Analysis
of Australia’s parliamentary debates on the Tobacco Plain
Packaging Bills shows speeches by Liberal-National Party Coalition
MPs mostly reflected views similar to those of tobacco companies and
their associated entities.
The
Coalition voted in favour of the substantive Tobacco Plain Packaging
Bill 2011 in both Houses, but attempted unsuccessfully to amend it
in the House of Representatives to exempt the two smallest surfaces,
which would have allowed packets to continue to carry some
distinctive branding designs. The Coalition opposed the enabling
Trade Marks Amendment (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Bill 2011 in the
House of Representatives, unsuccessfully opposed a Senate motion to
group it together with the substantive bill in a single vote, but
then allowed the two bills to pass unopposed.
A
review of Hansard reports
of House of Representatives and Senate debates on the bills from
July to November 2011 show that most Coalition MPs acknowledged
health effects of smoking, and a few spoke mostly in support of the
bills (notably Dr Mal Washer MLA and Dr Andrew Laming MLA); however,
the independent evidence supporting plain packaging was ignored or
dismissed by most Coalition MPs and much greater prominence given to
tobacco industry (“TI”) claims.
The
parliamentary debates revealed several instances where Coalition
MPs:
·
Presented
arguments promoted by the TI – including:
o
exaggerated
warnings of accelerating “nanny state” intrusion (this was the
major theme of Imperial Tobacco’s media and retailer-advocacy
campaign against the bills);
o
claiming
there was “no evidence” that the legislation would be effective
- despite considerable published evidence presented to MPs;
o
claiming
the bills would infringe the TI’s intellectual property rights,
leading to “multi-billion dollar” payouts in compensation;
o
claiming
the legislation would increase illicit tobacco trade, create
hardship for smaller retailers and shift trade from smaller to
larger retailers.
·
Uncritically
repeated claims made by tobacco companies that had been disputed by
independent research evidence.
·
Acknowledged
the role of the Alliance of Australian Retailers (“AAR”) and
tobacco retailers in lobbying MPs to oppose the legislation.
·
Uncritically
repeated claims or supported arguments made by the AAR, without
mentioning that it was funded by the major tobacco companies.
·
Uncritically
cited “retailer concerns” about claimed trade impacts, without
acknowledging the organised campaign by tobacco companies to inflame
these concerns and encourage tobacco retailers to lobby MPs.
·
Uncritically
quoted or cited findings of reports by “independent” Deloitte
Australia on illicit tobacco trade and impact on “market shift”
from smaller to larger retailers, without pointing out that these
reports were commissioned by the TI-funded AAR, or that the findings
were inconsistent with government and other independent research.
·
Uncritically
repeated claims or supported arguments made by the Institute of
Public Affairs (“IPA”), without mentioning that the IPA had
received funding from tobacco companies and had a history of
supporting TI positions.
·
Selectively
cited or quoted only legal opinions supporting TI claims, ignoring
legal opinions independent of the industry.
·
Ignored
or rejected out of hand the findings of published and peer-reviewed
independent research on the likely impact of plain packaging.
Examples
of statements by Coalition MPs during the debates:
·
Nationals
MLA George Christensen said (August 24) tobacco was “legal”, and the legislation was “a bad bill”, “very wrong”, an “attack
on people who choose to smoke”, “probably
will not do a thing” to reduce smoking or uptake, was the
product of “very little
research”, would have a (negative) “effect
on shopkeepers and retailers”, and was “taking
away people’s choice”. He said:
“I
have a vision of these little men or women in olive green uniforms
jumping out of their little olive green car with 'fun police'
written on the side in a small and discreet font…. the fun police
certainly do not want us to smoke, so they put cigarettes in olive
green packets. It is as if there is a little Julia or Nicola in an
olive green uniform on your shoulder and, when she is not telling
you what to do, she is making a sneaky grab for your wallet. We must
wonder if there is any place in our recreational lives that the fun
police will not show up under this government, because if that
little olive green car can fit through the bedroom doorway then I
bet it will even show up there too!”
·
Liberal
MLA Alex Hawke (July 5) acknowledged that “I
was visited by the Alliance of Australian Retailers on behalf of
those small businesses which will be most impacted…”
Mr Hawke did not mention that the AAR campaign against
plain packaging has been funded by Australia’s “Big 3” tobacco
companies: BAT, Philip Morris and Imperial.
He referred to issues of
illicit trade raised in “An
independent report by Deloitte, funded by the Alliance of Australian
Retailers”. Again he did not mention that the AAR was in turn
funded by the tobacco industry.
Mr Hawke (August 24)
criticised the bills as “bad
law” and “Government
for the nanny state” and accepted the tobacco companies’
view that the bills would “take away intellectual property of legal corporations”.
He incorrectly claimed
that “In
fact [sic], there is a net
benefit to the health system from the money collected from tobacco
excise compared to the money expended in dealing with problems
created by tobacco”. This
is contrary to the independent published evidence of major National
Drug Strategy reports
which have found that tobacco excise in Australia is outweighed many
times over by tobacco’s health and other social costs to the
economy.
In claiming the bills
infringed intellectual property rights and threatened “unintended
consequences for small retailers”, Mr Hawke again quoted “A
study by Deloitte Australia, an independent accounting firm”
– again with no mention of the report’s commissioning by the
TI-funded AAR.
·
Nationals
Leader Warren Truss MLA (August 24) described the bills as “nanny state”, “a waste of time”; and
pointless since already, without retail display “people
cannot see the packets”. He did not mention that tobacco packs
are displayed in many settings outside retail outlets. He claimed
the move would “drive
customers from small businesses into the arms of the retail
giants” – citing a Deloittes report “commissioned
by the Alliance of Australian Retailers” (but no mention of
the AAR’s TI funding) that included, he said
“quite incredible figures” – meaning that he found them
remarkable, not that they could not be believed. He went on to give
details of these findings. He did not mention that the report’s
methodology and findings had been seriously questioned,
but quoted its findings without question.
Mr Truss also uncritically
quoted John Roskam from the Institute of Public Affairs, without
mentioning that the IPA has received funding from the tobacco
industry and has been a long-time supporter of many TI positions.
Mr Truss claimed the
legislation was “not going
to do anything to reduce the number of people who smoke” –
ignoring the findings of over 24 published studies that had been
brought specifically to the attention of all MPs.
·
Nationals
Whip Senator John Williams (November 10) expressed a concern about “removal
of property rights” – “because the Australian government may
get sued” and “cost
the taxpayer billions and billions”. The source he cited for
this assertion was tobacco company BATA spokesperson Scott McIntyre.
The Senator asserted that “Tobacco
companies have a legal product as it stands and they have a property
right”.
·
Liberal
Senator Cory Bernardi said (November 10) while he was “not
a defender of Big Tobacco”, the bills were “Just another piece of nanny state legislation”. He criticised
the National Preventative Health Taskforce and asserted that a
“Henry VIII” clause such as used in the Trade Marks Amendment
Bill was one that “ministers
can use to do virtually anything they like”.
Senator
Bernardi said: “The
objective of the nanny state, for those who advocate along this
line, is generally to gain more control. It is about more control
over individuals, more control over choices, more control over
people, more control over businesses and ultimately more control
over our society. That is what concerns me, quite frankly, about
this legislation.”
