Submission by Imperial Tobacco Australia Limited (PDF 600 KB)

SUBMISSION MADE BY IMPERIAL 

TOBACCO AUSTRALIA LIMITED 

DRAFT CONSULTATION OF THE NATIONAL 

TOBACCO STRATEGY 2012-2018 

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Imperial Tobacco Australia Limited (“ITA”) welcomes this opportunity to provide 

submissions to the Intergovernmental Committee on Drugs in response to the draft for 

consultation of the National Tobacco Strategy 2012–2018 (“the consultation paper”). 

ITA supports sound, evidence-based, reasonable and practical regulation of tobacco 

products and encourages the government to balance the shared concern for public health 

with the important principles of freedom of choice for adults and freedom of competition 

between businesses. 

We welcome the recognition in the consultation paper that industry groups are a 

fundamental stakeholder in tobacco policy. As a legitimate and reasonable business, 

responsible for the sale of a legal product, we value the opportunity to contribute to 

government policy that directly affects our business and our customers. As an 

organisation with specialist commercial and technical knowledge about our products and 

the international tobacco industry, we appreciate the opportunity to provide unique insight 

to government. 

This submission will address each of the priority areas in the consultation paper, grouping 

common themes together. 

2 Preliminary comments 

As a preliminary comment, we note that the consultation paper relies heavily on an 

interpretation of the World Health Organisation‟s Framework Convention on Tobacco 

Control (FCTC) guidelines which suggests these guidelines are legally binding in nature. 

We note that FCTC guidelines do not represent obligations of a binding nature for 

countries that have ratified the Convention. 

Further, the consultation paper adopts an approach that is based more heavily on 

regulation than on education. Accordingly, rather than educate people about the health 

risks associated with smoking, there is a fundamental assumption that more intensive 

regulation will drive behavioural change. There is also an assumption that people can be 

driven to quit smoking, through increasing regulation, to force behavioural change. This 

1

differs significantly from the approach of regulators in other markets, such as the US FDA, 

which has adopted an approach more focused on “harm reduction” and acknowledges that 

informed adults may want to continue to use tobacco products. 

We believe that the decision to enjoy tobacco products is a choice for adults and support 

the right of adults to choose to smoke. We do not want children to smoke or to use 

tobacco products. We support penalties for retailers who sell tobacco products to children. 

3 PARTS 6.1, 6.3 AND 6.4 

Priority Areas 1 (Strengthening Social Marketing Campaigns Etc); 3 (Bolstering and 

Building On Existing Programs and Partnerships to Reduce Smoking Rates Among 

Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander People); and 4 (Strengthening Efforts To 

Reduce Smoking Among People In Disadvantaged Populations With High Smoking 

Prevalence) 

We recognise that it is the role of government to provide the public with clear and 

consistent messages about the health risks associated with smoking. We support 

government efforts to inform people of these risks provided that government policy is 

supported by sound evidence. We oppose any government campaigns aimed at 

stigmatising smokers or harassing them into quitting. We believe that such campaigns are 

counterproductive, making smokers feel victimised by and alienated from the government, 

and accordingly, less receptive to government health warnings. 

We support government campaigns that focus on the factual statements relating to the 

risks associated with smoking in order to enable informed choice by adults, rather than 

campaigns that seek to impose a view about socially appropriate behaviour and attempt to 

mould social norms. 

Several of these action areas propose to monitor, analyse and evaluate the impact of 

current and/or future initiatives to inform and refine future regulation. We strongly support 

efforts to evaluate regulation against evidence-based data. We continue to seek 

constructive dialogue with regulatory authorities in order to support reasonable, 

proportionate and evidence-based regulations and would like to be involved in establishing 

any relevant frameworks. 

4 PART 6.2 

Priority Area 2: Continuing to Reduce the Affordability of Tobacco Products 

We note that tobacco products are already subject to taxes much higher than those 

imposed on any other consumer products. While the consultation paper claims that high 

taxes reduce smoking levels (p 17), there is little evidence to show any direct causal link 

between high taxes as an isolated factor and reduced prevalence of smoking. We submit 

that a more likely explanation for any causal link is that high taxes reduce sales of legal 

products and cause consumers to substitute legal tobacco for illegal alternatives. The 

consultation paper asserts that „Australia has successfully prevented the emergence of 

widespread illicit trade in tobacco as has occurred in some other countries‟. Given the 

2

figures set out below, ITA would challenge the accuracy of this statement. Importantly, the 

consultation paper also notes that „continued effort is required to prevent an increase in 

the availability and use of illicit tobacco products …‟, acknowledging concern that higher 

prices may lead consumers to substitute legal products with illegal ones. 

