Page 3829 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 27 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Are we going to allow legislation to go through that is half baked in this particular area? It is an important area. An email I have received states:
The UK Government has acknowledged this in its recent consultation document stating that the decline in Iceland since a ban was introduced there has not been definitive. The Canadian Government’s own research shows that smoking prevalence has actually increased since the visibility ban came into effect in 2005, particularly amongst the youth. The suggestions that tobacco displays need to be prohibited because they make smokers buy on impulse has no evidence to justify it. The one piece of research referenced on numerous occasions is that attached. If tobacco displays are as powerful as suggested by antismoking organisations then why is it that only 2.9% of smokers always purchased cigarettes when shopping for something else?
We understand that the ACT bill will allow displays until December 31 2009 in general retail stores and until December 31 2010 in tobacconists.
I do appreciate the amendment. I do appreciate and acknowledge it is a very last-minute, last-ditch attempt to try to appease and fob off the community and the stakeholders somewhat, to extend it a little. But I still do not believe that is long enough, in terms of what has happened in other jurisdictions, to allow family businesses to get their affairs in order to properly cater for what is being required here. The email continues:
ITA cannot understand on what logic and evidence a visibility ban should apply to specialist tobacconists?
Other jurisdictions have quite ably put in legislation to exclude specialist tobacconists. The email continues:
Children under 18 would not be permitted into these stores so the rationale that it is to protect children is flawed. The argument that it is to stop impulse purchases is also flawed as the individual smoker has already made the decision to enter a specialist tobacconist. In all other countries or States where tobacco legislation on display bans has been implemented specialist tobacconists are exempt. This includes Canada, Iceland and Tasmania. The UK consultation paper already makes it clear that an exemption would apply for specialist tobacconists. Why is the ACT Bill the first to take this position?
It seems we have to be first in doing extreme things. I guess that is the case. The email continues:
Comments made by Ms Gallaher today—
and I think this was on 26 August—
suggest she has received approximately 1,000 letters on the issue.
I think you said that. But you do not tell us how many—and maybe you can do that tonight—of these letters were in support of or against the ban on tobacco displays.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .