1.

The start of Something Big How the Tobacco Act came into being Late in the evening of 17 November 1987, the Tobacco Act 1987 was passed by State Parliament in , . The Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth) was born – the first health promotion body in the world to be funded by a tax on tobacco. It was the result of an unparalleled public health advocacy effort.

2 | Chapter One The quietly spoken Nigel Gray Gray recalls: “David said his father is persistent. Two years after had died of emphysema, this was arriving as Director of the Anti- not an election year, and he’d be Cancer Council of Victoria (now interested in doing something Cancer Council Victoria), he about tobacco.” With the softest of came to a conclusion: reducing taps, opportunity had knocked. smoking was one obvious way to Gray acted quickly. Within two days cut cancer rates. That was 1970. his proposal was on the Minister’s By February 1987, David White was desk. “We’d been talking about it Victoria’s Health Minister in the State like a broken gramophone record for Labor Government. He was the eighth years and years”, he said. Throughout consecutive Victorian Health Minister his 19 years at the forefront of David White, former Victorian to whom Gray had articulated his public health in Victoria, Gray had Health Minister (Labor) – his words would alter the landscape potent message. The message was advocated, but not antagonised. of tobacco control and health simple and accurate: using tobacco He’d stuck to the science and never promotion in Victoria forever. causes cancer. Cancer rates could let emotion overcome reason. “You be reduced if fewer people smoked. have to walk a fine line”, admits No Health Minister, however, had Gray. As each issue progressed, he found a way to implement Gray’s consulted his colleague, Dr David big idea – to increase taxes on Hill (now Director of the Cancer cigarettes to keep them out of reach Council Victoria), to ensure their of young people and to ban tobacco words would reflect the data. Then advertising and sponsorship. a public position would be taken. As a matter of course, he made himself Tom Roper, Health Minister from available to the press: “We did make 1982 to 1985, had told Gray the only it clear that we were the people to way to stop tobacco sponsorship come to, to ask questions”, said Gray. of sport and the arts would be to ‘buy out’ 2 the tobacco companies. White’s advisor, Peter Worland, “If we did not have Nigel in the thought the notion of a tax to reduce Cancer Council, we could not smoking sounded too negative. have entered the fray.” Creatively Worland combined the David White, former Victorian ideas, suggesting that a tobacco Health Minister (Labor) fee be used to buy out tobacco sponsorship and that a body be set up to promote positive health messages. Gray’s credibility on all sides of politics was beyond question. His In White’s office, Gray and White commitment was unmatched. These met to discuss an Anti-Cancer strengths were to be critical. “I think Council proposal for mammographic that the tobacco industry lost because screening. Towards the end of the the health professionals won, not the meeting White changed tack. His politicians. Someone like Nigel Gray words would alter the landscape is rather hard to discredit”, said Mark of tobacco control and health Birrell, Shadow Health Minister at promotion in Victoria forever. the time.

2 ‘Buy out’ in this context means ‘replacement’. The term is used colloquially. In fact, VicHealth could only offer ‘replacement’ sponsorships when the sport and arts organisations were free from existing tobacco contract obligations. Otherwise, there was the risk that the tobacco companies could sue VicHealth for inducing a breach of contract.

The start of Something Big | 3 Based on Gray’s proposal, White (‘hypothecated’) tax, also had to be quickly committed himself to a convinced of the idea. Gray admits campaign to get a Bill through the now he didn’t think chances of Victorian Parliament. The Bill would success were high. put a levy on tobacco, creating a fund White and Gray mapped out a strategy to buy out tobacco sponsorship, to do and a timetable. The Bill was to be research, to provide funds to sports introduced before the House rose and activities that hadn’t previously for Christmas, so they had to move received funding. Gray agreed, in his fast. Gray contacted an old friend, words, to be the go-between, building Bob Fordham, who was Leader of the bridges, disarming defences, utilising House and had the Bill placed on the allies, mobilising support in the wider agenda. Step one had been taken. community. “I was to be the architect of the public campaign, but it was All realised the media’s attitude David White who told me what to do would be crucial. In Western Australia about the politicians”, said Gray. “He similar legislation had been proposed advised me to talk to Mark Birrell, in 1983 and had been torpedoed who was already on side, and get – by just one vote. A concerted him to run our strategy in the Liberal campaign by the tobacco industry, Party. Without any discussion directly with support from sporting groups between those two, it was decided and advertising bodies, had been that our focus would be a Bill, and backed by the state’s media outlets. that Mark would run the Liberal side Their objection to the proposed Bill: and David would run the Labor side.” banning tobacco advertising would decimate groups that relied on it for Passing such a Bill would not be a survival. In 1987, Victoria heeded the simple task. Labor was the State implications of that campaign. Funds Government but the opposition raised in Victoria with the dedicated Liberal Party held the numbers in tax would be used to buy out tobacco the Upper House, the Legislative sponsorship of sport and the arts, Council. Under Victoria’s bi-cameral thus guaranteeing their survival. parliamentary system any Bill had to pass through both Houses to Gray knew Creighton Burns, editor of become legislation. Therefore both newspaper. Burns listened parties had to be convinced of its to Gray’s oft-repeated spiel about merits before it was passed. tobacco and promised to assign two young reporters, Fiona Harari and Enormous pressure was expected Graeme O’Neill, to a series of stories from the tobacco industry, particularly about the issue. Gray asked if he could towards the Liberal Party, who would influence the timing. Burns agreed. generally be philosophically opposed The series would run in the week to taxation or any other restraint on Cabinet deliberated on the proposal. business. The National Party held seats in tobacco-growing areas and Labor had to be convinced next. was expected to oppose the Bill. White wanted the proposal through Public opinion was thought to favour the party room in June or July before such an idea, but was an unknown at the Budget. The Treasurer needed the start of the campaign. Treasury, convincing. “Our discussion with the traditional opponents of any dedicated Treasurer, Rob Jolly, rested on the

