25 June 2026

Mr GAFFNEY (Mersey) - Thank you, Mr President. I rise to speak on the Public Health Amendment (Prohibited Tobacco and Other Products) Bill 2026. This bill, while a hesitant step in the right direction, perhaps does not truly reflect the needs of Tasmania. Whilst I'm supportive of the draft legislation, you may not feel that this is the case after my second reading speech contribution. However, it's opportunities like this where the government of the day needs to hear from a variety of supporters, advocates, concerned citizens and critics.

While I cautiously support the bill, I am concerned that the government is not doing enough on the matter. I urge the government to be quick to take more drastic steps as the Tasmanian nicotine situation is only becoming more untenable. I think I heard the honourable member say the 20 year national reform program, or something like that? I remind members in this place, the 2014 goal of this government was to make Tasmania the healthiest state by 2025. Now we have another one, 20 years in advance, so I'd just like to go back to that space.

Ms Rattray - It's the 20 year Preventive Health Strategy.

Mr GAFFNEY - Thank you. I've spoken on the impact of tobacco on vaping products in this Chamber on several occasions. Recently, I spoke on adjournment and raised concerns for the lack of monitoring action by the government on sales of illicit tobacco and vaping products, so I'm pleased that the bill is before us. Particularly, I highlighted my concerns regarding the sales and advertisement of such products, which would have a negative impact on children. Indeed, I received photographs only yesterday showing smoking paraphernalia - that's decorative bongs - outside a local primary school at children's height level, and even a cigarette tobacco retail outlet with enticing toys and ice creams at the entrance: very attractive to children. These concerns were voiced to me by learned and knowledgeable community members, and relied upon statistical information revealed through questions on notice, showing that the government had only undertaken minimal action in this space. There have been several issues that have been raised with me: firstly, that Tasmania is the only state with increasing smoking rates; secondly, the government has failed to reduce smoking rates and has continuously demonstrated its indifference to smoking uptake in Tasmanian children, our excessive relapse rate and providing or resourcing quitting support through education and community building.

Next is the reduction of numbers of enforcement of officers over many years. That issue is followed by funding cuts; cuts to quit funding mean under resourcing the community resource that is highly likely to reduce smoking uptake, prevent relapse, and assist quitting, that is, community education through advertising on various forms of media. This has been proven time and time again to reduce smoking rates. The issue is the failure to reintroduce infringement notices for sales to minors. These were eliminated on the pretence that the government was tough on crime and would prosecute, but it did nothing. Another issue is the continued failure to prosecute retail sales to minors.

During the debate we should be asking the question: what efforts does the government intend to put in place to reduce smoking rates? Unfortunately, this bill is not enough. Illicit trade is not the only reason for an increase in smoking rates. In my adjournment speech some weeks ago, I raised few a straightforward, pragmatic solutions and I asked the government to live up to its tough on crime mantra. In my adjournment, I called upon the government to step up investigative and enforcement efforts to protect and improve the health outcomes of the future generations of Tasmania.

I am pleased and acknowledge that the government is attempting to create harsher penalties and offences for said products, introduce additional enforcement powers and improve the laws on displays of paraphernalia, as well as the sale of smoking and vaping products to minors. However, I note the retailers and retail organisations, such as the Australian Association of Convenience Stores (AACS), which have substantial tobacco industry links, are supportive of this legislation. As was emphasised to me by a concerned Tasmanian, I quote:

That this was not surprising as the bill will protect the revenue of big tobacco. This bill is a gift to big tobacco and to retailers.

The University of Bath research organisation, Tobacco Tactics, refers to the AACS in this way, and I quote:

All three major transnational tobacco companies in the Australian market - that's Philip Morris International, British American Tobacco, Australia and Imperial Brands - have been AACS members since at least 2018. The companies are listed as Diamond and Emerald members on AACS industry news page.

It was also disappointing that the Tasmanian news media outlets, including the ABC, did not question the CEO of the AACS about links to big tobacco when they had interviewed him. I note that it is critically important to our democratic system of lawmaking that the involvement of corporate interests is well documented, and suggests that proponents of legislation must make efforts to be forthright, objective, and transparent. Transparency about meeting with big tobacco is crucial for avoiding conflicts of interest and potential for political interference. Has the minister or any members of the government or their staff met with the tobacco industry or its front organisations while developing or progressing this bill? If so, they must make clear who they have met and on what dates.

Are the dates and details of meeting of officials and members with tobacco lobbyists recorded on the Health department, Police, Treasury or Department of Premier Cabinet website? If not, why not? Consultation results are made public, as are many other government communications. It's not unreasonable to expect full and frank disclosure by those dealing with representatives of cashed up and industries such as tobacco. We need to do more to address the sale of illicit tobacco products and vapes. The legislation will enable the government to address this issue. I'm in favour of it. Nonetheless, we need to do more.

I did appreciate a briefing I received, and the direct responses to the questions raised by myself and the honourable member for Montgomery. It was mentioned at that meeting that a more comprehensive piece of legislation, as has been outlined by the Leader, is planned for 2027, and that's a good thing, but could the leader in her response provide a bit more information about the government's intention for the next tranche of amendments towards a possible standalone act, because I think that the people listening would be appreciative of that. It was also pleasing to read that the Tasmanian government has stepped up its enforcement efforts regarding illicit tobacco and vaping products. However, the many years of enforcement neglect in relation to sales to minors have contributed to increasing smoking rates in Tasmania. As such, this is an ongoing issue that will need years of efforts to rectify.

Mr GAFFNEY - One must ask whether the government will ensure that there is adequate staffing with public health to monitor smoking rates, collect data, conduct research, liaise with other agencies, both interstate and locally, and develop guidelines and amendments to legislation when the tobacco industry tries to subvert tobacco controls. Furthermore, it has been brought to my attention that the government has significantly cut quit programs which are known to be effective in educating the public and reducing smoking rates. This is both disappointing and somewhat unwise, noting the increasing healthcare burden in Tasmania as well as the health cost to Tasmanians caused by nicotine addiction.

In my recent adjournment speech I referenced statistics that indicated a severe resourcing deficiency. Minimal prosecutions and a lack of resources were undermining enforcement, leaving legitimate shop owners, who pay substantial sums for licensing, to be undercut by illegal operations. This was unacceptable then, and it remains unacceptable. Moreover, we're announcing cuts to resourcing for community advocacy about the scourge that tobacco addiction is to our society and our healthcare system. That said, I must recognise that the government announced recently that over 150 infringement notices had been issued and near $7 million of illicit products had been seized since 1 July 2025, noting those numbers are a little bit different because of the different dates.

This is a pleasing result, and I hope that the government will continue to strive for better results in this area. However, I'm informed that there were no infringement notices or prosecutions of sales to minors. The government might like to confirm otherwise that suggestion, as I'm not certain of its accuracy. We should be protecting children from all tobacco and vape sales. The government has been sadly neglectful of our children. Will the government reintroduce infringement notices for sales to minors? We must take care not to use recent positive results as an excuse to sweep the issue under the rug as solved. Managing the illicit sale of tobacco is an ongoing battle and will need continued investment. A few raids this year does not make up for decades of policy failure.

I remind the government, as many others have, that the dollars spent on reducing unregulated tobacco sales will benefit health outcomes of Tasmanians. The avoided healthcare costs from managing the harm of nicotine addiction cannot be underestimated. For all its talk of fiscal responsibility, the government continues to ignore the benefits of adequate tobacco regulation. As we speak, the proliferation of unregulated tobacco is wrecking havoc on Australia. We do not know what is within imported cigarettes, nor do we know the long term damage of vapes. There is no guarantee that imported cigarettes do not contain asbestos, heavy metals or other harmful substances. Moreover, there is emerging evidence that shows that e cigarettes are unsafe, potentially causing harm to the respiratory, cardiovascular and neurological systems.

Clause 5 in the bill is concerning: that is, the power of nominated officers. It is sensible to provide protection for nominated officers. Does that mean that the government is intending to appoint more people as nominated officers? No doubt, there may need to be extra training. Some questions I seek answers from the leader are: would extra resources be given to the department to train people as nominated officers, as presumably they would live all over the state, and there would be travel and accommodation expenses? Given that the government is cutting public servant numbers, who would supervise these nominated officers and be responsible for their actions? Are existing nominated officers trained? How many are there? Where are they located? What are their qualifications and responsibilities? It is noteworthy, Mr President, nicotine addiction is still the central driving force of the adverse health effects of new alternative nicotine products. There has been some progress in regulating cigarette content and engineering, albeit minimal. However, there's much more to be done.

Moving back to the legislation, while I'm in mind of the mind that is acting on the illicit sale of tobacco, the government should be given what it needs. I do have some concerns regarding the operation of the bill. I was pleased to read the strength and veracity of the submissions to the public consultation of the legislation. While many were in favour of the legislation, I would highlight some concerns I'd like to hear addressed by the Leader.

