Ms BURNET (Clark) – Deputy Speaker, in speaking to this bill on behalf of the Greens, I recognise at the outset the harmful impacts of tobacco products, including vapes, on the health of Australians and Tasmanians in particular. I have spoken to young Tasmanians who have been lured into vaping or found it very difficult to cease vaping. They have talked to me about the incredible peer pressure they have been under at social events where vaping has become so normalised. It is important to consider how this is impacting young people, in particular, and the harms associated with vaping. There is nothing that can be denied about that.
As part of an economic analysis, the QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute has warned that the increased prevalence of vaping could ultimately cost the Australian health system upwards of $180 million a year just from a portion of users taking up tobacco smoking. The Queensland-based institute estimated 13 per cent of people who vape, but who have never smoked before, transition to tobacco cigarettes. It goes to some of the comments Labor’s health spokesperson, Ms Haddad, has made. In a media release, the institute said:
These findings, published in Australian Health Review, conservatively estimate at least $180 million annually will be needed to treat increased numbers of people with respiratory diseases, cardiovascular disease and cancer. This is in addition to the current healthcare costs of 25 smoking-related conditions estimated to be costing $2.6 billion each year.
…
“There’s a risk that the nation’s already strained health system could weaken even further, with an increased number of people experiencing smoking-induced disease and addiction following a transition from vaping to cigarettes.
However, further Australian reforms and community-wide education campaigns are urgently needed to support people addicted to e‑cigarettes and to prevent the uptake of tobacco cigarettes which are still widely available.
We have the issue of tobacco and now we have the insidious issue of vapes and the impact on Tasmanian lives. Big Tobacco is really winning here. It has appealed to the next generation of addicts, targeting young vapers and children with slick advertising, effectively making an insidious, wretched product cool, and addicts out of children.
However, Tasmania is out of step with the rest of Australia with the introduction of this legislation. The Greens’ view is that this proposed bill could easily have unintended consequences. By restricting beyond the federal legislation to S4 prescription-only medications for vaping products, there will inevitably be difficulty accessing our overstretched GPs and primary health services. The burden of cost will, in effect, prohibit purchase of vaping products, thereby pushing those using vapes to illicit vaping products or tobacco use. It is a form of prohibition and overreach that tries to go that step too far in restricting access to vaping products.
I know it is well intentioned and I acknowledge the work the Attorney-General and former health minister, Guy Barnett, has done on this, as with Mr Jaensch. However, such an overreach can have negative consequences. It goes that step too far in restricting access to vaping products because it looks at just one way to address the problem. The Greens believe it would be far better to test the freshly minted federal legislation before embarking on this further layer of changes.
Prohibition does not work. Disadvantaging one group of people by effectively restricting access to one product over another, that is, vapes versus tobacco, drives procurement of this product underground. It may increase the number of people smoking tobacco, both new users or people switching back to tobacco. Nobody wins if that is the outcome other than Big Tobacco.
In speaking to this bill, I will talk about the federal changes and their benefits, because they need to be stated. This is comprehensive legislation. I will also talk about where this bill falls short and what the Greens would like to see in reducing the harm of tobacco and vaping products.
The federal changes are world-leading and pragmatic. They take all the elements required to address a public health issue by spending big on targeted advertising, reducing access ‑ especially to minors – and through law enforcement of illegal imports. They address waste issues of vaping paraphernalia and ban single-use vapes, as waste from vaping paraphernalia has a huge consequence polluting our waterways and leaching toxins.
As to the federal government’s recent changes supported by the Greens and what these changes mean for reducing harm from vaping, world-leading legislation in the form of the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Act 2024 came into effect on 1 July 2024 and there will be rolling changes as we go.
There are many key components and I will group them into five. First and foremost – and this is fundamental in this national legislation and important to understand – the federal legislation sets out to reduce harm from vaping by restricting access, in particular to young people under the age of 18 who are getting hold of vapes currently and children often preyed on by tobacco and small businesses, who target product products with flavours such as bubble gum and drawings on packaging to make them enticing, and with shop window advertising to lure children into their shops to make them addicts to nicotine. We hear of situations where this is unfortunately still happening in Tasmania. The flavours are now limited to plain menthol, mint and tobacco, which is a huge deterrent, apparently. Plain packaging will also reduce the allure that insidious targeted products were designed to addict.
The federal government is spending $63.4 million over four years on messaging, with much of it targeted at young people, and the ‘Give up for Good’ social media campaign is part of that push to reduce those impacts. Quit Tasmania is funded to campaign against the harmful impacts of vaping through federal funding and more funding is going to state‑based organisations such as Quit Tasmania right across Australia. This includes information targeting social media for young Tasmanians as to the harms vaping has on physical health and how to get help to quit. Importantly, there will also be stronger regulations around advertising to healthcare professionals, again trying to tackle the power of advertising through enticements for health professionals, so that is addressed by the federal legislation which is world leading.
