Tobacco is a unique product and, of necessity, this is a unique Bill. In simple terms, tobacco impairs health, no matter how it is used. Smoking is the single most preventable cause of death and illness.

Statistics speak for themselves: 6200 Victorians per annum die from tobacco-related disease and 23000 Australians will die this year as a result of using tobacco over short, medium or long periods of their lives. It is those chilling facts that have motivated the Liberal Party to reach a conclusion that it will support this Tobacco Bill in an amended form.

The diseases that tobacco use causes include cancer, heart disease and an appallingly large number of debilitating illnesses. Cigarette smoking is also known to adversely affect the health of the unborn child and reduce fertility of both men and women.

I stress that, of course, the use of tobacco is a matter of free choice by individuals in the community. Even the most hardened zealots do not argue these days that tobacco should be banned completely. Perhaps if tobacco were being introduced as a new product today it would be banned, but that period has long gone and tobacco is a reality. The question is how to deal with its consequences rather than trying to rewrite history and wishing it had never existed to cause the illnesses and death that it has caused over so many years.

Given the human, social and financial cost of tobacco, Parliament must consider measures to decrease the incidence of smoking by controlling factors associated with the promotion. The Liberal Party's special concern, its central worry, is the fact that children - in particular, females - are taking up the smoking habit. Approximately 80 per cent of smokers begin the habit prior to the age of sixteen years. Although it has been technically against the law to sell cigarettes to a child, honourable members all know that many children have and probably will continue to have free access to cigarettes.

The real issue, therefore, apart from trying to bring in rules to stop access to cigarettes by children, is to introduce responsible rules that ensure that children are not attracted towards cigarettes and, therefore, do not seek them out. Mr. President, I have distributed two tables to the government, to the National Party and to you and I ask that they be incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT - Order! I have viewed the material that Mr. Birrell has presented to me and it is acceptablew for incorporation in Hansard, except for one point: Mr. Birrell must indicate the authority or source of the documents.

The Hon. M. A. Birrell - The source is the Medical Journal of Australia and the Anti-cancer Council of Victoria.

The Hon. D. R. White (Minister for Health) - On a point of order, Mr. President, I ask that Hansard include the source on the bottom of the tables; and I request honourable members, in producing tables, to formally include the source of the documents at the bottom of those documents.

SOURCE: Anti-Cancer Council of Victoria

(Refer to graph page 1198 - Hansard)

The Hon. M. A. Birrell - The two tables outline the level of smoking among people under the age of sixteen years. They reveal a disturbing trend among Australian children. The survey of smoking statistics in Victoria in 1984 shows, for example, that 24 per cent of fourteen-year-old males and 27 per cent of fourteen-year-old females smoked in the week prior to the survey.

The Hon. D. M. Evans - What did they smoke?

The Hon. M. A. Birrell - Cigarettes. The second chart from the Medical Journal of Australia shows the percentage of regular smokers among Australian school children aged twelve to fifteen years. The table indicates what honourable members already knew to be true: that the new entrants to the smoking market are mostly people under the age of sixteen years. In any marketing sense, for a product to continue to be successful it must attract new entrants to the market. In real terms, that is what the Bill is dedicated to.

Honourable members must ask themselves: what influences children to take up smoking? I believe there are three factors: parents, peer group and promotional advertising. It is hard, of course, to distinguish between these three groups and the influences they have, but there is no doubt that the family environment affects children's decisions, although many children will argue that because their parents smoke it is something they would never do. The research indicates that the incidence of smoking by children in families where one or both of the parents smokes is higher than the norm.

Peer group pressure, of course, influences children to smoke. Indeed, it influences children to take up many types of activities, good or bad. Peer group pressure is, in itself, affected by the third factor that influences children, promotional advertising. Young people seek to emulate adults, to mimic the traits of those who are older. Smoking is one of those visible traits of many adults.

Advertising makes smoking look attractive. It creates qualities for cigarettes that are, in fact, totally misleading and inaccurate. It enforces peer group pressure and can create it. It certainly can put into the minds of young people who have free access to all of that advertising that smoking is something that is either fashionable, necessary, desirable or, at the very least, worth experimenting with. It is the Liberal Party's concern for children that motivates it to support this unique Bill. The Liberal Party stresses the fact that it is a unique product, and it is a one-off stand that the Liberal Party takes on this product.