There is strong evidence to support the view that there is a direct causal link between 

increases in tobacco prices and increases in illicit trade in tobacco. This is due 

predominantly to the fact that duty and/or excise are not paid on illicit tobacco products, 

making them less than half the price of legal products. A recent report prepared by 

Deloitte states: „The illicit tobacco market in Australia for 2011 is estimated to total 2.264 

million kilograms of tobacco which is equivalent to 13.4% of the estimated legal tobacco 

market … The proportion of survey respondents who reported purchasing illicit tobacco 

has increased since 2010.‟ Deloitte‟s tracking of illicit tobacco trade between 2009 and 

2012 shows that after a significant tobacco excise increase (25%) in 2010 there was a 

statistically significant spike in illicit trade. Subsequently, engagement in illicit trade has 

slowly stabilised, correlating with a stabilisation of prices for legal tobacco. ITA fears that 

another sharp increase in tobacco excise would result in another spike in the number of 

consumers who substitute legal, properly regulated, tobacco products for contraband, 

counterfeit or unbranded (loose) tobacco products. 

The illicit trade in tobacco significantly undermines a number of public health initiatives 

relating to smoking. First, illicit tobacco products have not been manufactured in a 

regulated environment, may contain unknown substances and otherwise not comply with 

Australian manufacturing requirements (such as Reduced Fire Risk compliance). Second, 

the levels of tar, nicotine and other ingredients in cigarettes sold on the black market are 

not subject to government regulation or scientific scrutiny. Third, pushing consumers 

towards illicit trade exposes them to criminal groups who demonstrate no regard for public 

safety and health, rather than encouraging consumers to engage with responsible 

manufacturers and retailers. Anecdotal evidence suggests that criminal groups often 

supply tobacco to children, who may not represent a profitable market for illicit trade 

without the additional adult demand for black market tobacco products. In short, criminals 

involved in the manufacture and supply of illicit tobacco products are unaccountable for 

their products and their activities, engaging in a range of conduct that is directly conflicting 

with the public interest. 

Any further increase in excise tax would undermine the work undertaken by the industry, 

business groups and government authorities to combat illicit trade in tobacco products. 

Finally, the illicit trade in tobacco products also undermines the government‟s revenue 

raising capabilities as taxes cannot be collected from illegal sellers of cigarettes. 

Approximately $1 billion in revenue is lost annually as a result of the tobacco black market 

and the livelihoods of many small businesses are put at risk. 

The above Deloitte report also demonstrates that consumers have a high level of 

awareness of the availability of cheap illicit products. The consultation paper 

acknowledges that „[i]n 2010, nearly half of smokers aged 14 years or older had seen or 

heard of unbranded loose tobacco known as “chop chop”.‟ The awareness of these 

products, and their continued availability, makes the potential for consumers to move to 

illicit tobacco as a result of sharp tax increases greater. ITA submits that the government 

should be concerned particularly about low income consumers feeling pressure to 

substitute expensive legal products with comparatively inexpensive illegal products. Lower 

income consumers have higher price elasticity than higher income consumers. The 

consultation paper acknowledges this by stating that „[o]ver the period January 1999 to 

3

December 2006, a one Australian dollar increase in price was associated with a decline in 

prevalence of 2.6 per cent among low income groups compared with a 0.2 per cent decline 

among high income groups.‟ (p 24). There is no evidence to suggest that these consumers 

stopped using tobacco, as opposed to substituting legal tobacco products with illegal 

tobacco. High price elasticity means that low income consumers are more likely to 

substitute expensive legal cigarettes for cheaper, illegal alternatives. Given that this group 

is one of the target areas for health assistance from the government, we submit that the 

risk of illegal product substitution is something the government should consider very 

seriously before further increasing taxes. 

ITA strongly believes that a key area for government policy should be reducing illicit trade 

in tobacco. ITA submits that the consultation paper inappropriately emphasises increased 

prices of legal products without directing adequate resources to stemming trade in illegal 

products. Before any further price-related action is taken in relation to legal tobacco 

products, the government should target all available resources towards stemming the 

growth of illicit, unregulated tobacco products. An approach targeting the growth of illicit 

trade (which is unaccountable for its products and actions), not one further restricting 

already accountable legitimate traders is warranted here. This approach would be in line 

with the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control as well as international best practice. 

In addition to these general concerns, there are a number of more specific Part 6 action 

items that cause ITA serious concern. 

4.1 Action Item 6.2.5 

ITA is strongly opposed to minimum pricing or price discounting restrictions, on the basis 

that both are anti-competitive. ITA‟s brand portfolio is comprised of many brands which 

belong to the “value” sector of the Australian tobacco market. If a minimum price were 

imposed, the Government would significantly lessen competition in the market place and 

thereby remove consumer choice. Due to the significant excise and/or duty already 

imposed in Australia, there is effectively a minimum cost to manufacture or import and 

then sell legitimate tobacco products. If a higher minimum price for cigarettes were to be 

mandated, the Government would give larger manufacturers a significant advantage in the 

market place, seriously disadvantaging ITA with its “value” brands, and make it impossible 

for new market entrants to compete. 

ITA notes that it entered the Australian market in 1999, in response to competition 

concerns raised by the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC), 

following the global merger of Wills & Rothmans. The majority of brands sold by ITA today 

were brands divested to it, following the approval of the ACCC. Accordingly, ITA 

considers the preservation of a legitimately competitive marketplace to be of great 

importance to government, to manufacturers, to retailers and ultimately to consumers. 

Price competition is a fundamental aspect of business competition. Adult consumers have 

the right to choose between legitimate competing products in an economic environment in 

which there is healthy competition between businesses. This allows consumers to select 

between a range of products and differentiate between products on the basis of 

comparative quality and price. Minimum pricing would result in a race to the bottom in 

terms of manufacturing quality and reduce competition between legitimate businesses. 

4

The imposition of minimum pricing would also disadvantage small retailers, as it would 

remove one of the legitimate avenues by which smaller retailers can compete with larger 

ones. For the same reason, it would also be anti-competitive. 

Further, minimum pricing of a legal product will only exacerbate illicit trade. Price is one of 

the main reasons why people buy illicit product, as highlighted by the recent Deloitte 

report. 

Furthermore, it would be a misguided and naïve policy to think that minimum pricing would 

reduce illicit trade, as those who import and who sell illicit product are criminals, often 

associated with organised crime. These groups do not obey the law, they do not pay 

excise or duty and will not be bound by mandated pricing requirements. 


We support government efforts to prevent the illegal importation, supply and cultivation of 

tobacco in Australia and believe that this should be at the forefront of government efforts to 

improve public health. We believe that anti-illicit trade measures such as Track & Trace 

and Codentify® are useful tools that deserve increased government attention and support. 

These measures will be precluded under the tobacco plain packaging regime, as they rely 

upon the presence of visible markings that can be seen by retailers and consumers to 

verify authenticity. We note that some of the other most effective systems for identifying 

and preventing illicit trade are precluded by the introduction of plain packaging legislation, 

for example, the ability to include complex branding or insignia on the surface of cigarette 

packages. If the tobacco plain packaging legislation remains in its current form and is 

implemented from December 2012 as intended, it is vital that the government invests in 

policy measures to prevent the counterfeiting and smuggling of illicit tobacco products. 


ITA is opposed to any further regulation of the international Duty Free sector. Duty free 

sales account for less than 1% of tobacco sales in Australia. Duty free tobacco products 

are sold to existing adult smokers, who would otherwise purchase duty-paid tobacco 

products. In this context, there can be no suggestion that duty free tobacco sales are 

related to smoking incidence. 

As outlined in the April 2012 Deloitte report Assessment of removing inbound duty free 

allowances for tobacco, any plan to further reduce Duty Free sales of tobacco would have 

a significant negative operational and economic impact on Duty Free businesses and the 

broader tourism industry in Australia while delivering minimal upside to the Government. 

The government has only recently announced new measures which will come into effect 

from 1 September 2012 and we urge the government to assess the impact of these 

changes before undertaking further policy reform in this area. 

