Page 3833 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 27 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I was somewhat heartened by the minister’s public comments this week in this regard. As I have already mentioned, I welcome the amendments that will extend the period available to store owners to make the necessary changes. This extended period is required because the changes that are required from local businesses are quite extensive and need to be implemented sensibly.
I again draw the distinction between tobacco and illicit drug equipment, which we discussed this morning, because the volume of the trade and the reliance of business on the trade of tobacco, a legal item, are much greater—not to mention the issue of legality.
There are some required changes that will present significant challenges to both businesses and consumers. For example, the bill mandates strict regulations for the size of price lists for cigarettes. These regulations are strict indeed, mandating that these prices must be displayed in 12-point times new roman font. I was a little intrigued by this aspect of the legislation. It seems to be interfering with the ability of a person to read the price of a legal product which they wish to buy.
I do not think that this aspect of the legislation does much to target young people, most of whom have very good eyesight and can easily read a price list of this size. Instead, it imposes a hurdle for older people, who may not be able to read 12-point times new roman font. I often use reading glasses to read my speeches, which my staff tell me are typically written in 14-point font. I know that many people older than me would have no chance of reading a price list that is written in 12-point font. In this case, people can ask for prices to be read to them, but this aspect of the legislation seems to me to be micromanaging aspects of cigarette sales in such a way as to inhibit legitimate sales to adults who make those purchase decisions. It will probably cause delays in busier shops and create some unnecessary difficulties above and beyond the government’s policy intention, but I am not sure that it is going to deliver any great outcome in reducing the incidence of smoking in our community. I suspect that that particular requirement will have no effect from that perspective.
I suppose the point that I am trying to make here is that, whilst the government has a policy direction that we will implement here today, there are practical considerations that need to be taken into account. As much as the government does not like to admit it, cigarettes are in fact a legal item that can be purchased in this city; as such, there are consumer issues that need to be considered.
We need to consider that adult consumers are able to make a choice to purchase tobacco and ensure that, when making that choice, they can still, under the new confines of this bill, make an informed choice.
It is also worth noting that restricting the flow of information that consumers receive on purchasing items also restricts the impact that mandatory health warnings on cigarettes will have on consumers. I am not entirely sure that they have much effect anyway, but, as with my bill this morning on another front, I think that probably everything you can do to try and sensibly persuade people about lifestyle choices that may impact adversely on them should be embraced within reason.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .