Prevention of Sale of Smoking Products to Under-Age Persons Motion

Ms WEBB (Nelson) – Mr President, I acknowledge the work undertaken to date by the member for Windermere on this bill and this issue. I absolutely share his passion for better health outcomes for the Tasmanian community and the importance of lowering smoking rates dramatically to help achieve this. I thank the member for Windermere for bringing this motion before us to consider in terms of putting together a select committee.

I am not entirely convinced at this time a committee process is necessary or would be the best way to progress this and resolve the discussion that still sits around this bill, although I am still quite torn about it myself, as the member for Mersey has just discussed. I certainly appreciate the contribution of the member for Mersey and concur with many of the points he raised. In particular, I agree with the value of a broader focus to a committee inquiry to look at not only this initiative and option, but also perhaps a range of other options. What can be lost a little, and it comes out a little in some of the rhetoric the member for Windermere uses, is that this is only an option for tackling this urgent and compelling problem in our community. Most of us agree and recognise the urgency of this issue to be addressed and would like to see more effort devoted to addressing it. Certainly more funding and more commitment.

This initiative proposed in the bill is one proposal to do this. It is not the only one and potentially, not being convinced about supporting this bill or the initiative in it does not mean a person is not in support of other urgent and funded actions. To be clear about this, perhaps a broader committee focus would help tease this out and allow us to be really unified in our support for seeing more and better and better funded action in this space.

I am generally inclined to support efforts for more examination of evidence and consideration of contested issues. That is a good thing I would almost always support. I share the member for Windermere’s views on the problematic nature of when we only have private briefings on important and contested issues, off the public record and without accountability or the opportunity for robust scrutiny. That is a concern I share and the committee process would address in this case on this issue, and that vast array of information the member for Mersey refers to. In many cases, it is a vast array of really great information and evidence, and it could be made publicly viewable, discussed in the public domain, scrutinised and really have the robust interaction the committee process would afford it.

It also means things are on the public record and even if through that process they remain unresolved in the first instance, there is a public record that can be revisited and reviewed at a later date. For further discussions around this issue, we would have this available to us if the committee process happened. All of that inclines me to support the idea of a committee. There is that side of it.

However, I am not convinced a select committee process at this time would deliver us information and evidence much beyond what has already been presented, albeit privately. I am very heartened to hear the Menzies Institute for Medical Research will be undertaking a thorough independent examination of key components of the proposed T21 bill, with a particular focus on its likely impact and effectiveness in the local Tasmanian context. The Menzies Institute is very well placed to conduct this research, and there are currently evidence gaps of likely local impacts and relevance its research may well contribute towards filling.

In light of imminent commencement, it may not be timely to undertake a committee in this place on the T21 bill while we are in the absence of such potentially valuable local evidence. It is unlikely the Menzies Institute would deliver evidence during the time the committee was being undertaken, so we might end up with a committee providing a report and findings that are broad or general in nature because we are still waiting to hear from the Menzies research when it is delivered to us.

Perhaps the best opportunity for progressing this bill is when those evidence gaps are filled and we can have a greater read on likely local impact and efficacy of the initiative. Other than evidence gaps, in my view the biggest hurdle to clear for this proposed bill is the contravention of our clear principle to treat adult Tasmanians equally. It asks us to treat one group of adults differently, based on a single characteristic, in this case their age – those between the ages of 18 and 21. In my view this presents, potentially, a problematic precedent. We should not lightly set aside this fundamental principle.

In his opening speech, the member for Windermere tried to characterise this concern that I hold and referenced me as holding it. He did not quite catch the right angle on it, but I do not think now is the time for us to delve into that argument because it is not relevant to determining whether we have a committee or not. However, it would be something that I would want to see dealt with thoroughly within a committee context if it were to occur. It is certainly a key sticking point for me in supporting the legislation.

I accept and agree with the compelling evidence of overwhelming harm caused by tobacco products – I think we all do. I understand the compelling medical evidence for aiming to minimise or cease the uptake of smoking by people in their teens and early adulthood, and the benefits to individuals and our broader community if we can be successful in doing that. There is certainly plenty of evidence in that medical area on this issue, and I do not believe that anyone would be disputing it. If the committee is formed, I hope it does not spend too much time awash with this uncontested evidence base but instead focuses on the elements that are unresolved, namely the evidence that this particular initiative would have an impact in our local context and those implications that I mentioned for putting aside the precedent of treating adults equally.

I will take the opportunity while I am here to state very clearly that I am not disinclined to support this proposed committee, nor the bill itself, for any reasons relating to or under any influence from the tobacco industry or, indeed, the retail industry that sells its products. I distinguish the two industries here in saying that.

In fact I find the issues raised by those industry groups largely spurious and the evidence they present fairly uncompelling. Let me be clear here today: I regard the tobacco industry as repugnant. It is, quite simply, an industry that profits from killing people and causes great suffering. I think it would be quite an excellent result, ultimately, to see the tobacco industry go bust through our successful efforts to minimise smoking in our community.

In regards to retail businesses that sell tobacco products, these are different propositions. I believe that mostly tobacco sales are a small part or one aspect of their model of business. Businesses shift and change all the time. I note that tobacco retailers are disproportionately clustered in low socio-economic areas. This is not unlike another addictive and devastatingly harmful product that we fail to best protect our community from, and people will not be surprised to hear me mention poker machines in that sense.

Given that clustering, I think there is an opportunity to consider community interest and social and health impacts in relation to the licensing of businesses that sell tobacco products. The member for Windermere mentioned an example of a business that had chosen to move away from that product. I think encouraging or incentivising people to modify their business would be a great way for us to focus on that side of this issue. No doubt that would be opposed by the tobacco industry. It would vigorously oppose most efforts, I would suspect, to reduce the retail footprint of its products because when it comes down to it, it is as simple as this: preserving the industry’s profits is directly against people’s health and their lives. It is our policy choice and regulatory challenge to manage that.

In recognition of the blatant financial self-interest of the tobacco industry to influence policy and oppose the best interests of our community, we have these sets of principles to ensure that tobacco companies do not have undue influence over tobacco control policy development. We would rightly look askance at a tobacco control policy being written by the tobacco industry or individual tobacco companies. We would rightly look askance at taxation rates on tobacco being dictated by the tobacco industry or tobacco companies. We would rightly look askance if the tobacco industry or tobacco companies were to provide the vast majority of political donations to any party contesting an election based on a policy that provided that industry with direct and substantial financial windfalls. We would rightly be appalled. We would find that appalling when it comes to tobacco, but we would contemplate it in other industries that are similarly harmful and deadly.

However, we are not here to discuss that today. I will return to the question at hand, which is the proposal to establish a committee in relation to the T21 bill. I am concerned about the focus of the proposed committee. It would be more valuable if it were broader, and I could support it to be that way. I would like to see this matter resolved. I note the drawn-out nature of the discussion. I am also concerned we are focusing so much in this space that we are discouraging action and commitment and funding on this issue through other valuable and evidence-based initiatives.

I will not support this motion for a committee. However, I hope the member brings the bill or resolves to leave it until after we have the results of the Menzies research. It will give us the right context to talk about this with a local evidence base and be able to weigh it against other initiatives we might seek to deploy in this space.

More parliamentary speeches by Hon Meg Webb MLC