5 PART 6.5 

Priority Area 5: Eliminating Remaining Advertising, Promotion and Sponsorship of 

Tobacco Products 

ITA is of the view that the current form of the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 

(Cth), together with complementary state and territory legislation that restricts the sale of 

5

tobacco products to children, effectively balances public health, competition and consumer 

choice. The proposed measures represent an inappropriate restriction on the freedom of 

businesses to compete with one another for a larger portion of market share. 

ITA is particularly concerned with the second paragraph of Part 6.5, which states: 

“[t]obacco advertising and marketing efforts by the tobacco industry seek to increase sale 

and consumption by three mechanisms. Firstly, by advertising and promotion efforts 

which seek to recruit new smokers by encouraging children or young adults to experiment 

with tobacco products and progress to regular use. Secondly, by reducing motivation of 

current smokers to quit. And thirdly, by encouraging relapse and prompting former 

smokers to resume smoking.” (p 32) 

A 2008 American publication is referenced in support of these propositions. Clearly, 

regulation of the tobacco industry in the US is markedly different to the regulatory scheme 

in Australia. Key points of difference include the presence of pictorial health warnings on 

Australian tobacco packaging, display bans at most points of sale in Australia and a 

complete ban on tobacco advertising to consumers. In short, these alleged “advertising 

and promotion efforts” are not relevant to the Australian context and it is therefore 

inappropriate to rely upon such a statement to support further regulation in Australia. The 

publication relied upon is also four years old, pre-dating a number of changes in this area. 

ITA suggests that the assertions made in this paragraph are inaccurate and inapplicable to 

the Australian context and requests the removal of these statements from any final report. 

We note that there is currently a ban on tobacco advertising to consumers in Australia. 

The ban on advertising calls into question the claims that tobacco companies such as ITA 

use advertising to recruit new smokers (including children), reduce the motivation of 

current smokers to quit and encourage relapse by prompting former smokers to relapse. 

Moreover, the ban on child smoking is strongly supported by the tobacco industry and 

heavy penalties apply to retailers who supply cigarettes to children. All tobacco products 

in Australia are presently subject to warning label requirements which ensure that all 

consumers who chose to smoke are aware of the health risks associated with smoking. 

We reject that product displays should be banned in tobacconists. People who enter 

tobacconist shops do so because they are already intent on purchasing a tobacco product. 

The display is there to inform consumers about which products are available for sale. 

The advertising of tobacco products to members of the tobacco trade, such as retailers, is 

permitted. It is important that tobacco manufacturers be able to provide information to 

legitimate retailers of tobacco products about new and existing tobacco products. There is 

no reason to restrict the provision of such information to members of the tobacco trade. 

Alongside our continued objection to plain packaging, which will deny ITA the ability to 

distinguish its products from those of competitors or counterfeits, there are a number of 

action items in Part 6.5 that are of concern. 


We note that this action item requires the government to report on the possible benefits of 

requiring tobacco companies to report regularly on expenditure on any form of tobacco 

promotion and marketing activity (“disclosure requirements”). It is not clear whether the 

6

disclosure requirements would involve information being provided to the government or 

being made publically available. We believe that neither measure is necessary or 

appropriate, but we are particularly concerned with the suggestion that marketing 

expenditure should be disclosed to the public and/or our competitors. 

Information about a business‟s expenditure is plainly commercially sensitive and provides 

insight into a business‟s priorities, strategic decisions and market position. Confidentiality 

with respect to marketing and promotional activity encourages innovation by allowing an 

individual business to benefit from any advantage it obtains through exercising superior 

skill, strategy and judgment. We believe that such disclosure is a significant invasion of 

any company‟s confidential information and undermines the ability of businesses to benefit 

exclusively from their innovative commercial strategies. ITA exercises a significant level of 

skill and judgment in determining the nature and level of its expenditure on any marketing 

line item. To disclose the outcome of ITA‟s expenditure decision making process to 

competitors would deprive ITA of its competitive advantage. 

We question whether there would be any public benefit from disclosure requirements given 

that marketing and advertising to consumers in Australia is simply not permitted. 

Moreover, we question the value of disclosing how much is spent on “marketing” activities 

without properly understanding the commercial context of the expenditure, as this 

information would mean little to any party - other than to competitors. 

