Fiona Sharkie
Executive Director
Quit Victoria
PO Box 888
Carlton South, VIC
Australia 3053
Please √
1 / Ban smoking in all outdoor dining areas. / √ / The scientific and medical evidence that exposure to second-hand smoke (SHS) causes disease is overwhelming. There is now a growing body of evidence that demonstrates that outdoor SHS levels can be comparable to indoor levels under certain conditions.[i] A study which measured SHS levels in a variety of outdoor locations showed that a person sitting near a person smoking in an outdoor area could be exposed to levels of SHS similar to the exposure of someone sitting in an indoor tavern where smoking is allowed.[ii]
Exposure to secondhand smoke increases when people are under an overhead cover, and as the number of nearby people who are smoking increases.[iii] Therefore, in outdoor areas where people tend to congregate, such as outdoor dining areas, the presence of people smoking can present a potential health risk to non-smokers.
People at greatest risk from SHS exposure in outdoor settings are likely to be children, those susceptible to acute respiratory responses such as children with asthma, and those subject to long-term exposure such as hospitality staff at outdoor hospitality venues.
The Queensland Government prohibited smoking in all outdoor public eating areas in 2006. There has been strong support for smoke-free areas in Queensland, with 90 per cent of the public supporting the ban after implementation.[iv] Two randomised, population surveys were conducted by an independent research company following the Queensland policy change. The survey found that one year after the bans 22% of smokers reported they had attempted to quit because of the new policy, which equates to 123,000 Queenslanders. Two per cent of smokers said that they had successfully quit as a result of the policy change, the equivalent of 14,000 new ex-smokers. Further, 27% of ex-smokers reported that the new tobacco laws had helped them remain non-smokers.[v]
The hospitality industry is often vocal in their opposition to smoke-free environments due to concern about alfresco smoking bans negatively impacting their business. This argument arose during the implementation of indoor smoking bans. However, numerous peer reviewed economic studies have concluded that smoking bans do not have a significant impact on revenue and often have a positive effect on business turnover.[vi]
2 / Remove the 3 metres exemption permitting patrons to smoke at tables within 3 metres of an entrance/exit to an eating establishment. / √ / See point 1.
3 / Ban smoking in all pedestrian malls, bus malls and covered bus shelters. / √ / As outlined at point 1, there is now a growing body of evidence demonstrating that outdoor SHS levels can be comparable to indoor levels under certain conditions – particularly where people congregate and when under an overhead cover. Prohibiting smoking in outdoor areas not only reduces people’s exposure to second- hand smoke, but it also helps to make smoking less visible and less socially acceptable. Taking steps to make more outdoor areas smoke-free and to denormalise smoking, will help make smoking less attractive to young people, and support smokers who want to quit.
Cigarette butts are consistently one of the most common items found during Clean Up Australia Day.[vii] Approximately 7.2 billion cigarettes are littered in Australia each year.[viii] In Australia cigarette butts account for 16 per cent of all rubbish collected and are the most common littered item.[ix] Cigarette butts degrade the appearance of local neighbourhoods and harm the environment, waterways and wildlife. Outdoor smoking bans may help to reduce the amount of cigarette butt litter and provide a substantial cost saving through reduced clean up costs.
4 / Ban smoking within enclosed children’s playgrounds or within 10 metres of any children’s playground equipment in unenclosed areas. / √ / Most parents don't want their children spending time around smokers, especially at places where their children go to play or watch sport and can be influenced by role models. Prohibiting smoking where children are present makes smoking less visible and less socially acceptable and provides a healthy family friendly environment.
As noted in point 3, outdoor smoking bans may help to reduce the amount of cigarette butt litter. This is particularly important around children’s playgrounds because discarded cigarette butts pose a risk to children’s health due to swallowing discarded cigarette butts, which has the potential to cause vomiting and other symptoms of nicotine poisoning.
5 / 5.1 Ban smoking in all outdoor sporting stadia and cultural venues, OR / √ / See points 1 and 4.
5.2 Further restrict smoking in all outdoor sporting stadia and cultural venues by:
5.2.1 Prohibiting smoking within 10 metres of any seating area in the stadium or cultural venue, OR
5.2.2 Prohibiting smoking in all seating areas of the stadium or cultural venue, OR
5.2.3 Prohibiting smoking in all areas of the stadium or cultural venue except for designated smoking areas / √ / Sports stadiums are places where people gather, usually close together. Designated smoking areas within sports stadiums can still expose patrons to SHS and detract from efforts to make smoking less visible and less socially acceptable. While the smoking restriction options here are better than none at all, Quit Victoria supports option 5.1 in preference to options under 5.2.
6 / Ban smoking within 20 metres of the competition area at all sporting events where children are participating.
. / √ / See point 4
7 / Ban smoking at all public swimming pool complexes. / √ / See points 1, 3 and 4
8 / Ban cigarette vending machines. / √ / A complete ban on cigarette vending machines would implement the recommendation in the World Health Organizations draft guidelines for implementation of Article 13 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control for which Australia is a signatory, that:
“[v]ending machines should be banned because they constitute, by their very presence, a means of advertising and promotion”.[x]
The positioning of vending machines at licensed venues continues to promote the association between socialising, alcohol and smoking. Large, eye-catching images continue to be displayed on cigarette vending machines, such as images of landscapes and beaches and in some cases machines are built in a shape and from a material that evokes a particular theme. These designs trigger false associations between the tobacco product and desirable environments or activities. They belie the true nature of the product, and clearly contradict the objects of the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 (Cth) but are not prohibited by current advertising bans.
The prohibition of vending machines from licensed premises and bottle shops will be vital to further denormalise smoking and eliminate a potential visual cue that may trigger relapse or make it more difficult for people trying to quit. It would also be more in line with the intentions of Tasmanian legislation to reduce secondhand smoke and encourage smokers to quit.
In light of Tasmania’s smokefree workplaces law, the purchase of cigarettes over the counter at pubs and clubs is likely to be minimal. The removal of vending machines is unlikely to create a burden for staff. It is only through sales by staff that access to tobacco products can be genuinely supervised.
If vending machines are not banned then they remain a point of sale. It is important that they are captured within legislation that will ban point of sale displays, resulting in images of packets on the front of machines being banned and product and price information shown in prescribed fonts, size and colours and no imagery.
9 / 9.1 Ban specialist tobacconists’ displays: / √ / As noted in the Discussion paper on page 10, tobacco displays in specialist tobacconists are often visible to passers-by which can undermine the intention of point-of-sale display bans that aim to minimise children’s exposure to tobacco and tobacco products.
Stores which meet the definition of a ‘Specialist tobacconist” should not be permitted to display tobacco products for evermore. An implementation period of 2 years will be more than adequate to enable them to adapt their business. A lead-in period of just over 2 years has been provided to retailers in the ACT.
The tobacco industry commonly employs inaccurate arguments and vast tactics to “buy time” and delay legislative reforms that will reduce smoking rates and tobacco company profits.[xi] Significant lessons can be learnt from the manipulative tactics engaged in by the tobacco industry to delay the implementation of pack health warnings in Australia and overseas.[xii]
9.2 Cap the number of specialist tobacconist to remain at the existing level: / √ / There is a risk that ‘specialist tobacconists’ will proliferate as the industry attempts to exploit ways to continue to promote their products.
9.3 Phase out specialist tobacconists: / √ / Currently, tobacco can be sold almost anywhere – milk bars, newsagents, service stations, supermarkets, etc. Quit Victoria’s vision is to eventually restrict where tobacco can be sold to make it only available at certain outlets, which could include specialist tobacconists. Therefore, we don’t support the phasing out of specialist tobacconists as they may have a role to play in restricting tobacco access into the future.
9.4 Introduce a new category of specialist tobacco licensing. / Quit Victoria doesn’t have a preferred view on this proposal as it appears to be an administrative consideration.
10 / Remove tobacco and tobacco products from reward schemes. / √ / As noted in the discussion paper, such schemes reward customers for smoking. This proposal will remove any incentive for customers to purchase tobacco products.
11 / Ban tobacco sales at all temporary events such as music, sport or art festivals or where the majority of patrons are likely to be under 18. / √ / The tobacco industry is notorious for setting up temporary sales outlets and smoking tents at music events popular with young people, such as the events noted in the discussion paper at page 12. Not only do these temporary outlets enable tobacco companies to promote their products to young people, they also glamorise smoking and reinforce the association between smoking and the atmosphere cultivated at such events. These reforms are vital to de-normalise smoking and prevent the promotion of tobacco products to young people.
12 / Enable confiscation of tobacco and tobacco products in the possession of a child. / √ / While Quit Victoria strongly support any measures aimed at preventing smoking initiation and reducing smoking rates among young people, we do not support the introduction of laws that prohibit the possession, use and/or purchase of tobacco products by those under 18 years of age (“PUP laws”).
There is currently insufficient evidence to demonstrate that PUP laws would reduce smoking rates.[xiii]
PUP laws punish children while failing to address the social, economic and environmental causes of youth smoking and the role of the tobacco industry. They may also have a disproportionate impact on disadvantaged youth (eg homeless youth) who are much more likely to be smoking on the streets than children in the middle to upper socio-economic groups who may do so more privately.
Other Proposals
The Tasmanian Government welcomes additional suggestions from the community and stakeholders on other policies which they think would help to protect people from ETS and which would de-normalise tobacco to children. Please provide suggestions in the space below, including evidence or attachments to substantiate your proposal.
Investment in social marketing
The discussion paper notes that social marketing is a proven strategy to reduce smoking prevalence. It is important that an adequate level of funded media campaigns are run in Tasmania to decrease consumption of tobacco and increase quitting activity. The evidence for the effectiveness of social marketing as a tobacco control tool is clear. A 2004 study ranked social marketing campaigns third (after tax/price policies and smokefree laws) in terms of their likely importance for reducing population smoking prevalence. They were described as “the third prong in successful tobacco control strategies” in the study that reviewed international studies on the effect of tobacco control policies on smoking rates[xiv].
