PUBLIC HEALTH AMENDMENT (PROHIBITED TOBACCO AND OTHER PRODUCTS) BILL 2026 (No. 8)
[4.36 p.m.]
Ms BURNET (Clark) - Honourable Speaker, I'm pleased to make my contribution to the Public Health Amendment (Prohibited Tobacco and Other Products) Bill of 2026 and thank the minister for bringing this to the House today. A fundamental aim of any health system is to prevent disease, intervene early and reduce ill health so that people remain as healthy as possible for as long as possible. That's according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
Tasmania was once a national leader in tobacco control. Through tough regulation and strong public education, we saved lives and reduced harm, but we should be clear-eyed about where we are today. Those hard won gains are slipping away. We know smoking rates are rising amongst youth and that the state is awash with illicit tobacco. The AMA writes in their submission to this bill:
The prevalence of smoking in Tasmania remains above the national average and is a major contributor to the state's chronic disease burden.
Concurrently, there has been a rapid rise in vaping among young people. Although smoking rates have declined over several decades, Tasmania continues to have higher smoking prevalence than the national average. An estimated 559 Tasmanians die per annum from smoking-related diseases. The Stroke Foundation write bluntly in their submission:
People who smoke tobacco cigarettes are twice as likely to have a stroke compared with those who have never smoked. The more an individual smokes, the greater their risk of stroke.
Tasmania has the highest per capita incidence of stroke nationally, and I know that this is a devastating consequence to families. I know that many years of smoking is what killed my mother and caused her stroke, so, I'm very familiar with how devastating that can be. There is a clear synergy here with the 20-Year Preventative Health Strategy, and I commend the former health and wellbeing minister and Ms Archer for the work and commitment to preventative health strategies.
This provides both the moral and evidence-based imperative to justify any additional expense required for greater enforcement and public education now, on the basis that it will save money in the long run. According to Quit Tasmania, every dollar spent on smoking prevention saves $48 of future expenditure. I should include you in that too when you were health minister, honourable speaker. Dr Barnsley writes in her submission:
Tasmanians deserve a reduction in costs to the health budget, a reduction in beds occupied by smokers and a reduction in ambulance callouts to the many thousands of patients suffering smoking-related heart attacks, stroke, the multiple cancers caused by smoking and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease expectations.
Legislation without adequate enforcement resourcing is ineffective. Other jurisdictions have backed their reforms with significant investments. I'll take South Australia as an example, where $16 million was committed over four years for a dedicated enforcement task force. Victoria allocated $46 million to establish a licensing scheme and regulator. New South Wales has deployed 78 dedicated enforcement personnel, including 30 additional tobacco inspectors. The Tasmanian government should commit to a dedicated enforcement funding allocation to support the implementation of this bill. It just can't be done on the smell of an oily rag.
This government can't reduce smoking rates on the cheap. If it is genuine about enforcement and education, it is a mistake to prioritise one and not the other - they go hand in hand. The government decision to cut 50 per cent of its funding to Quit Tasmania - the question that I asked this morning - to do its public education work is completely inconsistent with its own tobacco action plan and what it hopes to achieve through its 20-Year Preventive Health Strategy.
I understand this funding cut has significantly reduced Quit Tasmania's capacity to run public anti‑tobacco campaigns. Education is one of the most powerful tools we have to reduce smoking rates, particularly among young people. Weakening that capacity at this moment is a false economy and one Tasmanians will pay for in years to come. It is sending a message to the community that the government's priority is not to reduce smoking rates, but to make sure it protects the trade of legitimate businesses. It's an interesting balance here with what we have before us.
What I want to make clear is that, while this bill is predominantly focused on measures which target the illicit tobacco industry, all tobacco, legal and illicit, is harmful to health, and I and many of the stakeholders in the health and public health sector are concerned that this bill doesn't do enough to reduce smoking rates in Tasmania.
I've been engaging extensively with the minister over this reform, and I'm not questioning her commitment to achieve reform. Quite the contrary, I want to take the opportunity to thank the minister for her very collegial and collaborative approach to this bill. It's a really refreshing approach which honours the concept of minority government.
Minister, I'd also like to thank your staff and the department for the briefings and feedback they have given in response to the many questions I've had for them, even up until today. I now understand why the government isn't pursuing in this bill many of the additional reforms recommended by stakeholders, as Ms Haddad has raised in her speech.
I'm referring to reforms such as prohibiting online sale of illicit tobacco, due diligence obligations for landlords and related offences for landlords who knowingly lease their premises to illicit tobacco traders, lease termination provisions to enable landlords to terminate leases where the lease has been shut down for selling illicit tobacco, powers to tobacco officers to conduct controlled purchase.
Firstly, neither the act nor the bill provide the immediate suspension or cancellation for repeat offences or for the disqualification to hold a licence in the future. To include such powers would have a much greater deterrent effect on those traders who simply phoenix into another premises upon being closed or charged, and we can imagine that that is happening, or probably know that it's happening now.
Secondly, the AMA also encourages the Tasmanian government to consider broader policy settings that influence tobacco consumption, including the density and visibility of tobacco retailers and the emergence of new nicotine products. It's something that I raised when I was on the Hobart City Council, the concern that planning regulations allow for tobacco retailers in areas where, quite frankly, I don't think they should be located, like close to schools and so forth. It would be good to get some better reform over time.
The increasing presence of specialist tobacconist retailers within high traffic environments such as shopping centres risks renormalising tobacco consumption and undermining public health efforts to reduce smoking.
This requires a planning response. The Heart Foundation also suggests having density restriction, as does the Lung Foundation. Their suggestions include capping the number of licences issued by suburb or region, establishing minimum distance requirements that prohibit tobacco sales within prescribed distances from schools, youth services and health facilities; Prohibit sales of tobacco products at specific types of retailers, such as supermarkets, convenience stores, petrol stations, gift shops, candy stores; and ban online sales and delivery. Even in the legal sales of tobacco, it's so prevalent in our community, and people who are addicted to nicotine products are always exposed to this.
I understand the government is staggering its reforms and that the next tranche will come in 2027. There can be no delays. I commit to working with the government on those reforms to ensure they are introduced, and if the government delays introducing these reforms I will have no hesitation in preparing a private member's bill to bring these reforms to the parliament.
While I would like to see more done by the government to reduce smoking rates in Tasmania, I do acknowledge the scale of the challenge we face with illicit tobacco and understand why the government has prioritised reform on reining in illicit tobacco. While it's difficult to quantify, there are some estimates that illicit tobacco makes up 60 per cent of the market - that's phenomenal. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data, 40 per cent of illicit tobacco is purchased from a tobacconist and 25 per cent from a supermarket or convenience store, so clearly greater enforcement of licence holders is needed.
I commend the government for taking this first, more urgent step in trying to disrupt the illicit tobacco trade and increasing penalties for offences. My concern is the transparency of the government's efforts at reining in the tobacco industry, legal and illegal. Giving officers new powers is one thing, but it's how frequently they are using these powers that is more important.
I'll read out an email I received just this morning from a constituent in response to my piece published today in the Mercury on this bill.
Good morning, Helen,
Having read your article in the Mercury today, you may wish to visit Glenorchy Gifts, opposite Hungry Jacks on Main Road, and witness the high rate of sale of illegal cigarettes, $20, and vapes $50‑$60.
I have communicated with many in public office without anything being done to close down the operation, so I hope your department is listening, minister. [tbc]
This is not the first time I've had a concern like this raised with me. That's why transparency on enforcement action is so important. The public don't trust that the department is acting when it should. This is why there is concern about the shift in responsibility for enforcement from the Director of Public Health to the Secretary of the Department. I think that Ms Johnston will be speaking to this concern, although I'm not sure that she's moving her amendments, so it may be good to hear from you, minister, in relation to that, please.
In response to the rise of illicit tobacco sales, it is important that the public and wholesalers know which vendors have licences and which don't. It's that transparency which is very important to the public.
I've indicated to the minister that I intend to move some amendments to this bill. I've provided these amendments to the government and have had ongoing discussions with them. If any member wants a hard copy, I have copies here. However, I understand the minister may be able to provide some explanation and assurances that may mean I won't need to move all of the amendments I've planned.
I will raise two of these issues now so the minister can specifically address them in her reply, rather than wait until the committee stage to raise these issues. Firstly, the wording of section 70A (2), which prohibits the display of smoking paraphernalia in premises. My concern is that the drafting of this section is such that it would appear to only prohibit the display of smoking paraphernalia visible from outside the shop or premises, but would not necessarily prohibit displays of smoking paraphernalia visible inside. Minister, can you assure us that section 70A (2) prohibits display of smoking products regardless of whether a person is inside or outside the store and can see in or not?
The second question relates to the need to address the concerns that the tobacco unit are not using their powers sufficiently, for whatever reason and that there needs to be some transparency around enforcement activities which will assist in assessing the effectiveness of these enforcement powers.
I want to see the department report the number of:
Complaints made to the department during the financial year in respect of each offence specified in this part;
Inspections, searches and seizures, separated by action, undertaken by authorised and nominated officers during the financial year to enforce this part;
People charged during the financial year with each offence specified in this part;
Short-term premises closure orders made in the financial year under section 74LG1; and
Orders made by the appeal tribunal during the financial year under section 74LH3.
I think that will answer some of the concerns already raised by Ms Haddad.
The amendment I have prepared seeks to make this information publicly available through an annual report. This was a reform recommended by the Tasmanian Independent Retailers in their submission at page 2 and it's supported by Dr Barnsley, Quit Tasmania and the Australian Association of Convenience Stores. This really needs to be part of regulations introduced within six months. That is what I would like to see. If adopted, it will go some way to rebuilding some public faith in the enforcement of this part of the act through greater transparency, and will help inform the next tranche of reforms the government is promising.
I understand, minister, that you agree in principle to this amendment, but question whether there is a better way to facilitate this transparency in reporting, so can you please talk to this in your reply? I will have more to say when this bill goes into committee, but I should finish by thanking the government for bringing this reform to the House and note that I will be supporting this bill. I also want to thank the passionate and committed health stakeholders, acknowledge their excellent, very informative submissions on this bill, for their ongoing public health advocacy and for taking the time to meet with me. I've really learnt a lot over this time, but it's also reinforced my commitment to them and seeing good outcomes for health. I also note the positive engagement from the retailers and their very helpful suggestions for reform.
In finishing, we have a responsibility to reduce the impacts of smoking on Tasmanians. I believe this first tranche of legislation goes somewhat towards that, but there are so many things as part of tobacco reform, good public health outcomes. We must do education well, we must enforce well and it has to be with good regulation. I look forward to continuing to work with the government and the stakeholders on the next stage of reform to ensure we return to our rightful position as a national leader on tobacco control.