4 | Chapter One The submission to Cabinet for a tax Getting News Corp on side increase on cigarettes and restrictions on tobacco advertising coincided News Corporation, publisher of The editor of The Herald was with a week-long series of articles by ’s two other daily papers, unenthusiastic about Gray’s The Age newspaper, agreed to earlier The Sun and The Herald, was also views, but allowed the issue to by Burns, that ran under the tagline approached. Nigel Gray discovered be fully covered. Its reporting ‘Victoria’s Dying Habit’. It opened informally that Rupert Murdoch, the was initially non-committal and with an article headed ‘Move to Ban proprietor, would not object to “a later supportive. As The Herald Tobacco Advertising’ carrying the local decision being made on local was traditionally a foe of tobacco proposed legislation and its effect. grounds” not to oppose a ban on advertising restrictions, its support Other articles on the history of cigarette advertising. White met with (which continues today) was smoking, arguments for and against the editor of The Sun. The paper’s something of a coup for the health smoking, perspectives from cancer position on the proposal was neutral. lobby, and was certainly noted by victims, addicted smokers, children This was all that was required. the politicians. born to smokers, tobacco growers, doctors, non-smoking advocates and the tobacco lobby ran during the evidence that 17 people died each a year in contributions to sport week and feedback from readers was day in Victoria from smoking-related and culture. In the end, Treasury invited. “The articles really ventilated diseases, two people died every day allocated A$24 million to VicHealth the issue”, said Gray. from alcohol-related diseases, and one but the buyout cost only A$6 million. The proposal went through Cabinet. person died every two days from hard The tobacco industry had, in fact, Critically, White and Gray decided drugs. Therefore, if we were talking exaggerated its contribution. that pushing the proposal through the about drug abuse, the major issue was Public opinion needed to support the Budget process would not be the best tobacco. Reducing tobacco use wasn’t proposal. Premier John Cain’s advisors way to achieve a sustainable result. what state and federal government also needed to be convinced the plan A Tobacco Bill that incorporated the money was directed at. Rob [Jolly] was politically palatable. Gray had tax and the restrictions on advertising was persuaded by that argument”, become aware of a poll completed at and introduced the Victorian Health said White. the , where Promotion Foundation to manage the Jolly was against hypothecation results showed, surprisingly, that a funds and the buyout was decided as but saw the merits of this proposal tax on tobacco was popular. “This the appropriate course of action. This and had a sympathetic Head of was unique information. In those turned out to be absolutely crucial. Treasury. “We were quite a different days nobody had any idea that any The tobacco industry, relieved to government compared with many tax could be popular”, said Gray. see that no tax increases had been other governments. We worked “They hadn’t even thought of asking introduced through the Budget, was together as a team and were willing the question.” caught napping when the Bill became to sacrifice conventional policies if The Anti-Cancer Council commissioned public. Forced to mount a campaign it was in the best interests of the a survey asking a range of questions opposing the Bill at short notice, their community – myself, David and framed by the Council’s David Hill. response was reactive and misjudged the Premier [John Cain] were all The survey of 1136 Victorians showed the mood, according to Shadow pretty strong anti-smoking people that 84% would support an increase in Health Minister Mark Birrell. “The big and that certainly helped in terms tobacco tax of 50 cents a packet if the picture was that everyone in Victoria, of the campaign”, said Jolly. revenue went to such programs as down to the brown dog in the street, In his proposal, Gray estimated A$12 health education, medical research and knew that cigarettes did cause harm. million would be needed to buy sports and arts funding. The results The tobacco companies were saying out tobacco sponsorship. Unofficial were broken down by party affiliation. ‘No, they don’t’ or ‘We don’t need to estimates at the time had the tobacco This underpinned confidence in the discuss the medical aspects – it’s a industry spending about A$15 million idea and the advance continued. rights issue.’ In Australia, that’s not a

The start of Something Big | 5 Results of the public survey In June 1987, the Centre for • when asked if they would Behavioural Research in Cancer approve of a 50 cent per pack commissioned the Roy Morgan tax increase if the revenue Research Centre to survey public raised were put into programs attitudes to: the current anti-smoking such as health education, campaign, to increases in tobacco medical research and funding taxation, to restrictions in tobacco sport and the arts, total approval advertising and promotion, and to the for the tax soared to 84%. idea of putting tobacco tax revenue • 63% approved of a ban on all into a fund to pay for sporting, health forms of tobacco advertising. and medical activities. Opinions The most common reason given were measured by voter intention, for not approving of such a making the results particularly ban was the belief that issues salient to the political parties. such as freedom, rights and A representative sample of 1136 democracy would suffer (54%). adults aged over 16 years was • 37% would unconditionally interviewed. The poll pointed to approve of a ban on sponsorship strong community support for of sport by tobacco companies. the new initiatives: • 57% would approve of a ban on • 79% of Victorians believed the sponsorship of sport by tobacco smoking reduction campaign companies if such funding were currently in progress should replaced by money raised from be the same or tougher. tobacco taxes, and 35% • 47% approved of an increased continued to disapprove. tobacco tax of 50 cents per Source: Hill D. Public opinion on tobacco packet; just over 20% of smokers advertising, sports sponsorships and taxation prior to the Victorian Tobacco Act, 1987. approved of this increase. Community Health Studies 1988; XII: 282-288.

