Submission by Imperial Tobacco Australia Limited (PDF 600 KB)

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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. 6.1 Action Item 6.6.5 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. 6.3 Action Item 6.6.8 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
Page 1 and 2: SUBMISSION MADE BY IMPERIAL TOBACCO
Page 3 and 4: figures set out below, ITA would ch
Page 5 and 6: The imposition of minimum pricing w
Page 7 and 8: disclosure requirements would invol
Page 9: 5.5 Action Item 6.5.11 ITA does not

Submission by Imperial Tobacco Australia Limited (PDF 600 KB)

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?