Page 1501 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 6 June 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The tobacco institute has been very strong in its opposition to these reforms. There is quite a good document called The diary of denial, which documents the tobacco institute’s justifications, in the eighties and up to the late nineties, for not implementing further tobacco control. As late as the late eighties, it was saying that there is no evidence at all that smoking has any link to increases in diseases that may or may not be associated with smoking, including arguments quite recently about whether or not young people take up smoking because of advertising at point of sale and incentives around it.
Some of the quotes are quite amusing in the sense that you cannot believe they have been said. In 1995, the chief executive of the tobacco institute said that it is certainly nothing to do with advertising; that it is matters other than smoking which may encourage youth or juveniles to try smoking, and that the evidence suggests that young people do not take up smoking because of advertising; they take it up for other reasons.
The debate on tobacco smoking has matured. As I said, the AHA and the clubs have undergone quite significant changes in recent times. It was only on 1 December that the enclosed public places legislation come in. Certainly the clubs are saying they have seen business drop—I think it is around 10 per cent—and the AHA less so. They say they are less able to attribute the drop to smoking because there are a number of different things that they would count. They also represent movies and restaurants, which have been smoke free for a long time. Some businesses say there has been no effect; others say there has been some. They have shown a willingness to work with the government and it is our preference that, when the ban comes in, we do it in agreement with each other. Of course, we are not going to agree to a long implementation period, and that seems to be the issue.
I am sorry that Mr Mulcahy is not here. He worked for the tobacco institute and then for the AHA. I did some reading about the tobacco industry’s role in lobbying against legislative reform and I came up with an American case in 1994. It cited the campaign that was launched by the AHA and the tobacco institute here in the ACT about ACT legislation. It was quite a surprise. It talked about the tobacco institute’s successful strategy of essentially quietly backing up the Australian Hotel Association and not running the campaign as a health issue. In a letter written in reference to proposed ACT legislation to ban smoking in enclosed public places, Donna Staunton, who took over from Mr Mulcahy at the tobacco institute, stated:
This legislation which proposed to ban smoking in certain public places, has now been referred to the Standing Committee on Conservation, Heritage and Environment for enquiry and report. I believe this is a significant achievement.
The letter continues:
The Tobacco Institute deliberately kept a low profile in relation to the lobbying that took place prior to the Bill being referred to the Standing Committee. The Tobacco Institute did not want to turn the debate into one about “health”. The Tobacco Institute instead provided assistance to the National body of the Australian Hotels’ Association. You would probably be aware that Richard Mulcahy (an ex CEO of the Tobacco Institute) is now CEO of the AHA.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .