Australian Tobacco Control Legislation

Since the early 1990s, Governments in Australia have progressively enacted legislation to reduce the devastating impact that tobacco products and smoking has had on public health. As evidence of the health effects accumulated, health authorities and the media increased their pressure on governments to introduce tougher tobacco controls.

WARNING: This resource is intended as a starting point only for people interested in knowing more about the accumulative development of legislation to control the tobacco epidemic in Australia. It should not be regarded as a comprehensive up-to-date inventory but rather, as a list of key legislative initiatives with links to the legislation. Users should confirm information from another source if it is of sufficient importance for them to do so.

• National Tobacco Scoreboard
• Graphic Health Warnings
• Smoking in Films and TV
• Health Act and Regulations
• Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act
• Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

National Tobacco Scoreboard

The Tobacco Control Scoreboard is a project which assesses the performance of Australian states and territories in tobacco control. ACOSH undertakes this each year in collaboration with the Australian Medical Association, who present and promote the results. It has been going on for 15 years and continues to have an impact, generating action by low-scoring Health Ministers and encouragement for those who lead the country in tobacco control efforts.

2006 Tobacco Control Scoreboard Media Release

2007 AMA/ACOSH Scoreboard Results Media Release

2008 AMA/ACOSH Scoreboard Results Media Release

Back to Top

Graphic Health Warnings

Background

Since the beginning of March 2006 all tobacco products imported and manufactured for retail in Australia are printed with the new health warning labels. These new warnings provide smokers with information on an expanded range of health effects. In the case of cigarette packs, health warnings occupy 30% of the front and 90% of the back of the pack, with a graphic appearing on both the front and back.

Two sets of seven different health warnings are alternated every 12 months (Set A warnings were required from 1 March 2006 and Set B from 1 March 2007). This new rotation system is to increase awareness of the health effects due to smoking. As well as the graphic images and descriptive messages, the Quitline number and website are included on the packet. To view the graphic warnings, click on the links below:

Back to Top

Smoking in Films and Television

ACOSH has been concerned for some time about the prevalence of smoking in films and television. Acting on these concerns, ACOSH made submissions to the Federal Attorney General and the Office of Film and Literature Classification seeking a labelling process to identify productions that have received tobacco industry sponsorship or have excessive levels of cigarette smoking.

Back to Top

Health Act Regulations - Review of Poisons Act 1964

ACOSH made a submission to this review in June 2004. ACOSH has previously made submissions to the: "Poisons Schedule (Standing Committee) NHMRC" 1984/85; "West Australian Poisons Advisory Committee" 1995, and in response to the first discussion paper of the "Review Of The Poisons Act 1964" in 2002.

The essence of this submission is that the current exemption on cigarette nicotine under the Poisons Act 1964 (WA) is no longer justifiable. The submission advocated the removal of this exemption so that cigarette nicotine falls within the scope of the Act.

Back to Top

Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act

In 2003 the Commonwealth announced a Review of Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act (1992), with submissions being due October 2003. ACOSH joined other health and tobacco control groups in preparing a united and detailed submission to the review process. There has been no report from this review since (October 27, 2004) when one is produced from the Commonwealth, a link to it will be provided.

The Executive Summary of the Joint Submission reads:

The Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act ("TAP Act") has now been in operation for more than 10 years. While it has been important in limiting the exposure of the Australian public to tobacco advertising through more traditional mass media forms of marketing, it has been largely ineffective in limiting exposure through other channels of communication to which the tobacco industry has increasingly been turning since the commencement of the Act. In addition, the exposure of the public to the promotion of smoking in the popular media remains an ongoing concern.

Public health groups in Australia welcome the review of the TAP Act and appreciate the opportunity to comment on the issues paper published by the commonwealth department of Health and Ageing as part of the process.

In this submission, we set out the effects of tobacco advertising and provide the rationale for its prohibition. We present numerous examples of ways in which the tobacco industry has continued to promote smoking and tobacco products through the life of the TAP Act, as well as of positive depictions of smoking in the popular media. Finally, we propose a broad approach to the issues that need to be addressed and a set of specific recommendations for amendments which, in combination, would help to ensure that the Act better achieves its object, as stated in section 3 of the Act:

1. This Act is intended to limit the exposure of the public to messages and images that may persuade them:

a. to start smoking, or to continue smoking; or

b. to use, or to continue using tobacco products.

    2. The object is to improve public health.

It seems to use that there are two main issues for the review:

• The first issue involves promotion of tobacco products and smoking by those in the tobacco trade, such as manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers, and others who work for them and on their behalf, which is designed to increase sales and profits. Such promotion is fundamentally inconsistent with the object of the Act, and should be strictly proscribed. Where communication by those in the tobacco trade is absolutely required (given the availability of their products), it should be limited to the provision of factual information about price, availability and inherent characteristics of products. No promotion which uses the kind of marketing techniques (such as those relying on the cultivation of positive imagery and associations) that may be appropriate for other products - products that are not harmful and addictive; products that do not cause over 19,000 deaths in Australia a year; and products that do not cost the Australian community over $21 billion a year - should be allowed.

• The second issue involves promotion of tobacco products and smoking by others (such as publishers and broadcasters) who are not in the tobacco trade and who do not stand to benefit from that promotion. This involves an examination of very different issues, and needs to be approached in a way that balances public health concerns and other important values such as freedom of expression.

We make a number of recommendations which we believe will, if adopted, enable the object of the Act to be far better met than it is today. These include:

• Broadening the definition of "tobacco advertisement" and ensuring that the definition and the surrounding provisions are broad enough to cover the type of activities to which the tobacco industry has been increasingly turning, which are documented in this submission, including:

• guerrilla marketing techniques

• events and venue marketing

• affinity marketing

• point of sale marketing

• marketing through the pack

• internet marketing

• direct marketing

• and use premiums / value added promotions

• Introducing penalties which are appropriately calibrated, taking into account both the impact of the contravening advertising and the incentive of the tobacco industry to do all it can to promote its products;

• Adequately resourcing and vigorously pursuing enforcement of the Act; and

• Ratifying the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and playing a leading role in the development of protocols in those areas where international cooperation is needed to prevent activities outside Australia which weakening the capacity of the TAP Act to achieve its objective.

Underlying all of our recommendations is the recommendation that, except where the Constitution prevents it from doing so, the Commonwealth should establish clear and strong laws in relation to all areas of advertising, and not leave open the possibility of weaker regulation in certain States and Territories that the Commonwealth could itself achieve.  There is not justification - other than constitutional necessity - in a country the size of Australia, and with the level of commerce and travel that we enjoy across the country, and given the similarity of marketing practises and incentives nationwide and the national operation of tobacco manufacturers, to leave open the possibility of different standards in different jurisdictions, with Australians being exposed to different levels of "messages and images that may persuade them to start smoking, or to continue smoking, or to use, or to continue using, tobacco products", depending on which State or Territory they happen to live in or to be visiting at a particular time. (Submission to the Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing Review of the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992)

Prepared by the VicHealth Centre for Tobacco Control, The Cancer Council of Victoria © October 2003. (Used with Permission)

Back to Top

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC)

In October 2003 the ACCC announced that it was investigating whether to take action against tobacco companies for using misleading labels claiming cigarettes are "mild" or "light". In May 2005 The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission announced that it had obtained court-enforceable undertakings from British American Tobacco Australia Limited and Philip Morris Limited to remove 'light', 'mild' and similar descriptors from their products.

In the ACCC's view, such health claims for low yield cigarettes were likely to have breached section 52 (misleading and deceptive conduct provision) and other sections of the Trade Practices Act 1974, for reasons including the fact that it was generally known that smokers can, and do, compensate for claimed lower yields by smoking cigarettes in ways that obtain higher yields of tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide than indicated on the packets.

In response to the ACCC's concerns, BAT and Philip Morris have provided court-enforceable undertakings to the ACCC to:

• Remove 'light' and 'mild' descriptors and related numbers from all cigarettes produced for Australian consumers (Philip Morris from 31 July 2005 and BAT from 31 May 2005)
• Not make claims about the health benefits of low yield cigarettes when compared to high yield cigarettes, and
• Pay the ACCC to fund anti-smoking information campaigns and programs concerning low yield cigarettes.

The ACCC had been seeking an industry wide solution to this important consumer health issue. However Imperial Tobacco Australia Limited refused to cooperate with the ACCC. 

It remains to be seen what action the ACCC will take against Imperial Tobacco.