6 | Chapter One The Anti-Cancer Council’s TV commercial The Coroner was very provocative, very political, and deliberately so.

sustainable public position. They lost, The campaign that the Anti-Cancer Organisations and individuals began a or abandoned, the main debate and Council implemented was sharp and letter-writing campaign at the council’s then tried to run an argument on the effective. The TV commercial The urging. The mailout of the newsletter right to communicate. There’s a valid Coroner was very provocative, very reached 140,000 members and the argument there, but not for a product political, and deliberately so. In it a letter-writing campaign was regarded that visibly causes death in so many packet of cigarettes is pulled from a by many members of parliament as the of its users. There’s no other legal corpse during an autopsy and cited biggest, most sustained in memory. product in this category, and we had as the cause of death. The Big Kill The contribution of the Peter to run specific legislation to deal – information sheets containing a MacCallum Cancer Institute, read with it”, he said. breakdown of deaths by municipality out during the parliamentary – highlighted the contribution of By contrast, the Anti-Cancer debate, summed up the need for tobacco to these figures. Sent to Council had a plan, could mobilise the legislation: “Up until July of every suburban newspaper and every big numbers and, along with some this year, 1976 new patients with parliamentarian at their electorate powerful allies, was ready to fight lung cancer were referred to the office, the information impressed hard. Gray summed it up simply in institute, and smoking histories were many of the need to act immediately. a quote to The Age on 28 July 1987: available for 1958 of these patients: “We attack tobacco because it is the An article was included in a special only 71 (3.6%) were non-smokers. biggest. Not worse or better, but it is edition of Cancer News, the Anti- There is little we can do to prevent the biggest [killer].” The advocate’s Cancer Council publication, asking lung cancer. You can do a lot more. eyes would not be taken off the ball. donors to contact their local members. Please vote for the Tobacco Bill.”

The start of Something Big | 7 Sport and Recreation Victoria formally of the need to reduce smoking. He government of the day had indicated informed the sporting bodies of the thought the idea a good one but, along willingness for the foundation to proposal and most got behind the idea. with other supportive colleagues such be bipartisan if the opposition was as Tom Reynolds, Geoff Connard and prepared to support it. There had Sir Gustav Nossal, Australia’s leading Graeme Weideman, would have to fight been a concern that the money would scientist and one of the world’s hard to sway sceptical colleagues. The be used by the government of the day leading immunologists, agreed arguments against the proposal were as a slush fund, so it was important to be the inaugural chair of the old, but had some resonance: Would there was give and take on both sides proposed Victorian Health Promotion banning advertising in fact lead to to create an independent body.” Foundation, known as VicHealth. a decline in smoking prevalence? If Nossal was approached in a late-night smoking is legal, why should smokers’ phone call to Tokyo by Gray. Nossal rights be infringed? What about “It’s fair to say that most MPs today was surprised to be asked but keen tobacco growers? Most of all, tobacco would not be aware of the heroic to be involved. “I could see that this industry support was under threat. achievement of getting this body was the best chance to strike a real up, nor be completely on top of blow against the tobacco industry and Some heroes emerged. “It was a its breadth of activity now, but the I was happy to be involved”, he said. cathartic and tumultuous debate goodwill lives on and there’s been A breakfast launched the foundation [about whether to pass the Tobacco no mistrust created.” and announced his appointment, Bill] that extended over a very Mark Birrell, former Shadow Health before the Bill was even carried – a considerable period”, said Birrell. Minister and Leader of the Upper strategic move, but one that upset “But we were able to put together House (Liberal) some members of parliament. a team of people who wanted to seize the agenda that Nigel Gray had Nossal’s appointment was a real created – he deserves the credit as While conceding that philosophically coup. “Having a key medical leader at the inspiration, and he didn’t leave it he had been opposed to the Bill, the the forefront gave credibility to the to the last moment to do his lobbying. then Leader of the Opposition, later organisation. It was important that He’d influenced my views, and those Premier, , backed the all key sections of the community of a number of us in the party, for Bill in Parliament. “Just as we have and all important interests were lined years and years. He’d created a taken action as a Parliament regarding up before we even began to fight”, great opportunity – but it was just deaths on our roads and drinking of said White. “It sent a message to the right moment; we were able to alcohol and the relationship between the whole medical profession that come with it. The party room debate alcohol and accidents on the road, this was not some fantasy land but was very intense, and there were a we should not be prepared to back was something credible.” Birrell lot of opponents, but I tried to work away from what is obviously a serious agreed: “The strength of the effort with our Shadow Sports Minister at problem, and that is the dependency to create the foundation was its the time, Tom Reynolds, and with of young people on cigarettes”, said scientific credibility. That, more than a number of backbenchers, to get Kennett during the parliamentary anything, was the bridge across some together enough people who said debate on the Bill. of the sea of doubt or opposition we should really give this a try.” that comes with grand projects “A lot of the debate was on the like this. It had scientific rigor, Rob Knowles, who was later to importance of keeping it [the funds scientific credibility and scientific become Health Minister, recalled raised and the foundation managing spokesmen. Without people like Nigel that a general view existed within those funds] out of the hands of Gray and Gus Nossal it probably the Liberal Party that anything done government during election campaigns”, would have been remembered as to reduce smoking was a good thing. agreed Birrell. “There was an appeal nothing more than a bright idea.” That was due to persistent, long-term that such a policy initiative would only and credible lobbying by tobacco be sustainable if it was at arm’s length The Liberal Party party room was the control advocates. It was more the from day-to-day government, and also next obstacle to negotiate. Birrell, who detail that created discussion. “The wasn’t just subsumed into the was also the Liberals’ Leader of the idea had appeal, particularly as the monolithic Health Department – not Upper House, was already convinced

8 | Chapter One Kennett debates the issue “In recent times I cannot remember I do not for a moment deny them their receiving so much correspondence right to smoke, but I do think in this from so many eminent Victorians community we, the legislators, must as well as so many Victorians who be prepared to address the problems are what I would call rank and that confront society when so many file members of our community. of our young are turning, in many The whole thrust of the Bill has cases through boredom and, on other been to try to restrict access to occasions, through example of their cigarettes by young people in our parents and grandparents, to become community. I do not think anyone dependent on cigarettes. would have any argument with that. Again, I do not deny them the right As a politician and campaigner, in to do so, but...we should not be campaigns of recent times, such prepared to back away from what is as the Central Highlands Province obviously a serious problem, and that by-election and the Nunawading is the dependency of young people on Province re-election, I have spent cigarettes.” 3 considerable time on railway stations Jeff Kennett, former Leader of the early in the morning. I must admit Opposition and later Premier of that it is of great concern to me to Victoria (Liberal) see the number of schoolchildren and young people who walk towards the railway station at 6.30am clutching a cigarette, and, in particular, the number of young women.

3 Victoria Parliamentary Debates, Tobacco Bill Legislative Assembly, vol. 388-389, 28 October 1987, pp. 1848-1849.

The start of Something Big | 9 so much a sense that there would be obvious political enemies, but a sense “Mark Birrell laid out our strategy. that it would be defeated by so-called We had to capture 12 out of 22 higher demands within the Health votes in Shadow Cabinet on the Department or defeated by the natural Monday, which would mean that we and perpetual opposition from the then had a basic 22 votes out of 64 State Treasury. So to have a separate in the party room on the Tuesday. body with hypothecated revenue I visited as many of the Shadow meant that it wasn’t going to be Cabinet Members as I could. The politicised and it wasn’t going to be industry had been getting at several defeated by the bureaucracy.” members, especially Jim Ramsay, on the basis of freedom of speech, and White’s tactic was to allow the Liberal I had to deal with that argument. At The persistent Nigel Gray, who Party to make some amendments had a big idea to increase taxes his suggestion, I contacted our two on cigarettes to keep them out and gain some political mileage out Archbishops. David Penman said, of reach of young people. of them. In return they would support “I’d be very pleased to help, I’ll make the Bill’s major features. “We had a couple of phone calls.” Frank Little to introduce legislation saying we was out of town, but his assistant would make a compulsory buyout said that he was sure the Archbishop of all tobacco sponsorship”, said was sympathetic (and I got a really White. “Along the way, they were lovely letter from Little afterwards going to amend it and make it a saying that he’d taken action on the voluntary buyout and call me a matter, though I never found out Maoist and a Stalinist. I was happy what the action was. Letters? for that to happen if it got the Phone calls? Thunderbolts?).” legislation through.” Nigel Gray, former Director of the On 7 October, the Bill was introduced Anti-Cancer Council of Victoria to Parliament. The Melbourne Herald Shadow Health Minister at ran an opinion piece by Gus Nossal on the time, Mark Birrell says the the same date. The debate resumed on After much discussion, the Bill passed tobacco industry lost because the health professionals won, 28 October with urgency to complete through the Legislative Council with not the politicians. it during that session of Parliament. one major amendment: sports and arts While the ALP and the Liberal Party bodies would be free to choose their discussed the form of the legislation, sponsors. Tobacco sponsorship of the National Party argued for referral sports and arts would not be banned. of the Bill to a committee. Some In the public arena it became a estimated such a move would delay sticking point. Labor threatened not to the legislation by up to three years. pass the Bill with those amendments in place. The Liberal Party argued publicly that VicHealth had the money to buy out the sponsorships and groups would be persuaded by the merits of being associated with health messages rather than tobacco – particularly with more money on offer. Free choice, though, must remain. Gray got back on the hustings. On 5 November in The Age he wrote, “in summary, the differences between

10 | Chapter One the parties [were] very small and the them. I think everybody knew that grounds for agreement very large. area was important and would grow. As one who has advocated this cause Beyond that a number of people, for many years, I now feel that we myself included, hoped that it would are on the verge of taking a historic also be a body that could be a pace- step forward. It would be a great setter in other public health initiatives. tragedy if the baby was thrown out It could be a respected leader and with the bathwater and the certainty an advocate – quite an unusual one, of the Bill was destroyed because because, at the end of the day, it the Government and the Opposition enjoyed multipartisan support.” cannot negotiate this final issue.”

On 14 November the amended “Nigel Gray and Gus Nossal gave it Bill was ratified by the Legislative stature because of their credibility Assembly. The drama continued and the arguments they could as arguments came late about the mount. Then there was the political legislation being the thin edge of the patronage without which it wouldn’t wedge. Birrell, with a party room have got up, but you needed the decision in his bag, just made it known scientific basis first. And then the he was not leaving until it passed. “We political coalition: MPs who were had a decision to stand behind. I didn’t drawn to the idea of creating a know what might happen if the issue unique health promotion body. So, was recommitted”, Knowles said. the campaign was a great mix of Late on 17 November, Gray watched figures from science, people from the Bill passed into legislation. “It is politics, and – the third key criterion one of the achievements I am most – allies. These were people who had proud of.” White was more relieved helped throw up the agenda for this than anything else: “You’re just trying great new body, and were able to to get there, and then hope, in the make clear that it had a long-term execution of it, it will survive and visionary agenda, or allies who could prosper. The elation is in the fight help achieve its implementation such – you’re drained by the end.” as people from sport who said that they would alter their sponsorship Birrell summed up the hopes well: practices. All these were big steps, “Everybody involved would have their all would need to be harnessed … own perception of what it was to be; I don’t think you could have done there were immediate imperatives, it without all three.” and then the broader vision. The Mark Birrell, former Shadow Health immediate imperatives were to buy Minister and Leader of the Upper out the leverage points that cigarette House (Liberal) companies had inserted over sporting and other community groups. So, there was a mission to be fulfilled – get them out of the game, stop the patronage that they had misused. Then there was a wish to better fund what were at that stage relatively embryonic Quit-style campaigns and to ensure substantial funding for

The start of Something Big | 11