Historically, of course, the Liberal Party has long supported preventive health campaigns. In government over the years and through policies, the Liberal Party has demonstrated a belief that preventive health deserves a higher priority, in terms of both policy statements and budgetary requirements.

The Liberal Party particularly believes that health campaigns should be conducted for the impressionable groups in the community, and there can be no more impressionable group than young Victorians.

Parliament has a real duty towards those young people. It is acknowledged that it would be best if that duty were fulfilled by parents and friends, but in so many cases it rests on outside organisations and bodies to fulfil the role in the public interest.

The Liberal Party has consulted widely on the Bill. It has been one of the most exhaustive, if not exhausting periods of consultation that one could imagine. I do not suggest that the story in one newspaper that I had received 10,000 letters was exactly accurate! It certainly felt like 10,000 letters, but it has to be put on the record, for history's sake, that the sub-editor put in an extra nought. The weight of the campaign was real and, I believe, utterly legitimate.

The Liberal Party consulted with a number of groups, including the Anti-Cancer Council of Victoria, the Tobacco Institute of Australia, the National Heart Foundation, Philip Morris Ltd, the Australian Medical Association, W.D. & H.O. Wills (Aust) Ltd., VicSport, Rothmans of Pall Mall (Aust.) Ltd., Peter McCallum Cancer Institute, Amatil Ltd, the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, the Tobacco Growers of Victoria, the Outdoor Advertising Association Pty. Ltd, the Confederation of Australian Sport, the Royal Children's Hospital, the Australian automatic vending machine operators association and many others.

They are the groups that returned on numerous occasions. It has been a valuable period of consultation because the Liberal Party has learned of the concern of many who are affected by the Bill and of the passionate support of those who believe there is a need for new legislation.

The Opposition does not believe the Bill is perfect and will therefore move a number of amendments. On the basis of the lengthy consultations and discussions, and of the agreements that have been struck with so many people who initially had concerns but are now happy with the Bill, the Opposition will support it in an amended form.

The Bill is not a precedent for controlling other products. I said earlier that tobacco is a product that uniquely involves illness, no matter how much it is used. No other product on the market fits into that category. The Opposition makes it unequivocally clear that it would not support the Bill as a model to be used as the basis for any other legislation. The government would have to prove that 6000 Victorian deaths resulted from another product before the Opposition would support what would be an unusual Bill dealing with an unusual product.

There is a precedent, however, involved in dealing with tobacco advertising. That subject was first tackled in a pioneering initiative by the Liberal and National parties in 1975. I give full credit to the Fraser government for taking on the issue of tobacco advertising on television and radio. Let us be frank about it: that was probably the most important initiative. Think how much higher the incidence of tobacco consumption would have been among children, let alone adults, if that initiative had not been introduced in 1975. Not even the most ardent supporters of smoking suggest that the 1975 legislation, unanimously supported by the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Labor Party, should be repealed.

The 1975 precedent of the Fraser government is being followed, but the Opposition does not regard the Bill as a precedent for legislation outside the tobacco field. It is important because it will help tackle the problem of the high incidence of smoking, particularly among children.

There is evidence from overseas that legislation similar to that proposed in the Bill can work. No-one suggests that Victoria is going as far as Norway went in 1975, with a lead-up period of discussions about its actions on all promotion of cigarettes in that country. Victoria is going along that path and taking reasonable steps towards the same end.

Mr. President, I passed up a graph that came with the other two; they have been supplied to the other parties, and to Hansard. That is from the same medical journal, and I seek leave to have the graph incorporated in Hansard.

(Refer to Graph on Page 1201 - Hansard)

That graph shows what happened in Norway after the bans were imposed in 1975, and in particular what happened to the percentage of daily smokers among school students in Norway. As will be apparent from an analysis of the graph, from the period that the bans were introduced the number of 13, 14 and 15-year-old smokers fell dramatically. That is active proof that if the inducement is removed, the likelihood that someone will try to get the product is removed. It was not simply good enough to ban its sale to kids: what had to be removed was the inducement to try to get the cigarettes in any possible way. There is popular public support for responsible initiatives in that area.

If opinion polls are any guide - and I am not wedded to them although they are interesting to examine - there is strong support for the initiative. One opinion poll conducted by Roy Morgan Research in June 1987 involved a survey of 1136 households and came up with some interesting results, when those persons surveyed were asked: Would you approve or disapprove of banning all forms of cigarette advertising?

The answers were broken up according to voting intention, an interesting way of examining the results. They indicated that 61 per cent of Liberal Party supporters approved of the idea of banning all forms of cigarette advertising. A slightly higher percentage, namely 62 per cent, of Labor Party supporters held the same view; and the strongest support - 64 per cent - came from National Party supporters.

I am not wedded to opinion polls, but it is interesting that the results are consistent with opinion polls carried out by, I think, every other group or organisation on the topic of the banning of cigarette advertising. Each poll result was similar.

I turn to the Bill and to the Liberal Party's comments on the specific weaknesses that need to be addressed. The Liberal Party will address five areas in a more detailed sense in the Committee stage: firstly, the weaknesses it discerns in the Foundation; the Liberal Party does not consider the Foundation is sufficiently independent; secondly, its concerns about the limited controls and the discrimination in the controls proposed over sports sponsorship; thirdly, the need to protect the legitimate contractual rights of outdoor advertisers; fourthly, the needs and rights of vending machine operators; fifthly, certain minor amendments, the nature of which will be detailed.

Before going to those areas I dwell on an aspect of the Bill which is conspicuously silent - the government has made a policy decision not to cover it: namely, newspaper and magazine advertising.

The Cain government should immediately pursue the issue of newspaper and magazine advertising at a national level. There is a need for interstate or, hopefully, unanimous State action on that issue. In particular, the Liberal Party hopes that the two key States - New South Wales and Victoria - may be able to work together because the Opposition make no bones about the fact that the Bill is a lesser measure because it excludes one complete area of advertising.

That view was put to the Liberal Party most strongly and most cogently by one of the people who will be regulated under the provisions of the Bill, namely, Mr. Arthur Davis, General Manager of Levingston Posters. On 22 October he wrote to me and encapsulated the view with very well-chosen expressions about newspapers and magazines not being part of the government's proposed controls.

In that letter he stated:

Those are the views of the general manager of a large outdoor advertising company.

In addressing themselves to this issue, members of the Liberal Party call on the Minister for Health to argue for coordinated State initiatives to counter the impact of image-creating cigarette advertisements in magazines and newspapers. We are particularly concerned about the impact that magazines like Cleo and Cosmopolitan have on young women readers who are attracted to the glossy magazines and image-creating advertising, which is not addressed in the Bill.

Addressing the issue does not mean that controls will have to be put in place. It may mean bringing pressure to bear on the industry to encourage it to introduce tougher controls on itself. In any event, a step will have been taken and I support the taking of that step.

I turn now to deal with provisions of the Bill to which I have already alluded. I deal first with the new Victorian Health Promotion Foundation. The Liberal Party supports the creation of the foundation. One of the reasons why it will not oppose the 5 per cent increase in tax on cigarettes is that the money will be channelled into a foundation. That is desirable but only if that foundation is independent and freestanding. The foundation will have neither of those characteristics if the Bill is passed.

In his second-reading speech, the Minister said:

As nice as that sounds, the Foundation may become nothing more than an agent of Health Department Victoria, or a target for Ministerial directives. That situation is not in the interests of the public.

It certainly is not a wise way to allocate $23million of public funds. If those funds are to be allocated, they should go to a freestanding body that is not restricted by overt political influence. I foreshadow amendments to be moved in the Committee stage, which could result in the restructuring of the Foundation. In particular, I foreshadow amendments that will seek to remove the clauses throughout the Bill which include phrases such as "subject to Ministerial approval".

If the proposed body is to be independent, it should be truly independent and not just a plaything of any one politician. In addition, the Liberal Party will be insisting that a new board be established, not just by Ministerial directive but comprising people from various categories: three people from the field of health; three people from the sports area; two representatives from business or the law; one from advertising; one from the arts; and three members of Parliament.