Even if ITA were to accept that the government would accrue a benefit through the 

disclosure requirements, we believe that the extreme costs of such disclosure outweigh 

any potential benefit. Any requirement that ITA report tobacco promotion and marketing 

expenditure would result in the disclosure of sensitive commercial information and would 

undermine the ability of individual businesses to maintain proper competition. 

Under Australian law, the situations in which companies are legally compelled to disclose 

commercially sensitive information are scarce, and invariably involve an overwhelming and 

objectively verifiable public benefit and any such information disclosed is heavily protected. 

For example, where commercially sensitive information is required for taxation purposes or 

for the purposes of legal proceedings, the information is legally protected from wider 

circulation or publication and more often than not subject to strict confidentiality regimes. It 

is certainly never made available to competitors. In most circumstances where 

commercially sensitive information may be made public, for example through an FOI 

request, a business has the opportunity to object to its publication and to protect trade 

secrets. There is no suggestion in the consultation paper that any such regime is being 

considered. ITA suggests that in any investigation of the possible benefits of disclosure 

requirements, a simultaneous investigation into the commercial and economic risks of 

disclosure requirements is vital. 


ITA notes that advertising to consumers is not permitted in Australia. Accordingly we 

object to use of the term „public relations activities‟ on the basis that it suggests any such 

activities are “public” or directed to members of the public. 

ITA opposes any measures taken to eliminate the very limited forms by which tobacco 

manufacturers may provide information about new and existing tobacco products to 

legitimate retailers of those tobacco products. 

7

Incentives in the form of rebates are similarly a legitimate way for manufacturers in any 

industry to secure ranging of their products in retail locations. This form of activity rewards 

hard working retailers and encourages them to continue stocking our brands for adult 

consumers who wish to purchase them. Promotional activity involving retailers has no 

direct impact on whether people choose to smoke, but does impact on legitimate 

competition. 

The purpose of legal activities involving retailers are directed to ensure that a range of 

products at a range of prices are available to be purchased at a range of retail outlets by 

adult smokers. As such, ITA believes that any regulation of this activity will have no health 

outcomes but will simply limit legitimate business competition and consumer choice. 

5.3 Action Item 6.5.8 & 6.5.9 

We believe that trade incentive programs reward the legitimate activities of retailers in 

working hard to earn profits and to sell products they believe provide consumers with high 

levels of satisfaction. 

We are a responsible, legitimate business selling a legal consumer product. Trade 

incentives are an ordinary part of professional working relationships with the trade and are 

a normal and legitimate part of any commercial business. These measures will reduce and 

distort competition and reduce legitimate retailer income. We are committed to selling our 

product responsibly and trade programs neither impact on nor offer incentives for 

consumers. 

We note that the inclusion of tobacco products in retailer shopper loyalty or reward 

programs, as described on page 34 of the consultation paper, does not encourage 

consumers to purchase more (or any) tobacco products but rewards them only for loyalty 

to a particular retailer when purchasing the tobacco that they would otherwise obtain. 

In fact, most States have already expressly legislated against this type of scheme. ITA has 

no major concerns with this provision, except to note that this may place an impost on a 

number of smaller retailers who operate these schemes where they do exist. Such 

schemes are generally managed through the retailer‟s point of sale system which allocates 

points based on overall purchases. In these cases there will be a need to modify or 

change the software in order to exclude cigarettes from the scheme. This will be costly and 

difficult process for smaller retailers. 


ITA continues to seek participation in constructive and effective dialogue with regulatory 

authorities and to work with them to develop proportionate and workable regulations. We 

are a responsible and legitimate business selling a legal product. Where regulation has the 

potential to affect a legal business, that business deserves to be recognised as a valid 

stakeholder. We believe that FCTC Article 5.3 represents an opportunity to further improve 

the transparency, inclusiveness and integrity of regulatory processes, which will be 

beneficial to both the regulators and all stakeholders. 

8


ITA does not seek to have its products used in entertainment media, nor does it directly 

provide its products for such use. 

We believe that this is an area that should be left to the discretion of the director or 

producer. The creative sector should not be regulated in such a manner and artistic 

independence should remain. 