Social marketing’s importance in comprehensive tobacco control programs is backed up by an abundance of evidence from international, Australian and Victorian research that clearly shows that tobacco control social marketing decreases consumption of tobacco and increases quitting activity.
Australian evidence
Evaluations of the first and second phase of Australia’s National Tobacco Campaign (1997-1998) showed an overall reduction of approx 1.8% in the estimated adult prevalence of smoking over the 18 months from the time the campaign was launched. The results of the second phase showed that gains made in the first phase were largely maintained, however further reductions in prevalence were not evident and the evaluation warned that new campaign material and greater media exposure would be required to achieve further improvement[xv].
This Australian evidence shows the importance of ongoing adequately funded media campaigns in preventing the erosion or stalling of decreases in smoking prevalence made through initial campaigns. Associate Professor Hurley also emphasised the impact of social marketing in a paper in the Medical Journal of Australia (MJA) in July 2005, highlighting the economic benefits of reducing smoking rates in Australia through mass media campaigns. In the paper Professor Hurley states “the cost-effectiveness of mass media campaigns is illustrated by the fact that even if it cost $13 million for a campaign that reduced smoking by 1% in the first year, the cost would be recovered through reduced hospitalisations for heart attack and stroke alone in 5 years."[xvi]
1
[i] Repace JL. Banning Outdoor Smoking is scientifically justifiable. Tobacco Control 2000; 9:98 (Spring). Repace J. Measurements of outdoor air pollution from second hand smoke on the UMBC campus. ( accessed 8 March 2007). Boffi R, Ruprecht A, Mazza R, Ketzel M, Invernizzi G. A day at the European Respiratory Society Congress: passive smoking influences both outdoor and indoor quality (letter). European Respiratory Journal. 2006;27:862-863. Turner P. Air Monitoring for Cigarette Smoke. Unpublished Report for The Cancer Council NSW, 12 May 2005.Brennan E, Cameron M, Warne C, Durkin S, Borland R, Travers MJ, et al. Secondhand smoke drift: examining the influence of indoor smoking bans on indoor and outdoor air quality at pubs and bars. Nicotine Tob Res. 2010;12(3):271-7. Cameron M, Brennan E, Durkin S, Borland R, Travers MJ, Hyland A, et al. Secondhand smoke exposure (PM2.5) in outdoor dining areas and its correlates. Tob Control. 2010;19(1):19-23.
[ii] Klepeis NE, Ott WR, Switzer p. Real-Time Measurement of Outdoor Tobacco Smoke Particles. Journal or the Air and Waste Management Association 2007; 57:522-534.
[iii]Cameron M, Brennan E, Durkin S, Borland R, Travers MJ, Hyland A, et al. Secondhand smoke exposure (PM2.5) in outdoor dining areas and its correlates. Tob Control. 2010;19(1):19-23.
[iv]MCR (2005). Awareness, knowledge, attitudes and behaviour change with regard to new Qld
tobacco laws: A quantitative research report. Prepared by Market and Communications Research for Queensland Health. Report held by the Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Branch, Queensland Health, available on request.
[v]MCR (2006). Tobacco laws campaign evaluation: A quantitative research report. Prepared by
Market and Communications Research for Queensland Health. Report held by the Alcohol,
Tobacco and Other Drug Branch, Queensland Health, available on request.
[vi]Scollo M, Lal A, Hyland A, Glantz S. Review of the quality of studies on the economic effects of smoke-free policies on the hospitality industry.Tobacco Control, 2003 Mar;12(1):13-20. Available at:
[vii] Clean Up Australia Cigarette Butt Fact sheet. Available from:
[viii]Butt Littering Trust
[ix]Clean Up Australia, Rubbish Report 2009. Available from:
[x] World Health Organization. Elaboration of guidelines for implementation of Article 13 of the Convention. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. 2 September 2008. p.6. For consideration atthe Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, Third session, Durban, South Africa, 17-22 November 2008.Available from Accessed on 10 September 2008.
[xi] Chapman S and Carter S. “Avoid health warnings on all tobacco products for just as long as we can”: a history of Australian tobacco industry efforts to avoid, delay and dilute health warnings on cigarettes. Tobacco Control 2003;12;iii13-iii22.
[xii] Chapman S and Carter S. “Avoid health warnings on all tobacco products for just as long as we can”: a history of Australian tobacco industry efforts to avoid, delay and dilute health warnings on cigarettes. Tobacco Control 2003;12;iii13-iii22.
[xiii] Wakefield M and Giovino G. Teen penalties for tobacco possession, use and purchase: evidence and issues. Tobacco Control 2003;12(Suppl 1):6-13.
[xiv] David T Levy, Frank Chaloupka, Joseph Gitchell, ‘The Effects of Tobacco Control Policies on Smoking Rates: A Tobacco Control Scorecard’.. Journal of Public Health Management Practice. 2004, 10(4), 338-353.
[xv] Hassard, K. (ed.) Australia's National Tobacco Campaign Evaluation Report Volume Two. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care, 2000.
[xvi] Hurley, S. Short-term impact of smoking cessation on myocardial infarction and stroke hospitalisations and costs in AustraliaMJA,Volume 183 Number 1,4 July 2005