In particular, the Liberal Party will recommend a board based on the university board model, which it believes should be followed. It should have a funding base and be designed to cover all fields of influence.

The proposed Victorian Health Promotion Foundation will be unique and should follow the structure of the university boards. Three members of Parliament should be on the board, one from each political party, elected by a joint sitting of Parliament. There are enormous precedents for that proposal and I cite some of them: the Melbourne University council has three members of Parliament on it---

The Hon. W. R. Baxter - It does not dish out money, does it?

The Hon. M. A. Birrell - You have to be kidding! It dishes out a fortune to groups, different schools, and also research projects. Have a close look at it! The councils of the University of Melbourne, Monash University, La Trobe University, Deakin University, the Council of Adult Education, the State College of Victoria, the Victoria Institute of Colleges, the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Board, the Victorian Institute of Marine Sciences, the Victorian Institute of Secondary Education, the Melbourne Cricket Ground Trust and the National Tennis Centre all have members of Parliament as representatives.

It is desirable that the Foundation also include members of Parliament. There is no threat to the Foundation in having members of Parliament on it who can work on it, influence it, and also be influenced by it.

The powers that the Foundation in making grants should be changed. It has been with a certain sense of cynicism that many members of the Liberal Party - and, I suspect, the National Party, too - have seen Ministers come out to their electorates and spontaneously provide funds to needy groups, and always in the presence of a photographer. To control this natural urge of any government to take advantage of the handing over of grants, I shall seek to insert a new clause stipulating that any grants shall be presented only by the non-Parliamentary members of the foundation or the chief executive officer.

The Opposition looks forward to that restraint being placed on the natural desire of any Labor Minister - or, in the future, of any Minister - to get his picture in the paper for doing absolutely nothing, when the Foundation deserves all the credit.

The second issue I raise is related to sports and arts sponsorship. The current Bill is deficient in this area. There are two options here: either to ban all sports and arts sponsorship by cigarette companies, or to let it all through and find other mechanisms for controlling it and heavily influencing it.

Members of the Liberal Party agree with the government that it would have been wrong to ban all sports and arts sponsorship if for no other reason than that Victoria is not an island: it is part of a nation and, in any event, there are legal problems in imposing laws across boundaries. The real problem is that there are national, interstate, or international events that would be exempt. The Bill is deficient because it seeks to establish a middle ground that is discriminatory and, most importantly, unproductive. The Bill would have exempted all major visible sport and arts groups from any control at all.

In simple terms, sports and arts sponsorship by cigarette companies of major visible events would have gone ahead under the Bill. I provide honourable members with some examples. There would have been debate forever - this is now academic because of a proposed amendment to the Bill - as to how many sports would have been exempted by the current Minister or any other Minister. The Minister has said on a number of occasions that the exemptions would include the major national, interstate, or international events.

What does that mean? All honourable members will agree that it includes the World Series Cricket, sponsored by the Benson and Hedges company; the Interdominion: surely motor racing; many events in horseracing; perhaps other events in harness racing; national golfing championships; greyhound racing; soccer; Australian Rules football; skiing; motor cycle racing; and even events in athletics, such as the Stawell Gift.

If nothing else, there would have been long, laborious, and perhaps legal - certainly public - disputation over whether one event was to be exempt or not. Sporting bodies have issued a strong twofold message: first, the Bill is discriminatory in that it regulates only medium or small sports, which are far less visible than the others; second, there is a better way of influencing the decisions of sporting bodies and that is to offer freedom of choice for the first time because they will be able to go to the Foundation and receive alternative funding. In private, many sporting bodies made it apparent that they did not want to take cigarette company sponsorship but they felt they had no alternative. Under the Bill they will have an alternative.

An exemption should be granted to all sports events, and the money from the Foundation should be used to sponsor sport and to voluntarily buy out cigarette sponsorship of those events. Therefore, there is a moral duty on sports and arts groups currently sponsored by cigarette companies to take up funding from the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation. No longer will a sports group have the easy argument of saying, "We would not take money from cigarette companies, but there is no other money". That argument will be gone; there will now be only a moral imperative which is: for promotion of a healthy activity like sport, explain how a sporting body can agree to corporate sponsorship by a company whose product has an adverse effect on health.

