industry reduces to embers
as the Australian Government
tightens its grip, in the hope of
achieving a safer and healthier
smoke-free future. EMMA
GRIMLEY writes.
statistics a thousand times. Fragments
of Government-endorsed television
ads pass fleetingly through your
mind as you read the headline of this
article. "Smoking kills". "Cancer". Blah
de blah blah blah. The truth is, in an
article hoping to explore government
attempts to reduce the levels of
smoking in our society we cannot
avoid the fact that 15.1% of 14 year
olds and older continue to smoke in
Australia. Further, in 2003 it accounted
for approximately 15,511 deaths, and
for 7.8% of the total burden of disease
and injury. In the period of 2006-7
smoking accounted for 42 356 hospital
admissions. In 2004-5 the social cost
of tobacco amounted to $31.5 billion.
These figures represent waste of
most importantly life.
Australian Government has implemented
a world-first Tobacco Plain Packaging
Act 2011 (Cth) and the Tobacco Plain
Packaging Regulations 2011 that
came into effect on 1 December 2012.
Commenting on the Act, The Hon. Nicola
Roxon, then Minister for Health and
Ageing, proclaimed that "the glamour
is gone from smoking and cigarettes
are exposed for what they are: killer
products that destroy thousands of
Australian families". The Act's title tells its
own purpose: to remove colours, brand
imagery, corporate logos and trademarks
from tobacco packaging, replacing these
with regulation font sizes, health warnings
and other legally mandated information.
This decision was founded on compelling
marketing and psychological research
that discovered altering packaging
reduced the status signal of tobacco
products. A seminal 1995 Canadian
report titled `When Packages Can't
Speak: Possible Impacts of Plain and
Generic Packaging of Tobacco Products'
proclaimed plain packaging is perceived
as dull and boring, cheap, and permitted
greater reception to health warnings.
Essentially, this legislation has removed
accompanying Enforcement Policy states
amongst its options as education, notice
of alleged compliance, written warnings,
infringement notices, civil penalties and
criminal prosecution as effective methods
to ensure successful implementation.
dispute to the world-first legislation
recently, debating its validity in
the case of JT International SA v
Commonwealth [2012] HCA 43. The
plaintiff companies argued that the Act
permitted acquisition of their intellectual
property rights, other than on just terms,
thereby violating s 51 (xxxi) of the
Constitution. However, the High Court's
decision demonstrated the united front
of a government determined to butt-out
smoking. In their decision they held
that acquisition of property requires
a proprietary interest or benefit, of
which the legislation did not offer the
Commonwealth, as it was no different
to mandating warning labels on other
products. Secondly, they stated "no
one other than the tobacco company
that is making or selling the product
obtains any use of or control over the
packaging...Of course their choice
about appearance is determined by
the need to obey the law. But no-