Tobacco Brands Packs, Smoking Control

The High Court backed the federal government's world-first plain-packaging legislation earlier this year because it involved regulating, not acquiring, big tobacco's brands and logos. The court on Friday published its reasons for ruling in mid-August that plain packaging was constitutionally valid. "Although the (Tobacco Plain Packaging) act regulated the plaintiffs' intellectual property rights and imposed controls on the packaging and presentation of tobacco products it did not confer a proprietary benefit or interest on the commonwealth," a summary of the judgment released by the court states. "The act was valid as it did not acquire property. It therefore did not engage section 51(xxxi) of the constitution." The legislation means all cigarettes and tobacco products will be sold in drab olive-brown packs from December. Large graphic health warnings will dominate the packs, and brand names will be written in a small, generic font. British American Tobacco Australia (BATA), Japan Tobacco International, Philip Morris and Imperial Tobacco Australia will have to pay the commonwealth's legal costs, which Attorney-General Nicola Roxon says ran into millions of dollars. BATA on Friday maintained Labor's policy was flawed. "Regardless of the reasons for the High Court decision BATA said the TPP (tobacco plain packaging) was a bad piece of law that would have serious unintended consequences," spokesman Scott McIntyre said in a statement. The government always insisted it had the right to regulate cigarettes just like other products harmful to human health, such as rat poison, which require warnings about safe handling. In a dissenting opinion Justice John Heydon argued Labor's plain packaging legislation should have been declared invalid. He said the act deprived big tobacco of control of their property and gave that control to the commonwealth. "The legislation had not deprived the proprietors of their proprietorship but in substance it had deprived them of everything that made the property worth having," Justice Heydon said. The judge insisted that by mandating large health warnings "the legislation caused the commonwealth to acquire the use of the space on the proprietors' cigarette packets for its own purpose".