One key concern I read in the public submission from Dr Kathryn Barnsley and Prof Leonard Crocombe was the role of the secretary and the potential for political appointments to overtake expert involvement. The director of Public Health is not empowered to close premises or make similar such decisions, nor can councils. This leaves open the risk of government appointees to the position of secretary to be not suitably qualified in tobacco control nor public health.

Should the proposed consolidatory legislation continue in the same manner, it will sideline public health experts, public health and the director of Public Health in favour of political appointees. This promotes real risk to the long term, regulatory rigour and efficacy, as well as watering down the professionalism and expertise of public health actions.

In fact, one citizen thought to me the following comment quote: [tbc 11.51]

I'd be interested to hear the arguments because all I've heard are weasel words. The whole Public Health Act is about legal issues for which the director and councils are responsible. Also, the director and councilors can already close unhealthy premises under the act. Why not elicit tobacco shops?

The only reason for carving out the Director of Public Health is to undermine his responsibilities and to ensure that political appointees, like the secretary, who have no relevant qualifications, can manipulate matters.

We have seen this with the Salmon debacle where the Director of Public Health has also been undermined by people in NRE with no relevant qualifications. They believe it's a political power grab to protect businesses, not people. They did the same thing with COVID with their commanders overriding health.

This position by the government was explained at the briefing received. I think it is valuable if that explanation was already reinforced in the debate. Indeed, the clarity could the government address these questions in the closing comments by the Leader?

This bill says that the secretary can close illegal tobacco seller premises. The secretary is clearly not going to do this by him or herself, who is going to do this? Will the secretary refer the process of closing shops to the enforcement officers who work for the Director of Public Health? If so, it appears strange to leave out the Director of Public Health if his own staff are going to be implementing the closures. This is an extra layer of bureaucracy that may cause administrative confusion. Who will physically implement the closures?

The department argued that public health qualifications and expertise are not necessary to decide whether to close premises. Therefore, it is appropriate for the secretary to do so. However, the secretary is not likely to have any experience in closing premises. What qualifications is the secretary required to have to close premises?

This bill does not allow the Director of Public Health to close illegal tobacco seller premises, yet the director and councils can already close premises under other sections of the act, for example unhealthy premises. Why should they not be able to close illicit tobacco sellers?

Why bring the secretary into this section of the act when the Public Health Act is designed primarily to be managed and implemented by the director and councils and their staff. Requiring the Secretary to close premises and jettison this power from the director in his own legislation makes no sense. Is this a deliberate subverting of the role of the Director of Public Health and the act?

Currently, there are comprehensive working relationships and protocols between public health enforcement officers and environmental health officers, state police, federal police and border force in relation to dealing with illicit tobacco. What will the role of the secretary be in this? The Director of Public Health and staff have managed these organisational arrangements but need closure powers. Why change these arrangements?

Whilst I am in mind to have an amendment drafted to remove the word secretary and substitute with the word Director of Public Health, if in closing, the Leader can address my concerns, answer my questions and justify the advantages and reasoning of the secretary being the lead role, then I will not speak to my amendment in the committee stage.

I asked a similar question when we had our teams meeting and the response was interesting and informative. It would be advantageous if the Leader could echo those sentiments for Hansard and for many Tasmanians concerned with the statistics relating to the health impacts and challenges.

I should also note the submission I mentioned earlier highlighted various concerns with the tobacco industry in Tasmania, including the vested interest and political delinquency which mires the proper functioning of tobacco legislation. This is a concern of which the public should be made aware of and that lawmakers should bear in mind when examining any such legislation.

The submission of the Australian Medical Association of Tasmania suggested that the government should also consider the broader policy settings that influence tobacco consumption, such as the density and visibility of tobacco retailers and the emergence of new nicotine products. Public education in cessation or addiction support was suggested as high priorities for the government to meaningfully reduce tobacco related harm.

Despite these concerns, I am in favour of reform in this area. Noting the positive steps towards enforcement which have been made, I will support the legislation. Stronger enforcement and better regulation are good for Tasmania, and a stand-alone future piece of legislation has the potential to provide an adequate framework with which to manage the ongoing threat of illicit tobacco and vapes effectively and actively in Tasmania, provided that public health expertise and enforcement is built into such legislation. I look forward to the contributions from other members and the closing remarks from the Leader.