The Opposition believes it should be a right of sports and arts groups to choose their corporate sponsorship. The Opposition will give that choice to them, and it supports their arguments that the vast majority of sports should reject cigarette sponsorship. The Opposition hopes not one sports or arts group will take up cigarette sponsorship.

The Hon. D. R. White - That won't happen.

The Hon. M. A. Birrell - We know that will not happen. The point is that we are dealing with harsh realities. Under the Bill, that would not have happened. If nothing else, Benson and Hedges test cricket, the most visible of all sports and one of the most attractive, particularly to young boys, would have lived forever. Honourable members are not dealing with a conflict of ideals between getting rid of all cigarette sponsorship and not getting rid of all of it because the Bill, as it presently stands, is a compromise. Given that it is a compromise, there is a better way to achieve the goal, and that is to use a carrot and not a stick. It can work and it should work.

The Opposition is saying to sports and arts groups that if they have any links with cigarette companies, they should reconsider those links. When the Foundation is established, those groups will be able to get subsistence funding from the Foundation.

The Hon. D. R. White - If it does not work, what are you foreshadowing?

The Hon. M. A. Birrell - The Opposition believes it will work. If the Minister for Health wants to make changes to the legislation in the future because there are weaknesses in it, the Opposition will entertain those changes.

It was the Minister's words reported in the Age of 26 October 1987 that brought home the practicalities. He said:

That is the bottom line of the Bill. The Opposition examined different ways of achieving a similar outcome. The onus is now on sports and arts groups. The Opposition will give them the freedom; let them exercise what comes with freedom; that is responsibility.

I make this important point: in addition to freeing up the sponsorship restrictions for those less visible and smaller sports which were to be covered by the Bill, the Opposition will propose an amendment during the Committee stage of the Bill ensuring that the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation must spend at least 30 per cent of its annual funds on sport each year. The Bill contains no guarantee that money will be given to sport; it is only a promise. The Opposition's proposed amendment will ensure that sport will receive at least $7 million a year. Needless to say, that has been well received by the sporting bodies, such as VicSport and the Confederation of Australian Sport. The Opposition believes it will assist the promotion of healthy sports in this State and in buying out existing tobacco sponsorships.

I move now to the issue of outdoor advertising. The proposal in the Bill is to quickly control outdoor advertising. Clearly outdoor advertising is a major medium for cigarette companies. In the absence of television and radio advertising, they had to go somewhere. Apart from using newspapers and magazines, cigarette companies use outdoor advertising and some other avenues.

It was put to the Opposition by the business people involved with outdoor advertising that they were in a dilemma, and the Opposition had enormous sympathy for them. Outdoor advertisers were effectively the third parties caught in the Bill, and they had a case which is acceptable to the Opposition. I am pleased that it has resulted in an agreement which all parties now accept. The government will propose amendments to the Bill following the Opposition's representations on behalf of the Outdoor Advertising Association of Australia (Inc.).

The amendments the government will propose, and which have been circulated to the parties, will give a more reasonable phase-out time for existing contracts. Honourable members should picture the situation: in 1984, an outdoor advertiser signs a contract for four years with a tobacco company. It was not against the law at that time and, with the exception of Nigel Gray's annual outbursts on the issue, no-one thought this Bill would be introduced. In that case, what the outdoor advertiser did was logical and legal.

The Bill has now been introduced and outdoor advertisers still have contracts, but it will be against the law to put a cigarette advertisement on a billboard. The outdoor advertisers have a compelling case that their existing contracts should, in one way or another, be served out. I am pleased that, after what could only be called long, fruitful negotiations between the Opposition, the Outdoor Advertising Association of Australia (Inc.) and individual companies involved and also between those bodies and the Minister for Health, a letter was written to the Minister on October 29 by Neville Trethowan, chief executive of the association, stating:

The association made it clear that, after discussions, the "terms and conditions" were "accepted as being satisfactory". The Opposition is pleased to have been able to assist in the lobbying process to have the Bill changed. It is clearly inadequate in its present form. It is pleasing that the needs and legitimate contractual rights of outdoor advertisers have been met.

