Ms JULIE BISHOP (5:44 PM) —The Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Amendment Bill 2000 represents the last phase in the banning of cigarette advertising at sporting and cultural events of international significance. It is the concluding paragraph, if you like, in this government's record on tobacco control, together with our national tobacco strategy complementing our national tobacco campaign—all having a deep and lasting impact on the smoking community and associated costs.

The background to this bill recognises that, since 1992, there has been a national standard with respect to tobacco advertising: the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act of that year banned tobacco advertisements in the print media as well as films, videos, television or radio, outdoor advertising on billboards and public transport. However, an exception was made: the relevant minister could grant an exemption to the advertising ban for a sporting or cultural event if the minister was satisfied, firstly, that the event was of international significance and, secondly, that failure to grant the exemption would likely result in the event not being held in Australia. And there were guidelines specifying the various matters that the minister could take into account in determining that. This bill seeks to phase out the minister's power to exempt such events from the general ban on tobacco advertising. No exemptions will be allowed for events after 1 January 2002, except for those already granted an exemption, in which case it will be phased out by 2006.

The types of events that have been exempted recently from the general ban on tobacco advertising have been sporting events, including Rally Australia, which is a very popular event in Western Australia; the Formula One Grand Prix; the Australian Indy 300; the Australian Motorcycle Grand Prix; and the Australian Ladies Masters Golf Championship. The question posed was: given the inherent difficulties—distance and cost—in attracting major international events to Australia, would the phase-out of tobacco advertising and, hence, tobacco company sponsorship act as a further disincentive for events organisers to consider Australia as a likely destination for major international events? It seems that there is now a global view on this and there is a level playing field in so far as the banning of tobacco advertising is concerned. Previously European countries did not impose conditions as to tobacco advertising and, hence, sponsorship on events organisers. But in 1998 the European Union passed a directive on tobacco advertising. This bill before the House seeks to phase out tobacco advertising at international automotive events, as does the European Union, by 2006.

I will put this bill in the context of the tobacco industry in Australia and the social and health costs of tobacco use and the current trends in tobacco use. Then I will consider the impact of tobacco advertising and the contribution it makes to people's uptake and continuance of smoking. In that way, the reasoning both of previous governments in the partial ban and then this government in the total ban of tobacco advertising at major events will be apparent.

Other speakers have mentioned some statistics; I will add to those. A recent estimate put the tobacco industry in Australia at the level of $6.2 billion in sales in the manufactured cigarette market. It has been estimated that $100 million of this sum annually is the result of sales of cigarettes to underage young people. In 1996-97 expenditure on tobacco represented two per cent of total private expenditure per capita—although, in constant price terms, personal expenditure has been decreasing at a rate of about six per cent in the past 10 years. So what do these figures mean in terms of current tobacco use?

Australia used to be ranked quite highly in terms of an international comparison for per capita consumption of cigarettes—eighth in the world in 1991. The proportion of adults who smoke regularly has since remained stable at around 23 per cent in the years 1991 to 1998, they being the most recent statistics, although the regularity with which regular smokers use tobacco has decreased. So we are now ranked 17th in the world per capita for consumption of tobacco.

A 1998 national drug strategy household survey indicated that two-thirds of Australians aged 14 years and older had used tobacco at some time in their lives. The lifetime use of tobacco has declined from 82 per cent in 1985 to 66 per cent in 1998. But, despite the decline in the lifetime prevalence of tobacco use overall, there was a six per cent increase in recent use among 14- to 19-year-olds—and the statistics that really concern me relate to young people. Between 1995 and 1998, there was a decrease of nearly five per cent in the proportion of young people—14- to 19-year-olds—who had never smoked. In other words, there were five per cent more teenagers who had ever smoked a cigarette. Similarly, recent-use reports indicate a 30 per cent increase in recent tobacco use of those aged 14 to 19, comparing 1995 and 1998; and overall there is a 2.2 per cent increase in that age group in the proportion of those who regularly smoke.

So what does all this mean in terms of social costs? The statistics are stark and very disturbing. It is no longer tenable to argue against them. Tobacco smoking is the leading cause of drug-related death in Australia. There were over 18,000 deaths due to tobacco use in 1997, and have been each year thereafter. It is estimated that around half of the lifetime smokers will die as a result of smoking. With these 18,000 deaths per annum the main causes were cancers at 38 per cent, respiratory disease at 23 per cent and heart disease at 21 per cent. The number of tobacco-related deaths in Australia has decreased over time but only minimally—less than three per cent per annum.

Smoking costs an estimated $12.7 billion per year in health care and related costs; 15,000 hospital episodes were due to tobacco use in 1996-97; four out of five of the top diseases affecting Australians are associated with smoking. Perhaps I could just elaborate on that aspect because it is quite an interesting analysis. Australia has a long history of vital registration with excellent statistics on causes of death which have been used widely to describe and monitor major public health issues. But, although mortality data are useful for public health surveillance, they do not adequately represent a population's level of health. This has led in recent times to a deal of research on a global basis to measure population health using disability adjusted life years and disability adjusted life expectancies as the principal summary measures of population health.

In Australia, much research has been done to estimate disease burden using these measures. This year's June issue of the Medical Journal of Australia reported the results of the Australian burden of disease study, which summarised the health of Australians as at 1996 when the research was done. The complete extensive report was published by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare in November 1999. It is a groundbreaking analysis of the disease burden that took into account some 176 diseases and injuries and quantified the contribution of major risk factors to that burden. Tobacco alone accounts for over 10 per cent of the entire national burden of disease and injury in Australia.

One of the perhaps more shocking analyses on the impact of smoking relates to smoking and pregnancy and foetal and infant health. Studies have estimated that between a quarter and a third of Australian women smoked during pregnancy. There are many known long-term effects of maternal smoking on infants and many more tentative findings, but one terrible truth is that smokers have a 25 per cent to 50 per cent higher rate of foetal and infant deaths compared with non-smokers.

Tobacco smoking is the single largest cause of premature death and disease in Australia, so where does that take us in terms of the advertising of tobacco products? The history of tobacco advertising is a long one. Throughout the 20th century, it has become an increasingly sophisticated, targeted and, more latterly, subtle exercise in the promotion of tobacco consumption. It follows trends, fashions and societal changes and adapts accordingly. For example, when there was a decrease in adult male smokers, advertising then focused on women and young people. Advertisements showing women smoking and praising the qualities of tobacco were common, and they were backed up and reinforced by widespread images of movie stars up on the screen with smouldering eyes blowing smoke into the face of their captive male. They were lasting images of the power and the glamour of smoking for women.

The clear interest of the tobacco industry in attracting women was evident from their high levels of advertising in women's magazines prior to the ban on advertising in magazines and newspapers. Cigarettes were consistently among the most advertised—if not the most advertised—product among popular women's magazines. Since the 1992 ban on advertising in all but limited circumstances, the tobacco industry has focused on sports advertising. Not coincidentally I suggest, sports advertising and promotion by their very nature appeal to the young. Notwithstanding the limited opportunities for tobacco advertising, we have seen tobacco continued to be sold and promoted as something that is glamorous, hip, or whatever.

Just take the Grand Prix. In 1998, Rothmans retained the right to sponsor the Williams team at Melbourne's Formula One race, which was exempted under the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act. Under the deal, Rothmans pumped $50 million into the team, with the cars and the suits featuring the Winfield logo. You might say, `So what?' But according to research that had already been done at Adelaide's 1989 Grand Prix, the Marlborough logo, for comparison, gained more than a third of the coverage of cars and perimeter fencing bearing the cigarette brand name. Experts say that repeated exposure can have a powerful and positive effect on viewing attitudes. I do not believe anyone could deny that advertising affects consumption behaviour and that cigarette advertising influences people's decisions to smoke and their general smoking behaviour, particularly among young people.

All I need to say on this score is that in 1999 AC Nielsen listed the top 100 selling product names. In the top five on this list, four featured cigarette brands. But there have been other more pertinent studies which impact on people's sensitivity to tobacco promotion. With qualifications in mind, some findings from a number of broadly scoped studies are useful to consider. Data from 22 high income countries that reduced advertising either partially or through complete bans indicates that comprehensive bans on promotion reduce smoking. But interestingly, the finding was that more limited or partial bans have little or no effect. This was according to a World Bank report in 1999. So comprehensive bans on tobacco promotion reduce smoking; anything less has little effect. Another similar study of 100 countries found that consumption trends in countries with near complete and comprehensive bans decreased much more steeply than countries without such bans.

There have been studies on increases in adolescent uptake of smoking in the US, even in the context of increased prices, after they have been exposed to an expanded marketing budget and increased exposure to advertising. There have also been some more focused, perhaps non-economic controlled, studies including the increased susceptibility to tobacco use after exposure to tobacco promotions. Articles in the Lancet in 1997 concerned boys who cited motor racing as their favourite television sport being nearly twice as likely to become regular smokers than boys who did not watch motor racing. There was a report in the British Medical Journal in 1999 that experimentation was significantly higher among a group of children who watched tobacco sponsored cricket matches than those who did not. It seems that children are most aware of the cigarette brands which are most frequently associated with sporting events on TV. A recent study in the United Kingdom indicated that 47 per cent of primary school children in this study associated the brand names Marlborough and John Player with excitement and fast racing cars; that was their connection. I think that is a rather interesting analysis of the impact.

Closer to home, there has been evidence to link tobacco sponsorship of sport and children's preferred brands of cigarettes. In New South Wales and Queensland, Winfield was the most popular cigarette smoked by children aged between 11 and 18 years—Winfield sponsored the rugby league competition, the leading winter sport in those states. In South Australia, Escort cigarettes led the teenage market and in that state Escort sponsored the Australian football competition. Peter Jackson and Winfield were both leading sponsors of the VFL and the preferred choice of juvenile smokers was Peter Jackson and Winfield. Using sport as a means of pushing smoking has had some very subtle effects. Tobacco sponsorship cleverly links a sport's image with cigarettes in the minds of everyone associated with it. As has been reported, by doing so it leads us to believe the lie that smoking is for winners and not for losers.