Download Fragment

Monday, 4 July 2011
Page: 7465

Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (12:39): In looking at this motion, I was immediately drawn to the opportunity to speak on the dangers of tobacco and cigarette use. I do not do so because of any personal experiences, fortunately. I have never smoked and I appreciate that avoiding the stuff rates as one of the best decisions that I ever made in my life. It helps, of course, that my parents did not smoke and that few of my friends at school smoked. My involvement in the highly arduous sport of rowing would have been completely undermined had I been a smoker. And the member from South Australia here is another good rower. It was the case that among those who did rowing there were very few who ever smoked. If they did, they did not go very far. Overall, I have never faced the peer group pressure that others have faced. I always saw smoking as a pointless venture.

I am speaking today because, like all members of this House, I want to see fewer Australians smoking and less demand on our health resources in the future. I am confident that my children will never smoke, and I want to keep it that way. I am keen to ensure that the children in Cowan do not take up this pastime, which will become an addiction for those who start. That is why I am increasingly including an antismoking message in the talks that I give in the schools in my electorate. Smoking represents an expensive avenue to life-threatening diseases, such as the cancers and other ailments described in this motion. There is no value in it and there are no benefits, and I am keen to reinforce that message wherever I go in Cowan.

I remember from my youth the catchy jingles of the smoking commercials, but I never felt influenced by them. My personal opposition to smoking was reinforced by the introduction of the graphic warnings on cigarette packets by the Howard government and which saw a cut in the number of smokers in this country. I am pleased to be on the side of politics that acted and got things done to improve health outcomes in this country.

This motion also speaks of 'significant evidence to suggest promotion of tobacco is achieved through branding, creative design and packaging'. I have read of the studies that constitute such evidence. There are opposing views on that evidence in the form of other studies. My personal approach here is that the removal of all copyrighted markings from packages exposes the taxpayers to a financial risk through litigation. I would therefore suggest that this can be overcome by allowing some strip of a brand to remain. I know that this government has had to clean up many messes before with the taxpayers' cash, but blundering in once more is not in the national interest.

Leaving that factor aside, I want to return to the realities of the situation. The first paragraph of this motion speaks of the diseases and the ailments that come from smoking. The graphic warnings show the outcomes of smoking and it is horrendous stuff indeed. But it begs the question, does it not, as the government and the minister repeatedly deliver the sermons on this evil, about the one action that everyone would see as the commitment to match the rhetoric: to actually ban tobacco. If this is so bad, why doesn't the government cut to the chase and introduce legislation to ban tobacco? There would be an instant result with massive health and budgetary benefits over time.

That would, of course, involve forgoing some $5 billion in excise, which would immediately disappear. That might be a reason for some part of this window dressing before us today, this illusion of a solution, this plan of smoke and mirrors. I therefore question the authenticity of the government on this matter. There has been much breast beating and rattling of sabres on this issue, and yet when it comes to a logical conclusion there does not seem to be the action that is required.

The priorities of this government and its instrumentalities are also wrong in regards to the approach to illicit drugs. As has been reported in the media, the National Drug Campaign website includes terminology and elements that are almost encouraging in relation to certain drugs. The website refers to heroin as producing a rush within minutes of taking it, leading to a feeling of warmth and contentment. It also says that heroin is also know to greatly reduce physical and psychological pain when taken. Cocaine is described on the website as producing an intense rush. Ice is described as producing a very intense rush. These are very disturbing descriptions. It does seem that the priorities should be shifted. I say that we should approach smoking with a very hard resolve. But we should also approach these other illicit drugs in the same manner: with a very hard resolve.