6 PART 6.6 

Priority Area 6: Considering Further Regulation of the Contents, Product Disclosure 

and Supply of Tobacco Products and Non Therapeutic Nicotine Delivery Systems 

ITA believes that current state and federal government regulation of the ingredients which 

may be included in tobacco products is adequate. ITA complies fully with all such 

regulations. The article cited in the submission in support of the statement, “Additives 

such as sugar, honey, liquorice and cocoa are used to enhance the “taste” of tobacco 

smoke to make the product more desirable to smokers especially those experimenting with 

tobacco” was written in 1999 and is out of step with Australian legislation. Further, it is a 

document prepared by the anti-tobacco lobby, not an independent scientific paper and 

contains numerous unverified assertions and should be weighted accordingly. Since 

2008, many Australian state and territories have banned fruit and confectionery flavoured 

cigarettes or flavours, which prevents such additives being used. In compliance with this 

regime, ITA does not market confectionery flavoured tobacco products, or novelty tobacco 

products. Further, ITA does not add anything to its products to make it more difficult to 

stop smoking, to make our products attractive to children or to increase the level or change 

the chemical form of nicotine in tobacco smoke. 

However, to ensure the proper functioning of a market economy, legitimate tobacco 

companies have the right to fair competition by developing and differentiating their 

products to support adult consumer choice. 

Detailed listing of the ingredients contained in cigarettes would be of little importance to 

the average consumer who has no detailed knowledge of chemistry. However, disclosure 

may result in trade secrets being revealed to competitors, including those who trade in 

illicit tobacco products. Were the government to require detailed mandatory disclosure of 

ingredients in cigarettes, ITA would strongly urge the government to protect the 

commercially sensitive information from being released to the public. Legislative measures 

must meet accepted principles of better regulation; that is based on objective evidence, be 

targeted and proportionate. 

We note that in Australia the industry voluntarily submits an ingredients disclosure 

annually to the Department of Health and Ageing. This information is available to the 

public on the Department‟s website. 

ITA draws attention to the DoHA January 2009, Public Health Value of Disclosed Cigarette 

ingredients & Emissions Data (2009 Report). The 2009 Report concluded that “it is 

unlikely that the health of Australian has been directly promoted or protected through 

making information about the ingredients and emissions available to the public under the 

9

Agreement” and that members of the public had not and did not intend to access the 

information. 

In addition to these general concerns, ITA is particularly concerned about the following 

action items. 


ITA considers that “electronic cigarettes” (whether containing or not containing nicotine) 

should be the subject of a separately developed regulatory regime, which is productspecific. 

Insufficient information is currently known about this type of product, which is 

neither a tobacco product nor a therapeutic good under Australian regulatory schemes. 

6.2 Action Item 6.6.6 & 6.6.7 

We do not support the view that retailer licensing will prevent illegal sales of tobacco, for 

example, to minors. ITA strongly supports existing penalties for retailers who sell tobacco 

products to children and for those who trade in illicit products, but believes that the key to 

greater compliance with the law is education campaigns. We have regularly offered to 

work with state governments to raise awareness and educate the trade regarding their role 

in preventing youth smoking. Further, ITA has independently engaged in campaigns 

raising awareness amongst retailers about the penalties for supplying tobacco products to 

minors and providing retailers with age calculators, to assist ensuring that tobacco sales 

are only to adults. Government resources would be better directed towards educating 

retailers about illegal practices and enforcing the law rather than creating a licensing 

scheme, creating an additional layer of red tape for small businesses. 


We strongly oppose placing controls on the number and type of legitimate tobacco 

retailers. This would simply limit consumer choice and freedom of competition between 

Australian businesses. We believe that larger retailers would most likely to be granted the 

right to sell tobacco products as a result of their greater resources and ability to absorb 

any costs associated with meeting government criteria and/or purchasing licenses. This 

means that small businesses will either lose the ability to sell cigarettes or will lose the 

ability to compete on prices with larger retailers. As a result, market competition will be 

significantly lessened and consumers will be denied legitimate choice about where they 

prefer to purchase tobacco products. This scheme may also disadvantage persons living 

in less populated or remote areas of Australia and may even result consumers buying 

product in bulk. 

There is no credible evidence to support the view that limiting the number of retail outlets 

would reduce the consumption of tobacco products or smoking initiation. However, there is 

a considerable danger that consumers unable to conveniently purchase tobacco products 

in their local area could turn to illicit products. 