The second component is restricted access. This is a big win, with the federal legislation ensuring that vaping products are not available at corner shops. This is fantastic news. It means you cannot let children have that easy access to tobacco outlets that are already across Tasmania. There are between 600 and 700 outlets across Tasmania that sell tobacco, but fortunately through the federal legislation they will no longer be able to sell vapes at their shops, and certainly not on display, as they have been previously. Vapes will no longer be available through tobacconists but through restricted points of sale through pharmacies. Key to this federal legislation is that restricted access. Through selling at pharmacies with S3 restrictions to people over 18 only, this is a fundamental shift in tackling vapes and restricting where they can be purchased.
As I said, Tasmania has between 600 and 700 licenced tobacco outlets and just in my neighbourhood, right at a bus stop where schoolkids get on, there is Free Choice in Elizabeth Street in North Hobart. It could not be closer to a bus stop where kids catch buses on their way to school, so there is some tightening of access that certainly needs to happen with tobacco sales as well if we are really serious about tackling this problem.
Subsequent to the passage of the Therapeutic Goods and other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Act 2024 of the Commonwealth, from 1 October, national law permitted personal vaporiser products containing 20 milligrams per millilitre of nicotine or less to be sold from a pharmacy without a prescription for those over the age of 18. Importantly, for those under the age of 18 or for higher nicotine concentrations, a prescription is still required.
This is where the Tasmanian legislation has the greatest departure from the federal legislation. It is not compulsory across Tasmania for pharmacists to stop selling vaping products. In some ways, this greater restriction is a win for the federal legislation and I absolutely respect those pharmacists who have made that decision not to stock vape products. However, I thank those who see the logic and benefits of the massive restriction and access to vapes that selling only from pharmacists does.
Under the federal legislation, products are required to be compliant with the Therapeutic Goods (Standard for Nicotine Vaping Products) TGO 110 and the Therapeutic Goods Medical Device (Standard for Therapeutic Vaping Devices) Order MDSO. These standards are set to be further strengthened from 2025 with requirements for plain packaging, so plain packaging will be introduced. Even though currently across Australia, S3 medications are kept behind the counter and vaping products will be included in that category, plain packaging was an Australian world-leading public health tool introduced many years ago to reduce harm from tobacco smoking and this further plain packaging for vapes is a greater step in the direction of reducing the harm from harmful advertising. Information leaflets and restrictions to product names, as well as changes to permitted ingredients, maximum nicotine concentration limits and maximum volumes for containers and accessories will be introduced.
Fourth, enforcement by agencies such as the Illicit Tobacco Commission and Border Force is set to reduce illegal imports. One of the scourges of vapes and what we have seen with vapes over these past few years is the illegal import of vapes, liquids and so forth. This has been funded for four years by the federal government to a tune of $63.4 million. This is a serious approach to reducing illegal vaping products, absolutely addressing some of those enforcement issues.
Fifth, the last component of the federal legislation looks to address vapes entering the waste streams, including on Aboriginal country and in waterways. Vaping is not only a health and disease burden but it is a toxic new element to the waste stream. Vapes and paraphernalia end up in our rivers, the environment, in our tips and they leach toxins. Single-use vapes have now been banned through this federal legislation, reducing the amount entering the waste stream, and there will be an expanded disposal framework via pharmacies. Disposal of vaping paraphernalia will be undertaken at pharmacies as part of the federal legislation.
A range of other safety standards will also be introduced, including battery and electrical safety standards, specific design and construction requirements and requirements for toxicological risk assessment. These changes were secured by the Australian Greens and the Greens support the thoughtful, balanced national regime for regulating vaping devices.
As to the Tasmanian legislation, at the outset I say that Tasmania has done an amazing job through the Public Health Act 1997 in reducing the harm of tobacco. Part 4 of the Public Health Act looks at some of these things and one of the restrictions that is in section 68A is restrictions regarding toys and confections:
A person must not display, sell or supply any of the following things to another person:
(a) a toy that resembles, or is intended to represent, a tobacco product;
(b) a confection that resembles, or is intended to represent, a tobacco product;
(c) . . . . . . . .
(d) A tobacco product that is –
(a) confectionery flavoured or confectionery scented …
The federal legislation pulls vapes into that realm of reducing harm. The work that public health has done over the years has been exemplary.
The Greens acknowledge the harm from nicotine‑based products, and acknowledge that Tasmanians have the highest rate of smoking, hypertension and cardiovascular disease. There are too many associated illnesses or deaths from heart disease caused by these vaping products, cigarettes and other tobacco‑based products. However, this legislation being introduced to coincide with national legislation actually places a significant immediate financial burden on Tasmanians more so than other people across Australia, puts a strain on primary health services in Tasmania and may have the unintended consequence of increasing illicit use of vapes and tobacco. Remember too that 13 per cent of vapers are smoking tobacco products already.
For Tasmanians, the cost of vaping has increased significantly. It may be a strategy that is effective, but it seems to the Greens that there are significant unintended consequences for Tasmania’s crumpling health system and primary health system particularly. Tasmania will be very much out of step with the rest of Australia because a GP prescription to access vaping from the pharmacist who stocks vapes will need to occur. The cost of vapes when the cost of a GP visit is included would cost at least double what cigarettes would cost, and could be up to seven times more. With this layer requiring a GP visit, which costs $87, or $47 after a Medicare rebate on average per visit, when buying vaping paraphernalia or vaping products the total price to access vapes according to this amendment would be somewhere in the order of $237.
The state bill requires a prescription from a medical practitioner in order to purchase a vaping product from a pharmacy. Requiring a prescription is a huge barrier to people. The full consequences of this are unknown. It is prohibition by any other name, really, because it becomes prohibitive cost. We do not know whether taking this path is a smart move.
The other issue is that in Tasmania, less than 1 per cent of GPs bulk bill. The most recent Australian Healthcare Index survey found that 47 per cent of Tasmanian respondents go less frequently to the GP due to rising costs. The survey also found significant challenges booking appointments. Why would the government want to introduce this type of burden on an already stretched community and primary health medical system? Why, when already there are checks and balances for pharmacists to provide advice? Just as they would if they were issuing antihistamine medications such as pseudoephedrine, which is not on display and is stored behind the counter and requires education from the dispensing pharmacist as to the harm of such products. This is also a better check against minors accessing vaping products.
People may also jump through these hoops only to have their GP refuse to provide a prescription, something that is not extended to cigarette purchase. Prescriptions are not a means of blocking cigarette sales. In effect, being a vaper makes you completely disadvantaged, and this is a form of prohibition. The Greens’ view is that this proposed bill is a form of prohibition, and prohibition does not work. If the bar is too high to legally access vaping products, this may encourage black market access. It is important to consider the ramifications of these amendments. In lieu of further protecting children and reducing the harmful impacts of vaping products already covered adequately and thoughtfully by federal legislation, there may be the unconsidered consequence of making illegal products more appealing.
This means all the protections requiring education, plain packages, regulated ingredients, limited flavours, battery and electrical safety standards and all other matters covered by regulated pharmacy sales will be skirted. It is therefore our view that this bill will result in vaping product users accessing more dangerous and harmful products, and it will reduce the effectiveness of education, flavouring and plain packaging rules.
The bill could look to other improvements that are necessary for this to be effective, and I understand a paper that will look at smoke‑free area regulations will be available in the new year. Standardised legislation across Tasmania to improve smoke‑free areas is important to de‑normalise smoking and vaping. I will put on the record that in April 2020 the Greens helped to move that the Hobart City Council would have the first smoke‑free CBD areas, de‑normalising smoking. This legislation will look at de‑normalising vaping as well, but that was an important step for a local government area to introduce by law.
There is a risk though that by‑laws are not an easy thing to introduce for other smaller councils who also want their community to have a de‑normalised approach to smoking, so I look forward to the government changing and reviewing that approach to smoke‑free areas.
Currently, there are significant gaps in enforcement of these regulations of smoke‑free and vape‑free areas, and enforcement is required to stamp out illegal vaping paraphernalia sales. The state government needs to increase the number of public health officers whose roles are to enforce smoke‑free areas and crack down on illegal tobacco sales, and currently there are 2.7 full‑time equivalent enforcement officers in public health across Tasmania, which falls far too short for doing proper enforcement.
Finally, I thank everybody involved with the work done on this bill, particularly the Deputy Premier, who, as former Health minister, had carriage of his bill when it was tabled, and also the work of his office to try to improve the health of Tasmanians. I thank the staff across Minister Jaensch’s office and the THS who have provided me with briefings and answered some of my questions, some of which are covered by this bill, others of which but are relevant to reducing the harm of nicotine‑based products in Tasmania.
I thank those who worked on the Australian Government’s bill, particularly Senator Jordon Steele-John and his office, whose work on this bill has helped provide Australia with world‑leading legislation for harm minimisation without the impact of prohibition.
The Greens will not be supporting this bill, but, if passed, we would like to see that the legislation that is in discussion today is reviewed in line with the federal legislation, that is, no later than 2027, with a report within six months. I circulated that amendment, but I look forward to further discussions and having some of the questions raised answered.
