France and Ireland, which have already enacted standardised packaging legislation, will now go ahead with this brand removal. Further afield Canada, New Zealand, Hungary and Norway are due to follow suit and other countries which have expressed an interest will be buoyed by the way the industry’s legal and trade challenges to plain packs are being soundly rejected. The World Health Organization’s (WHO) slogan for World No Tobacco Day 2016 was “Get Ready for Plain Packaging” recognising that the removal of branded tobacco packaging is “going global.”

Each jurisdiction to consider standardised packaging legislation has received sustained attacks from tobacco companies, using both their own voices and those of third parties which they fund. By commissioning and publicising research reports and opinions from seemingly independent experts, tobacco companies have created not only the impression of a large network of opposition but of an illusory body of evidence, particularly in relation to the industry argument that standardised packaging will increase the illicit tobacco trade.

PMI private documents, leaked to Action on Smoking and Health (UK), revealed that “broad third-party media engagement” and “high profile opinion pieces” would be used to raise awareness of such arguments among “decision makers and the general public” as part of its attempt to prevent standardised packaging in the UK. These documents also revealed that PMI intended to use the International Tax and Investment Centre (ITIC) as one of its key “media messengers”. Since 2012, PMI has paid ITIC (in collaboration with global advisory firm, Oxford Economics) to produce annual reports on the illicit trade in Asia. These claimed that illicit trade is increasing in the region but have been accused of being methodologically flawed. When publicly available routine data was used in an attempt to replicate ITIC’s findings in Hong Kong, illicit levels were found to be under half of what ITIC had estimated.

Key to the industry’s use of third parties is its attempt to shift the paradigm by presenting third parties as ‘independent experts’ and their research as ‘trustworthy and rigorous’ while simultaneously positioning public health academics as ‘advocates’ and ‘zealots’ and their research as ‘advocacy’. This presentation of corporate pawns as informed moderates producing quality work and public health researchers as misguided fundamentalists producing poor quality work is a public relations tactic employed for decades by corporations in relation to environmental and health issues.

Over the last few weeks this tactic has been adopted by the tobacco industry third party, ITIC, in a series of letters sent to Non-Governmental Organisations (South East Asia Tobacco Control Alliance (SEATCA), ASH (UK), EU SmokeFree Partnership), the University of Bath in the UK, and the Editors of Tobacco Control, all of whom had criticised ITIC’s activities, some in letters, reports and webpages. ITIC’s letters made three inter-related claims, each of which we explore in the paragraphs below.

First, that public health research should be seen as advocacy while, by contrast, ITIC’s research (none of which appears to be peer-reviewed) should be seen as high quality. For example, in his letter to the University of Bath the President of ITIC, Daniel Witt, claimed:

We have become increasingly concerned about how the integrity of reputable institutions and individuals is maligned by overzealous advocacy ….. and ….by what passes for academic research when it is clearly constructed to fulfil an advocacy agenda”.

This denigration of public health research has been strongly criticised by independent experts. In her 2006 verdict in an extortion case against the tobacco industry in the United States Judge Gladys Kessler noted:

Much of the Defendants’ [i.e. the tobacco industry’s] criticisms of Government witnesses focused on the fact that these witnesses had been long-time, devoted members of “the public health community.” To suggest that they were presenting inaccurate, untruthful, or unreliable testimony because they had spent their professional lives trying to improve the public health of this country is patently absurd”.

The recent high court ruling on the challenges made by British American Tobacco, PMI, Japan Tobacco International and Imperial Tobacco to UK standardised packaging legislation made a similar point, citing Sir Cyril Chantler’s 2015 review of the evidence:

Chantler … rejected the criticism made by the tobacco companies that those that advised the Government were biased against the industry. Conversely, he articulated scepticism about the methodological efficacy of research results generated by the tobacco companies. He also criticised the tobacco companies for adopting unrealistic criticisms of the output of existing researchers…

This ruling drew upon two peer-reviewed papers, one confirming the poor quality of industry evidence in comparison to public health evidence on standardised packaging and the other paper showing how BAT and JTI  went about distorting and misrepresenting public health evidence.

ITIC’s second claim is that it is not a lobby group. Yet based on widely accepted definitions of lobbying, ITIC’s own descriptions of its activities, and the global health communities’ observations of its behaviour, ITIC clearly acts as a lobbying organisation. Indeed, it has persistently boasted of its lobbying success. in 1995, ITIC produced a document which outlined how “ITIC has developed trusted, advisory relationships with key, senior-level policy makers…..[which]…provide channels for private sector expertise to reach the Government before, during and after the official policy-making process. This combination…… provides ITIC and its sponsors a ‘seat at the policy-making table’”. And in 2004, Daniel Witt, ITIC’s President noted: “ITIC is a public policy organization actively working to change public policy in a pro-investment direction.” Although ITIC claims to be an “independent, non-profit research and educational organization” it receives tobacco company funding and has industry representatives on its Board of Directors.  Outputs such as the Asia-11 and Asia-14 illicit trade indicator studies, commissioned by PMI and published by ITIC along with global advisory firm Oxford Economics, have been critiqued by Dr Hana Ross (on behalf of SEATCA) for opaque methodology and “unverifiable” results that were “inconsistent with results from other studies” in the region (for more on this issue, read here). In 2014, ITIC attempted to destabilise the proposed guidelines on tobacco tax and price policy by convening a meeting with Parties and Observers to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) immediately prior to the sixth Conference of the Parties (COP6). The Convention’s Secretariat blasted ITIC for this move.

Finally, in each letter, ITIC’s President, Daniel Witt argues that public health organisations ought to engage with ITIC given its tax expertise. This position displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the FCTC’s Article 5.3 which aims to protect policy making from the vested interests of the tobacco industry. It also displays a fundamental lack of understanding of public attitudes to ITIC. For example, the World Bank withdrew from an ITIC event in India, following a letter from the Institute of Public Health in the country,  similarly, following a letter from ASH (UK), the UK Department for International Development (DfiD) asked ITIC to remove its name, from its list of sponsors on ITIC’s website as DfiD has never been a sponsor, and the FCTC Secretariat has urged all governments not to engage with ITIC.

SEATCA and the University of Bath have respectively published and sent to ITIC detailed rebuttals of ITIC’s letters to them. These rebuttals and the aforementioned high court rulings are unlikely to deter ITIC from trying to influence tobacco control policies such as standardised packaging across the globe and undermining Article 5.3 of the FCTC. But the more people who reject engagement with ITIC, the harder it will be for ITIC to boast that it can get its tobacco industry clients a “seat at the policy making table”.

An Australian perspective on tobacco control in the 21st Century

29 Oct, 15 | by Marita Hefler, News Editor

Neil Francey, Barrister at Law, Whitsunday Chambers

E Haydn Walters, University of Tasmania; The Alfred, Melbourne; and Royal Hobart Hospital

and Adrian Reynolds, Southern Mental Health and Statewide Services Tasmanian Health Organisation; and School of Medicine, University of Tasmania

The Australian experience in recent years is that tobacco control measures should be viewed according to their integrated effectiveness in denormalising smoking and reducing smoking prevalence

The tobacco industry has long sought to retard tobacco control measures, dating from a meeting of US tobacco companies in December 1953 and a meeting of US and UK tobacco companies in June 1977 (see Professor Robert Proctor’s  comprehensive history of the tobacco industry Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition).

Over time these efforts have moved from disputing that smoking causes various diseases to questioning whether tobacco control proposals are practical, workable and effective.  These industry tactics have, amongst other things, sought to:

  • impede restrictions on advertising and promotion of tobacco products;
  • resist the imposition of increased tax/excise on tobacco products;
  • hinder the introduction and extension of smoke free areas.

In Australia these efforts have most recently been directed to rejecting both plain packaging and a tobacco free generation proposal (legislation barring the sale of tobacco products to persons born on or after 1 January 2000).

The industry’s opposition seems to involve now conceding that smoking is harmful, but dissecting individual tobacco control measures and attacking the contribution they may make to achieving the overall objective of reducing the prevalence of smoking.

It is instructive therefore to put tobacco control measures in perspective so they may be considered in a sensible, practical and rational manner, the current suite of effective tobacco control measures being:

  1. Education programs, to inhibit the uptake of smoking.
  2. Restrictions on advertising and promotion, to neutralise the ‘glamorisation of smoking’ (eg plain packaging).
  3. Imposition of tax/excise/licence fees, which results in a price increase, thereby providing a disincentive to purchase.
  4. Reduced access by increasing the legal age to purchase cigarettes (now up to 21 in some US states), and the current proposal for any person born on or after 1 January 2000 as part of Tobacco Free Generation legislation in the Australian state of Tasmania.
  5. Introduction and extension of smoke free areas, which restrict opportunities for smoking.

All of these measures contribute to what may be called the ‘integrated effectiveness of tobacco control measures’ and/or the ‘denormalisation of smoking’ (by counteracting specific tobacco industry objectives of providing ‘smoker reassurance’ and preserving the ‘social acceptability’ of smoking).

Accordingly, and in order to rebut the tobacco industry’s tactic of dissecting these measures, and introducing ‘red herrings’ of unlawful sales of tobacco products (something which falls within enforcement of the existing law) and the controversial subject of e-cigarettes (potentially a form of preserving the ‘social acceptability’ of smoking – albeit in the form of a different nicotine delivery device), the Australian experience suggests that any proposed tobacco control measure be considered for the contribution it may make to the overall objectives of tobacco control and not as one to be viewed in isolation.

Finally, these efforts by the tobacco industry may be seen anywhere as an attack on “state sovereignty”, that is attempting to undermine and pervert the decision making process of Parliaments and Governments to act in the best interests of their constituents.

 

Blockbuster Special Issue: Evaluation of the Australian tobacco plain packaging policy

18 Mar, 15 | by Becky Freeman, Web Editor

The latest supplement from Tobacco Control is a must read. All papers mentioned below are available open access.

Features audio and news grabs are also available from the Cancer Council Victoria.

Key findings of the evaluation include:

• Plain packaging has delivered on its aim to reduce appeal of packs, particularly with adolescents and young adults

• There was no evidence of an increase in the consumption of illicit “cheap white” cigarettes

• The impact of plain packaging extends beyond expectation with studies suggesting the initiative encourages thinking about quitting and quit attempts
—————-

Cluster bomb of new research explodes tobacco industry lies about plain packs

Simon Chapman, University of Sydney

There is near-universal agreement that Australia’s implementation of tobacco plain packaging in December 2012 has seen the most virulent opposition ever experienced from the global tobacco industry.

While the industry bravely insisted early in its campaigning that plain packs “would not work” their legal actions, campaign expenditure, lobbying and general apoplexy rather suggests they feared it would be a devastating policy, with long term global ramifications.

Indeed, eleven other nations (Ireland, England, New Zealand, France, Norway, Finland, Chile, Brazil, India, South Africa, Turkey) have either legislated plain packaging or are now warming up to do so.

University of Sydney researcher Becky Freeman and I catalogued the full range of industry lies in our recently released (free) book Removing the Emperor’s Clothes. The Cancer Council Victoria has also published extremely detailed rebuttals to the major industry scuttlebutt.

Now today, the British Medical Journal’s specialist journal Tobacco Control has published a special collection of new research which puts further 10,000 watt arc lights on specious industry claims.

Key industry claims have included that plain packs would:

  • Drive prices down, as smokers turn away from buying expensive premium brands because they look exactly the same as cheap brands (other than brand names). More affordable cigarettes, they argued, would cause more smoking, including among children
  • Flood Australia with illegal tobacco
  • Cause smokers would stop buying cigarettes at small convenience stores
  • Prompt smokers to use special covers to conceal the large-scale graphic warnings on packs.

Price falls?

One of the new Tobacco Control papers monitors changes in recommended retail prices RRPs from one year before plain packs were introduced until one year after. Prices were adjusted to 2013 prices, and for inflation and average cigarette price stick and grams of roll-your-own tobacco.

The RRPs of tobacco products were higher in real terms one year after the legislation was implemented. Importantly, these increases exceeded increases resulting from consumer price indexation of duty and occurred across all three major manufacturers for both factory made and roll-your-own brands, all three cigarette market segments and all major pack sizes.

Tobacco prices rose most for leading and premium brands 10.0% and 10.1%, respectively) and among packs of 30s (18.3%) and 50s (12.5%). So far from seeing cigarette prices fall across the board, the industry raised prices.

Floods of illicit tobacco?

The tobacco industry’s most common claim was that plain packs would see smokers turn away from buying the purposefully confronting and unattractive plain packs and seek out illegal products not in plain packs.

Tobacco spokespeople made the outrageous claim that about one in seven of all cigarettes being smoked were such illegally obtained cigarettes. Apparently, while ordinary smokers across the country knew where to buy these easily, the full might and resources of the Australian Federal Police could not work out where these were being sold.

Tobacco companies have been proven wrong.
Curran Kelleher/Flickr, CC BY

Another study in the collection questioned 8,679 smokers across the country in telephone surveys conducted continuously, from six months before plain packs until 15 months afterwards.

The study found no significant increases in reported purchasing of “cheap whites” (illegally imported Asian sourced brands), of international brands selling for 20% or more less than the normal retail price, or of unbranded loose tobacco (so-called “chop chop”).

Rates of purchase of cheap whites and heavily discounted products were at around half of one per cent of smokers, nothing remotely like one in seven.

Small shops losing customers?

One of the most bizarre claims the industry made was that plain packs would see smokers deserting corner stores for larger retail outlets like supermarkets. This was an appeal designed to tap into wider public sentiment about local corner store owners being crushed under the dead weight of government regulation.

Those making the claim never explained why smokers would abandon small retailers for large ones because of plain packs when the very same packs would be sold in both. Consumer preference for larger retailers is entirely driven by price discounting, something never mentioned in the industry propaganda.

A third paper in the collection examined where smokers purchased their cigarettes. Unsurprisingly, it found no changes from prior to and after the introduction plain packs in where smokers bought their supplies.

Covering up the packs?

In the month that plain packs were introduced, a Queensland small businessman got his 15 minutes of fame from publicity about special pack covers that could block out the unforgettable graphic warnings. Like children covering their eyes from scary scenes in movies, the idea was that many smokers would rush to do the same, outsmarting the hapless bureaucrats who planned the legislation.

A fourth paper which reports on unobtrusive observations of smokers handling their packs in outdoor cafés found that prior to plain packs, just 1.2% of outdoor café smokers used pack covers. This rose to 3.5% in the early months of plain packs and then fell back to 1.9% one year later.

In any event, evidence shows that smokers who actively try to avoid exposure to pack warnings by covering them up, have higher subsequent rates of quit attempts than those who don’t.

Importantly too, these observations recorded that of all café outdoor patrons, one in 8.7 displayed a pack prior to the introduction of plain packs with this reducing to one in 10.3 afterwards. Such a fall is consistent with both a reduction in smoking prevalence and with growing self-consciousness among smokers about showing that they smoke in public.

Impact on adolescents?

There were several principal objectives of the plain packs legislation. But outstanding among these was the goal of making smoking less desirable among young people. This would continue the trend away from smoking, as each successive cohort of children chose not to take up the habit.

A fifth paper used school-based surveys prior to and after plain packs to examine students’ ratings of the “character” of four popular cigarette brands, and variables including perceived harmfulness, look of pack and positive and negative perceptions of pack image.

Positive character ratings for each brand reduced significantly between 2011 and 2013. Significantly fewer students in 2013 than 2011 agreed that “some brands have better looking packs than others” and packs were rated more negatively, with positive ratings decreasing most in smokers.

The tobacco industry and its acolytes can be expected to try to torture these reports to spin yet more denials of the impact it fears will quickly inspire even more countries to follow Australia’s lead.

Australia is fortunate in having some of the very best researchers in the world whose work has contributed to the development of plain packs and now to the evaluation of its impact.

Editor’s note: please ensure your comments are courteous and on-topic.

The Conversation

This article was originally published on The Conversation.
Read the original article.

Tasmania: Legislation drafted to implement a Tobacco Free Generation

4 Nov, 14 | by Marita Hefler, News Editor

Kathryn Barnsley

Breathe Well, Centre of Research Excellence for Chronic Respiratory Disease and Lung Ageing, University of Tasmania

In 2012 we reported that Tasmania was leading the way towards an endgame for smoking, by developing mechanisms for implementing the Tobacco Free Generation proposal (TFG).

Those who are familiar with the Tobacco Free Generation proposal by Professor Jon Berrick and his colleagues, will be aware that the tobacco-free generation proposal advocates legislation precluding the sale and supply of tobacco to individuals born after the year 2000.

In 2012 Hon Ivan Dean, a member of the Tasmanian Legislative Council moved a motion in support of this proposition, which was carried unanimously.

The Minister for Health, Michelle O’Byrne at that time was interested in the idea and referred it to the Children’s Commissioner for consideration and consultation with the generation of children who would be affected by the proposal. The idea attracted international attention.

There was a change of government in May 2014, and the Labor/Green government lost the election. The Liberal Party (which in Australia is the more conservative party) is in power for the next four years. The Report of the Children’s Commissioner was not released before the election, and a new Commissioner was not appointed until recently. Liberal governments in Tasmania have a good record on tobacco control legislation, and initiated the measure to make it illegal for tobacco companies to tell “lies” about the health effects of tobacco.

In September Hon Ivan Dean announced that he would introduce a Private Members Bill to put the Tobacco Free Generation idea back on the agenda. It is unusual for Private Members Bills to emanate from the Tasmanian Upper House, the Legislative Council, and it will have to be approved in that chamber before going to the House of Assembly, controlled by the Government.

If passed, the law would come into effect in 2018 and over time the sales of cigarettes and other tobacco products would be gradually phased out. It is important to emphasise that smokers would not be criminalised or penalised. It is the commercial sales of cigarettes that would be phased out over the next forty years, and only the sellers would be subject to penalties.

The tobacco industry have tried to paint this proposal as “prohibition” and argue that black markets will emerge, and compared it to alcohol prohibition in the USA in the 1930s. Imperial Tobacco have responded to newspaper stories by hyping up the black market arguments, somewhat of an irony considering their convictions for smuggling in Canada and lambasting by a Parliamentary Committee in the UK.

The process is that the Bill will be tabled in the Tasmanian Parliament in November 2014 and will be debated next year – 2015, when the community and politicians have had time to consider it. The Bill, Clause Notes and Fact sheet will be able to be viewed on the Tasmanian Parliament website in late November 2014. It will be titled Public Health Amendment – Tobacco Free Generation Bill 2014.

TC blog homepage

TC Blog

Analysis and debate of the latest tobacco control research findings and policy developments. Visit site



Creative Comms logo

Latest from Tobacco Control

Latest from Tobacco Control