Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 10 Hansard (12 October) . . Page.. 3004 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

The costs involved in complying with these provisions are minimal. We believe that the cost estimates suggested by some retailers are overestimates that may be based on substantial refits which are not required by the legislation, although retailers may wish to do them. The requirements are only that the products must be located behind the counter, at least a metre from the customer service counter, which is already the case in many, if not most, retail outlets and that only one facing of each pack of each product line be displayed. The tops and sides of other packs may be visible behind the facing pack where these are angled away from the customer. This recognises how displays work in the current system.

The provision limiting the display of cigars may impose costs in relation to humidors, depending on the number and location of the cigars to be displayed. There is nothing in the provision which limits where products can be stored or which limits employee access to the stock. Overhead units may still be used for product storage. There is no limit on the number of pack facings that may face the employee's side of the same counter.

At 5.00 pm the debate was interrupted in accordance with standing order 34; the motion for the adjournment of the Assembly having been put and negatived, the debate was resumed.

MR MOORE: Glass display cases below customer service counters may also be used to store the products in the same way they are now, except that the products must not be publicly displayed. Retailers seeking to make efficient use of display space will have a number of options, depending on the arrangement in that outlet. Shopfitters will only provide quotes based on plans, and we are yet to see any plans prepared for any retail outlet which involves doing what is necessary to comply with the proposed requirements.

There is evidence of a range of lucrative arrangements between tobacco companies and tobacco retailers in relation to support for various tobacco marketing schemes. It may be that the costs that worry retailers are the losses they will experience when certain advertising promotional practices are no longer permitted. (Extension of time granted) Tobacco retailers have given health groups information about payments they have received to display particular promotional items in their shops. I do not think it is an unusual process in retailing.

Health groups have also been informed that tobacco companies offer free cigarettes and tobacco packs with promotional items to retailers to display cigarette packets and other materials in shop windows or on the counter. Payments by tobacco companies to retailers have been alluded to in industry magazines, and it was recently revealed that in New Zealand a tobacco company associated with an Australian tobacco company had entered into agreements with milk bar owners under which rental payments were made in exchange for retail space, with some milk bar owners receiving up to $2,000 a year.

In the USA, tobacco companies, including those associated with Australian tobacco companies, are currently involved in legal action concerning an arrangement whereby retailers prominently display one company's products on 100 per cent of the shop's visible shelf space for three months of the year. In return, the retailers are paid to sell that company's products at a discount. In Australia, one tobacco company recently ran a promotion in which the more stock the retailer purchased, the greater his or her chances

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .