Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

July 6th, 2011:

Japan eyes tobacco tax hike for reconstruction -Yomiuri

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/07/us-japan-tobacco-tax-idUSTRE76604F20110707

By Stanley White and James Topham

TOKYO | Wed Jul 6, 2011 8:26pm EDT

TOKYO (Reuters) – Japan is considering a hike in its tobacco tax to help fund reconstruction costs, the Yomiuri newspaper said on Thursday, which could be first in a variety of tax increases as the country rebuilds from natural disaster and tries to repair weak public finances.

The hike, which the government hopes to implement as early as the next fiscal year starting April 2012, could bring in as much as 200 billion yen ($2.5 billion) annually, the newspaper said without citing sources.

The Democratic Party-led government agreed last month to double the 5 percent sales tax by mid-decade to pay for social security costs, which are rising by about one trillion yen a year due to an aging society.

Japan’s outstanding debts are about twice the size of its $5 trillion economy, and credit ratings agencies say tax hikes are needed to avoid a sovereign downgrade.

An advisory panel called last month for a temporary hike to either the sales tax, the corporate tax or income taxes to rebuild the northeast coast, which was devastated by a large earthquake and tsunami on March 11.

But embattled Prime Minister Naoto Kan faces a divided parliament where opposition parties can block legislation and it is not clear whether such hikes can be implemented.

The government is leaning toward increasing taxes on cigarettes as that’s likely to draw less objection from the public, the Yomiuri said.

A tobacco tax hike would however be a blow to Japan Tobacco (2914.T) which controls close to two-thirds of the domestic cigarette market. ($1 = 80.930 Japanese Yen)

Why is Deloitte’s name on junk tobacco research?

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2783400.html

6 July 2011

Simon Chapman

Simon Chapman

Remember the Alliance of Australian Retailers (AAR) who brought us the first salvo of anti-plain packaging ads in 2010?

These were the doozies that featured storekeepers with advanced knowledge of effective tobacco control explaining that plain packs “won’t work, so why do it” and then later on, “It just doesn’t make sense“.

It is no secret that the AAR is funded by big tobacco, who strangely have one or two concerns of their own about a policy “that won’t work” – enough to be in blind panic mode, pouring millions into their campaign to stop it. Personally, I never bother worrying about changes to my life that won’t make any difference.

This week the AAR released a Deloitte report with lots of shocking numbers and findings in it about an Armageddon that will descend on Australia’s corner stores because of a policy that won’t work. But now we have “research” to prove it. So let’s take a look at how they conducted the research.

First, Deloitte tells us that “Roy Morgan Research was engaged by the AAR to conduct a consumer survey to verify the risk of channel shift following the introduction of plain packaging”. Channel shift is industry jargon for your customers switching to buying their tobacco from bigger outlets like supermarkets, which of course have been attracting small business customers for decades because of their cheaper prices on everything.

Note importantly that the survey was not designed to examine whether there was a risk in channel shift arising from plain tobacco packaging, but to “verify” it. It’s a foregone conclusion, apparently. Great science.

We read that those surveyed “were presented with an overview of the proposed regulation and asked whether they thought their shopping experience at a small retailer would be affected”. So they were presented with an overview that would assist in “verifying” the risk of channel shift. No chance of any push polling there, I suppose?

Catastrophically for our corner stores, independent petrol stations and newsagents, more than one of three smokers (34 per cent) and 18 per cent of non-smoking consumers told Roy Morgan after hearing the overview that they were “either somewhat likely or very likely to change where they shopped as a result of plain packaging”.

So why would they do this? Smokers thought they would be “more likely to be given the wrong tobacco product”. So presumably they think that small shopkeepers are a cut below the staff in supermarkets and specialist tobacconists, and won’t be able to read the name on the pack or the column on the pack shelving behind the counter. Why else would there be more mistakes in handing over the brand requested? They will be packaged the same wherever they are sold.

Another reason given was that small store staff “would have a harder time finding what I want” and so “queues would be longer”. Again, how could this be different in small stores compared with large stores, given that the packs will be the same? Particularly when we discover below that small shopkeepers think supermarkets will stock far more brands, which presumably makes the search more difficult in the larger outlets.

The research also reports on focus groups with small retailers who believed that channel shift may occur because of:

  • The increase in time required to complete a tobacco related transaction would lead to customers becoming increasingly frustrated due to delays and longer queuing time.
  • The knowledge that a larger retailer, eg. a major supermarket with a broader range of products, would always have what they require.

Come again? Small shopkeepers think that the introduction of plain packs will cause them to cut back on the range of products they offer, but that supermarkets won’t do this? How come?

And what about the greater transaction time issue? Next time you are in a shop selling tobacco, watch what happens when a smoker asks for their brand. The shopkeeper turns away from the counter to face the storage columns on the wall behind them, as they have always done. Each brand is kept in its own column, they are not all jumbled together.