The fourth issue is that of vending machines. The controls on vending machines stand out in the Bill because they are the only controls that deal with access to cigarettes, with the exception of control of access to cigarettes by persons under sixteen years of age. The rest of the Bill is about promotion. The Bill restricts vending machines only to licensed premises. It was pointed out in discussions with the Opposition by the Australian Automatic Vending Association that the largest outlets for vending machines are the factories of the Ford Motor Co. Australia Ltd. and Holden's Motor Company. I did not know that, but, apparently, those factories have well-used cigarette vending machines. The association put the argument, not surprisingly, that, given that it is against the law to employ children in factories and therefore they will not be on the premises, it is not unrealistic to allow vending machines for the legal sale of cigarettes to adults in certain other places.

A long discussion took place, and the Opposition supported the views of the vending machine owners that the Bill is unnecessarily strict. I am, therefore, pleased that on 29 October, Mr. John Currie, Secretary of the Australian Automatic Vending Association, Victorian Branch, reached agreement with the Minister for Health and stated:

I understand that amendments to that effect will be proposed during the Committee stage of the Bill.

In the case of the amendment and the amendment on outdoor advertising, the Opposition will be looking to ensure that the Minister's undertakings are met.

A further amendment that the Opposition proposes to move concerns sales of cigarettes to children. Although sales of cigarettes to children are not the major reason why children smoke - that is, they have to have the motivation before they seek access to cigarettes - it is important that the Bill contains strong clauses to forbid anyone who, for whatever reason, wants to start peddling cigarettes to kids.

The current Victorian law is hopelessly inadequate and includes an absurd provision that, if a child carries a letter which looks as though it was written by the parent granting permission to buy cigarettes, the child is permitted to buy the cigarettes. I do not know how many children are ingenious enough to write letters they can claim were written by their parents; I am sure most children would find a quicker way of buying cigarettes than going to extraordinary lengths. The law is an ass in that regard.

The Bill improves the existing law, but it is not tough enough. During the Committee stage, the Opposition will be suggesting changes along the lines of the South Australian legislation. The Opposition will be suggesting a fine of $1000 be imposed on persons selling cigarettes to children. That proposal has been supported by W.D. & H.O. Wills (Aust.) Ltd, Philip Morris Ltd and the tobacco institute. That fine will stamp out those occasions when a shopkeeper thinks, "Who cares about selling to a thirteen-year-old - if he or she wants to buy cigarettes, good luck to him or her." That shopkeeper will be hit with a $1000 fine or, if it appears to be an eversion, an on-the-spot fine of $100.

A final amendment concerns the restraint the Bill places on freedom of information. The Opposition considers, firstly, that the clause is wrong. Secondly, it does not like seeing these types of clauses cropping up in Bills on so many occasion. Clause 44 provides:

The Opposition will move to delete that exemption. In the first place, if the government has a problem with the Freedom of Information Act, it should amend it, and not seek, through small Bills, to delete little chunks now and again from access to information.

In the second place, the legitimate rights of anyone who wants to apply for a grant will be protected by the existing exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act. Thirdly, if they are not protected, that is because the Administrative Appeals Tribunal determined that it was in the public interest to release the document to the public.

On all grounds the Opposition regards it as desirable to knock out the government's proposal in clause 4. After the Liberal Party made that decision, it was pleased to receive the following letter from Mr. Ian Dunn, the President of the Law Institute of Victoria:

The Opposition agrees with the Law Institute of Victoria, and it will invite the Committee to vote against clause 44. The Opposition will also move other small amendments which I shall outline during the Committee stage.

I thank members of the Liberal Party who worked tirelessly during the past three weeks to ensue that we would reach the stage we have reached today. I refer to Mr. Connard and the honourable members for Frankston South and Gisborne in another place.

The Liberal Party makes an important statement on the Bill. It will support the amended Bill, and it is pleased to be able to deliver on this initiative.

Back to Speeches & Articles

Back to Home Page