ANTI-tobacco laws just got tougher in NSW with bans to be put in place at playgrounds, public transport stops, entrances to public buildings and sports grounds, with outdoor dining to follow.
Health Minister Jillian Skinner announced today that while the public smoking bans will be put in place as soon as they pass through parliament, possibly within a couple of months, the commercial outdoor dining areas will not be introduced until 2015.
Currently some council areas have some of these smoking bans in place but the new tobacco reforms - as part of NSW Tobacco Strategy 2012-17 - will now be uniform across the state.
"The aim of this is to reduce the number of people who are smoking and to reduce the exposure to people, particularly children and families of third-party tobacco smoke," Ms Skinner said.
The NSW Heart Foundation backed the reforms.
"This is an historic moment in our State's history and one that will help to protect the thousands of people in NSW who don't smoke," NSW Heart Foundation CEO Tony Thirlwell said.
"There is no safe level of exposure to second hand smoke evidence shows that a non-smokers exposure to second-hand smoke can result in up to a 30 percent increase in risk of heart disease," he said.
SYDNEY has emulated universities on the other side of the country by declaring itself smoke-free. The policy came into effect at the end of January after being approved by the University of Sydney Senate in December.
Human resources director Colin Streeter said the policy matched moves by other universities. “The dangers associated with smoking and passive smoking have long been recognised, and we have an obligation under state legislation to provide a smoke-free environment,” he said.
The universities of Western Australia, Curtin and Edith Cowan instituted similar policies on January 1, and Murdoch has promised to follow suit next year. The University of Adelaide phased in a total smoking ban over the last two years, and Macquarie will this year review plans for a total smoking ban from 2015.
But Sydney has eschewed the total ban approach of the WA universities, designating 19 small external areas for smoking across its seven campuses.
In this respect it has followed the example of James Cook University’s Cairns campus, which banned smoking from all but four external designated areas.
Sydney has established a quit smoking program and offered counselling via its employee assistance program.
The university union was consulted over the new policy, and pre-empted it by banning tobacco sales from its outlets last October. President Sibella Matthews said the union was committed to a “healthy campus environment”.
The new policy also meets union concerns by allowing organisers to apply for temporary smoking areas at enclosed events, such as ticketed performances at the popular Hermann’s and Manning bars.
However with the university and union in dispute over whether the union will continue to run Manning, it’s yet to be seen who will benefit from this concession.
University polls reportedly revealed 83 per cent support for smoking exclusion zones, with 78 per cent or respondents supporting a complete ban on campus.
Perth has decided to allow smoking at the airport – not in the main concourse but in specially designated smoking rooms. The West Australian reports that a purpose-built smokers’ area is being built at the southern end of the domestic terminal. It will open next month, with a second facility to follow in the international terminal.
Smoking rooms – usually unadorned and grim-looking places with extractor fans working overtime to suck out as much smoke as possible – are a feature of many airports in Asia and Europe. Even Singapore Changi has one, though Singapore’s official policy is firmly anti-smoking.
Those airports accept that if smokers cannot smoke in flight, they may want to do so on arrival. Airports don’t want smokers sneaking illicit puffs in toilets.
In Australia, the Airports Act 1996 prohibits smoking in any part of an airport in which there is a sign bearing the words ‘No-Smoking’. While designated smoking rooms are permissible, they have been removed from, or not installed at, Australian airports. As a result, desperate smokers rush outside and light up outside terminals, creating clouds of passive smoke that plagues non-smokers and risks the health of children.
Australian Council on Smoking and Health president Mike Daube labelled the prospect of a purpose-built smoking room at Perth Airport “a shocking step backwards”.
The airport should just have banned smoking outright, he said.
Western Australia, famed for its healthy lifestyle, has one of the lowest rates of smoking in Australia.
“We can now confidently predict that smoking will decline from 16.6% nationally (14.8% in WA) to below 10% within a few years, and will then go into freefall,” Daube said last year.
Cigarettes kill one in two regular users, he added.
Written by : Peter Needham
(Source: eglobaltravelmedia.com.au)
The content of the government’s release on the draft plain packaging Bill offers few surprises. The government thinks stripping tobacco products of any branding will cut smoking rates as part of a basket of anti-tobacco measures, they’ve picked the colour (an allegedly offensive olive green), and the already garish health warnings are going to extend from just the lip to most of the front packet.But amongst the consultation paper is also an admission of something the government has long denied – plain packaging could acquire the value of trademarks and expose taxpayers to a compensation bill from big tobacco.
At the time of the government’s initial announcement both Health Minister Nicola Roxon and then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd dismissed these concerns arguing they have still-to-be-publicly released “robust” legal advice supporting no IP violations.
The IPA raised concerns that stripping trademarks from packaging could lead to the acquisition of property rights under the Constitution and lead to compensation on “just terms”. But the government’s consultation paper now acknowledges property rights risks exist. Under the banner of “Constitutional provisions” the paper on the “abundance of caution ...
provides that if preventing the use of trade marks on packaging of products is contrary to section 51 (xxxi) of the Constitution, the trade marks can be used, but only in accordance with restrictions (for example, on size and placement) that would be imposed by the regulations”. So far we don’t know what the regulations say.
But the clear intent of the provision is if the High Court recognises plain packaging is the acquisition of a value of a trademark logo they can be used in a restrictive fashion without annulling the rest of the Act.
It's the government's long-winded way of saying "oops".
But despite this admission concerns that plain packaging may violate Australia’s obligations under the World Trade Organisation remain. WTO intellectual property rules require trademarks not be “unjustifiably encumbered [such as] use in a manner detrimental to its capability to distinguish the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings”.
The rules also afford a public health exception “provided that such measures are consistent with the provisions of this agreement”. But by limiting the use of trademark logos the government may not be “consistent”. Especially since justifiability may require strong evidence of the plan's efficacy. If you judge them on their words the government claims they are convinced. But if you judge them on their actions reportedly they last year commissioned a two-year $600K+ plus study to look at the impact of plain packaging on smoking rates.
Documents released under Freedom of Information show that Australia’s intellectual property agency, IP Australia, has found there are around 3,000 trademarks for tobacco and tobacco products of which “a short study shows approximately 1/3 include logos”. Publicly IP Australia has been wary of opposing the government's plain packaging plan but their internal discussions are telling.
One version of a briefing note states “IP Australia considers that plain packaging may not be consistent with Australia’s intellectual property obligations ... [and whether it] would constitute an acquisition of property is debateable”.
Emails between IP Australia trademark officials show that arguing Australia’s international IP obligations would not be violated by plain packaging “is a long bow”. Interestingly IP Australia continues to highlight that “requiring plain packaging would make it easier for counterfeit products to be produced".
Since Australia is the first country to actually legislate for plain packaging the legal risks are significant. And tobacco companies have already made clear their fighting intentions. To date Australia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada and Lithuania have previously considered plain packaging and rejected it predominantly on intellectual property grounds. Many countries are now watching what happens in Australia before they decide how they will progress.
There are mixed legal views about whether it violates IP rights and only the High Court and a WTO dispute settlement panel will ultimately decide who’s right. But treading with caution is wise. The same FOI documents show IP Australia was only advised of the government’s announcement days before it was public.
At the time the rushed announcement appeared to be a smokescreen to distract the public from the political hammering the government was taking from dropping its emissions trading scheme. In light of recent polls perhaps not much has changed. The only difference is this time the government appears to have acknowledged the very real risks that plain packaging poses to property rights and our international obligations. This honesty is welcome.
