By Michelle Grattan
There are issues that should be elevated above politics, and trying to find ways to reduce the killer habit of smoking is one of them. So it is particularly disappointing that Tony Abbott, a former health minister, is dithering on the opposition's attitude to government legislation for the plain packaging of cigarettes.
The case for this measure is overwhelming - to do everything reasonable to curb the habit. The case against is flimsy and self-serving. Abbott should have the opposition declare support for the legislation, even if it adds the qualification that it has to see the fine print.
Illustration: Andrew Dyson
The arguments raised against plain packaging are that it might not be effective, that it might harm retailers, and that it might infringe the property rights of the tobacco companies.
A review of the literature on smoking, prepared by Quit Victoria and the Cancer Council Victoria, reports that with the increasing prohibition of tobacco advertising and sponsorship worldwide, the packet has become the key marketing tool.
''Adults and adolescents perceive cigarettes in plain packs to be less appealing, less palatable, less satisfying and of lower quality compared to cigarettes in current packaging,'' the report says.
Common sense would tell you that if changing packaging was expected to be ineffective, the tobacco companies would not be so agitated. But even if there is doubt about the degree of effectiveness, plain packs are worth trying.
The argument that the packaging would hurt shops (and make transactions more inconvenient because the packs all look the same) goes against the claim the ban won't work. If sales went down, shops would be affected. But it would be a small part of their trade and a sacrifice worth making.
What about the companies' property rights? If a product is legal, the case goes, a company has the right to be able to package it as it sees fit, to maximise its attractiveness against competitors.
That's true - but most rights are not absolute. (We are talking here in a moral rather than legal sense - the courts are the final judge of legality and the government claims to be confident of its advice.) The obligation on government to protect community health should in this case override the property right.
The community has already gone a long way down this path. In the 1970s, there was fierce argument about cigarette advertising. Obviously, in ordinary circumstances, manufacturers or retailers have a right to advertise a product that can be legally sold. But politicians correctly decided that this right should be ranked below the community's right to have its health protected.
Some critics have always brought up the case of alcohol. Why shouldn't its advertising be banned (or indeed, they might ask, its packaging be plain)? The answer is clear: smoking harms all who indulge. There is absolutely nothing in its favour. Alcohol is harmful if abused.
The packaging move is hardly radical, given where the anti-smoking campaign is up to internationally. This week saw the start of a smoking ban in public spaces in New York, including parks, beaches, plazas such as Times Square, golf courses and sporting stadiums. One story this week that reported on the controversial ban noted that a study two years ago had found that 57 per cent of non-smoking New Yorkers had a high level of a nicotine byproduct in their blood, suggesting recent exposure to cigarette smoke.
We are unlikely to see such a comprehensive ban in Melbourne or Sydney any time soon. But last week, Hobsons Bay council voted to bring in smoking bans on Williamstown and Altona beaches, and at public playgrounds.
The mayor, Michael Raffoul, said: ''You would be mad not supporting a ban to help shield children from the deadly habit.''
Abbott has to contend with serious divisions within his ranks on the packaging issue, including strong objections among the Nationals and equal passion in favour from Liberal doctor Mal Washer and his ilk. The split is also coming at a bad time, as tensions with Malcolm Turnbull are imposing new strains.
But Abbott will have to deal with the differences within the opposition eventually, and he might as well do it sooner rather than later. Things fester when they are left, as we are seeing. In Parliament yesterday, the government homed in on Abbott's comments and the divisions on the issue.
The packaging legislation appears set to get through the House of Representatives even if the Coalition opposes it - thanks to the crossbench and Liberal dissidents willing to cross the floor.
Politically, it would look bad for Abbott to appear doubly impotent; unable to stop the legislation and unable to keep his own troops in line. It would also expose him to criticism that the Coalition's views are being influenced by the donations it receives from the tobacco industry.
This week the ''good'' Abbott (the former health minister and fitness freak) and the ''bad'' Abbott (exploit every political opportunity regardless) were both on display.
The ''bad'' Abbott was critical of the government's higher tax on cigarettes, declaring it overwhelmingly affected ''some of the least privileged, least well-off people in our community''. (Maybe it does, Tony, but if some of these people, who often have more health problems than the privileged, are saved from illness, they will be better off. Smoking is a health issue, not an equity issue.)
Yesterday, the ''good'' Abbott told a Cancer Council function, ''We all should do what we can to fight cancer.''
Precisely. Including showing leadership by embracing a small initiative that might do a little bit to help.
Michelle Grattan is Age political editor.