10

PART 6.7 

Priority Area 7: Reducing Exemptions to Smoke Free Workplaces, Public Places and 

Other Settings 

It is unnecessary and ineffective for governments to prescribe, in the abstract, appropriate 

locations for smoking. We believe that a common sense approach should be taken to this 

issue. Social pressure encourages smokers to be courteous and non-smokers are able to 

express their discomfort to smokers if they fail to be courteous. As such the 

appropriateness of a smoking location should be determined by the affected individuals on 

a case-by-case basis. For example, a business owner can determine whether he or she 

wishes to permit smoking in an outdoor dining area. 

In some circumstances, requiring smokers to move away from an outdoor dining area in 

order to smoke would result in smokers being forced to smoke on the road or outside 

residential buildings. In many instances, these alternatives are far worse from a public 

safety and convenience perspective than allowing smokers the freedom to judge whether 

they are in an appropriate location for smoking, particularly in circumstances where those 

locations are outdoors. Moreover, the imposition that buffer zones would impose on 

businesses, in first creating the zones and then policing them, is a significant and 

unnecessary cost. 

Regarding indoor smoking, we support the view that an adult has the right to engage in a 

legal activity in the privacy of their own home, free from government interference. In the 

same way as smokers show courtesy to other adults, this courtesy should be extended to 

children who are often unable to exercise the same choice over their environment and 

surroundings that an adult can. 

The rights of non-smokers must be balanced with the right of adult smokers to engage in a 

legitimate, legal activity. This balance can best be achieved case-by-case without arbitrary 

rules imposed by the government and again should be the subject of education, not 

regulation. 

7 PART 6.8 

Priority Area 8: Providing Greater Access to a Range Of Evidence Based Cessation 

Services to Support Smokers to Quit 

We recognise the government‟s role in providing the public with clear and consistent 

messages about the health risks associated with smoking. We support the government in 

its efforts to ensure that all tobacco consumers make an informed and educated choice 

about whether or not to consume tobacco. We acknowledge that government has a role to 

play in assisting those who want to quit smoking to be successful in their efforts. 

However, we believe that access to cessation services should be offered in a supportive 

manner. We oppose any measures that stigmatise smokers or harass them into quitting. 

11

8 CONCLUSION 

Imperial Tobacco strongly supports all efforts to evaluate regulation against evidencebased 

data and believe such assessment should be conducted by an independent body. 

We continue to seek constructive dialogue with regulatory authorities in order to support 

reasonable, proportionate and evidence-based regulations. We seek to be involved in 

these processes and can offer specialist commercial and technical knowledge about the 

industry. 

Government policy aimed at addressing the health risks associated with tobacco should be 

geared towards eliminating illicit trade in tobacco and we submit that combating illicit trade 

should be a separate stand-alone priority action area. These measures would be in line 

with the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and would „increase tax revenue and 

save lives.‟ ITA is concerned that many of the policies proposed by the consultation 

paper may be counterproductive to the goal of reducing illicit trade in tobacco. For 

example, increased prices or the imposition of minimum pricing will inevitably encourage 

consumers to substitute legal tobacco products with cheaper illegal alternatives. 

Smoking is a legitimate choice for informed adults to make for themselves. ITA is strongly 

opposed to youth smoking and again expresses its interest in working with government 

towards reasonable and practical steps to prevent minors from accessing tobacco 

products. 

However, as long as tobacco products remain legal, ordinary principles of free market 

competition should apply to businesses who sell tobacco products to adults: players in the 

tobacco industry should be encouraged to provide competitive products to consumers at a 

competitive price. Measures aimed at prevent manufacturers and retailers from engaging 

in healthy competition pose inappropriate restrictions on consumer choice and damage 

legitimate, responsible retailers. 

The best way to improve public health in this area, besides curbing illicit trade in tobacco 

products, is to educate consumers and retailers about the risks associated with tobacco 

use and of the penalties for supplying illegal tobacco or for supplying tobacco products to 

minors. Education programs should be supportive and respectful, and must avoid 

stigmatising or harassing smokers. ITA has engaged successfully in these types of 

education programs in the past and looks forward to working with government in the future 

on similarly successful projects. 

12

Submission by Imperial Tobacco Australia Limited (PDF 600 KB)

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?