September 2020; Vol. 30(3):e3032017 https://doi.org/10.17061/phrp3032017 www.phrp.com.au Perspective Interview with the Hon. Dr Michael Wooldridge: tobacco control was the best buy in health then and it’s still the best buy now Michael Wooldridgea and Paul Groganb,c,d a Former Federal Health Minister, 1996–2001 b Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia c University of Sydney, NSW, Australia d Corresponding author: [email protected] Article history Abstract Publication date: September 2020 The late 1990s marked a turning point for tobacco control in Australia. In Citation: Wooldridge M, Grogan P. Interview March 1996, the Liberal-National Coalition won government after 13 years with the Hon. Dr Michael Wooldridge: of Labor rule. Prime Minister John Howard had campaigned on cutting tobacco control was the best buy in health expenditure, and had long been a proponent of small government and the then and it’s still the best buy now. Public private sector. Yet within 2 years of taking offce, the Howard Government Health Res Pract. 2020;30(3):e3032017. funded Australia’s frst big budget National Tobacco Campaign and https://doi.org/10.17061/phrp3032017 commenced a review of the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 to phase out industry sponsorship of international sporting events. The Honourable Dr Michael Wooldridge, Minister for Health from 1996 to his Key points retirement from politics in 2001, refects on how these reforms to tobacco control were achieved and how the public health community can best engage • The public health community can best with policy makers to advocate for reform. He stresses the importance of engage policy makers by avoiding public health not being defned by ideology, and that politicians must be perceptions that reforms are ideological scientifcally well informed and supported in doing what is in the nation’s best or party-political, and making a strong, interest for public health. He assesses the current state of play and argues scientifc-based case for funding or more investment in tobacco control is needed today, suggesting it remains reform the “best buy” in health. • A key driver behind tobacco control reforms in the 1990s was the Health Q: More than 23 years after the National Tobacco Campaign1 was Minister’s establishment of a group of launched, people still ask how a new health minister was able to get independent experts led by an eminent scientist, which helped convince Federal an unprecedented investment in tobacco control through the Prime Cabinet of the need to invest in new Minister’s expenditure review committee. What was your secret? measures A: I was on the expenditure review committee. It comprised the Prime • There have been signifcant achievements Minister, who was busy with other things, the Deputy Prime Minister, the in tobacco control since the 1990s but Treasurer, Assistant Treasurer and the Minister for Finance. And me – a there’s not enough happening now. spending minister. We’d been tasked to address the national debt. However, More investment and action is needed to being medically qualifed, I felt there was a strong moral obligation for the new reduce smoking rates further government to also do something signifcant about the leading preventable cause of death and illness in the country. 1 Public Health Research & Practice September 2020; Vol. 30(3):e3032017 • https://doi.org/10.17061/phrp3032017 Tobacco control: the best buy in health Q: Moral obligations were unlikely to have been Yet when we took offce, not many in the public health enough to cut through process – especially a tough community expected a new centre-right government to expenditure review committee. How did you do it? do much in tobacco control. That might have been why I was criticised for deferring the campaign. The decision A: I was always more interested in outcomes than was based on independent expert advice, yet I was still process. And it wasn’t just about the money. There is also taken to task in the media. To get big things done in the advice about how to spend it – or in some cases not government requires the acquiescence of one’s Cabinet to spend it. I set up an independent advisory group of room colleagues. Trying to lead in an area like tobacco expert public health professionals, led by David Hill. The control, being guided by independent expert advice, and group’s advice was not to spend the money in the frst still being criticised for it is unhelpful. year. It might have been wasted, without further research That said, things have improved. The Public Health to make sure it was well targeted. This showed that Association organised a good event in Parliament House while it was important to get the funding, it was just as last year to celebrate achievements from both sides important to spend it well. of politics. It helped to show that public health is not A group of independent experts in their felds, ideological. The key is making a strong case for funding led by an eminent scientist, was powerful. And their or reform. recommendation refected their understanding of how things should work. People listen to expert advice. Being Q: A major reform in your time was the amendment of medically trained might have also assisted me in making the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 19922 to the case. phase out industry sponsorship of international sporting events. How did that come about? Q: Do we need more medical doctors in public health to engage conservative policy makers? A: That is an example of the importance of being strategic. The reforms which were eventually covered A: I think the main challenge is to avoid having issues by the amended 2 in defned in political terms. The public health community Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 2000 were a world first. To get it through, I had to show could do a lot better at recognising that public health is my colleagues I was engaging widely, in Australia and not ideological. internationally. This included engaging with the tobacco There are exceptions. Michael Moore [former CEO industry. Things are very different now, but back then, one of the Public Health Association] got it. He had been a in four Australian adults smoked, and the industry had a centre-left politician and an independent health minister much stronger influence everywhere. The industry said it in a minority centre-right government in the ACT. But wanted predictability. So, I was direct and said: "My job is he didn’t come across as left or right. There were a few to manage your product down in Australia". That was the others around at that time too. Alan Coates [former CEO, certainty I gave them. It took 3 years to do what I thought Cancer Council Australia], David Hill [former director, was necessary to get the Act amendments up. It then Cancer Council Victoria] of course. Steve Woodward became impossible for a lot of other countries to do it. [former executive director, Action on Smoking and not Outside government it might not seem difficult, but Health]. Stephen Leeder [former Dean of the Medical Australia is a federation, the Victorian Government had a Faculty, University of Sydney]. I never had any sense of major stake in the Melbourne Grand Prix, the industry had their personal political views. It was never an issue. The its hooks into state governments in ways that it no longer focus was on what we could achieve. does. It was a different world. We reduced the industry’s But as a sector, the public health community would influence by amending the Act, having already sought to be more successful if it avoided perceptions that reforms marginalise them with the campaign. The outcome was and the discussions about them are party-political. It can what mattered. play out in media in that way too. Q: What was the key to getting the amendments Q: Yet the perception remains that public health and through? the nanny state are ideological? A: I had important allies, not all of whom would be A: That perception doesn’t refect how things work. It’s obvious. A good example is Ian McLachlan. A country critical for public health not to be defned by ideology. MP, farmer and a former Sheffield Shield cricketer. He Australia was one of the more successful countries at understood tobacco industry sports sponsorship. He controlling HIV infection, because of the nonpartisan appreciated what I was trying to do, when I explained the goodwill between Peter Baume [physician, Federal need for certainty, and he was supportive in Cabinet. It’s Liberal Senator, 1974–1991] and Neal Blewett [Federal another example of why we shouldn’t be doctrinaire or Minister for Health, 1983–1990]. They recognised it was in make assumptions about public health along ideological the nation’s interest to take the politics out of HIV control – or personal lines. which was the position when I came in as Health Minister I also tried to be scientifc. Politics is about who did in 1996. what to whom. I focused on organisational behaviour rather than politics and engaged with people like Bernie 2 Public Health Research & Practice September 2020; Vol. 30(3):e3032017 • https://doi.org/10.17061/phrp3032017 Tobacco control: the best buy in health Ecclestone [former CEO, Formula One Group], to provide Q: Will it be harder in today’s political climate for a sense of where this was going. In the 1990s, this was the Commonwealth to secure the intergovernmental important. I had to show my Cabinet colleagues that I’d coordination of the original National Tobacco engaged and that we could get a result.