The regulations may well permit the brand name in standard font and colour to be displayed on the top or base of the pack so that the shop assistant can simply read “Winfield Blue” or “Holiday”. The idea that the shop assistant won’t know which brand is which is utter nonsense. The columns will be allowed to be labelled.

We have long expected big tobacco and its acolytes in tobacco retailing to react against any policy that threatens to reduce tobacco use and to use all manner of scare tactics to argue their sordid case for wanting to keep selling as many cigarettes as possible. But the really interesting question is what is a company with Deloitte’s reputation doing putting its name to nonsense like this?

The information contained in this report can only suggest that those interviewed were not given a full account of what plain packaging would look like. It seems that many are falling for tobacco industry lies that the packs will be indistinguishable: that there will be no way of distinguishing one brand from another. But every pack will be clearly labelled with its brand name and variant (eg: Winfield Blue, Winfield Red).

The Deloitte report is prefaced with an interesting caveat “No-one else, apart from the AAR, is entitled to rely on this Report for any purpose. We do not accept or assume any responsibility to anyone other than the AAR in respect of our work or this Report.”

Fine. Now we all know.

Simon Chapman is professor of public health at the University of Sydney

CLEAR THE AIR Tobacco Blog welcome replies from the following persons to print on our site :

Markus Shaw of Shaw Brothers

Dear Mr Shaw – the Shaw Brothers movie ‘Love in a Puff’ – who were the sponsors who paid for this movie ? Was this local or international tobacco company sponsored ?

Miriam Lau The Liberal Party

Dear Mrs Lau –

On a recent Backchat interview you stated that the Liberal Party would support the tobacco tax increase but in the Legco hearing you all voted against it – is the Liberal Party stacked with hypocrites ?

http://programme.rthk.org.hk/channel/radio/programme.php?name=radio3/backchat&d=2011-02-10&p=514&e=&m=episode

(Go to the section after the 9 am news  and skip forward to 12 minutes 40 seconds of the 18 minute 33 second clipJ

Quote

“We(the Liberal party) would not object to the (tobacco) tax (increase)”

“The Liberal Party is not against tax measures that improve public health”

What is the current level of yearly sponsorship by the tobacco companies / Tobacco Control Concern Group or like body  of the Liberal Party ? Overseas by law legislators and parties have to report all forms of sponsorship, why is Hong Kong different ? Do you think this should change – if not why not ? Surely the electors have the right to know which donors are seemingly pulling the Party strings ?

Regina Ip            New Peoples Party

Dear Mrs Ip –

We note you opposed the last Budget tobacco tax increase , a measure that is proven to save lives and stop youth from starting smoking.

What is the current level of yearly sponsorship by the tobacco companies / TCCG or other tobacco organisation  of your new Party  ? Overseas by law legislators and parties have to report all forms of sponsorship, why is Hong Kong different ? Do you think this should change – if not why not ? Surely the electors have the right to know which donors are seemingly pulling the Party strings ?

http://tobacco.cleartheair.org.hk/?p=3123

James To and Starry Lee said they would oppose the increase in tobacco tax

Was this solely to enhance your profiles in regard to assisting your parties to get additional district council member votes for your chosen candidates from blue collar (smoker) voters in the November 2011 elections ?

http://app.hkatvnews.com/v3/world/world.php?program=3000006

We note you supported the tax increase – why did you change your mind or was it changed for you ?

Paul Tse Wai Yin Tourism Functional Constituency

Dear Mr Tse

We note you opposed the last Budget tobacco tax increase , a measure that is proven to save lives and stop youth from starting smoking.

What pressure was placed on you to vote in this manner ?  Is it because 60% of Mainland men smoke and the Mainlanders are the main tourist sector visiting Hong Kong ? We note that the Tourism Board has for years been headed by Liberal or ex Liberal Party lawmakers – has this affected your decision making ? We note that the Executive Director of  the Tourism Board Anthony Lau Chun-hon ( since 2007) was formerly head of Philip Morris Singapore and was with that company for 20 odd years – did his presence have any effect on your vote ? Overseas by law legislators and parties have to report all forms of sponsorship, why is Hong Kong different ? Do you think this should change – if not why not ? Surely the electors have the right to know which donors are seemingly pulling the Party strings ?

Plain Packaging

http://www.ashaust.org.au/lv3/action_plainpack.htm#EVIDENCE AND RESOURCES

http://yourhealth.gov.au/internet/yourhealth/publishing.nsf/Content/tpp-bill2011

http://www.ashaust.org.au/lv3/action_plainpack.htm#NEWS

http://yourhealth.gov.au/internet/yourhealth/publishing.nsf/Content/plainpack-tobacco