Chairperson, any legislation designed to protect the health of our children is most welcome. The essence of the object of the Tobacco Products Control Amendment Bill is to reduce incidence of smoking in young children and the health impact of tobacco use and is indeed applauded.
However, when legislation aimed at protecting one sector of the society, namely children, punishes the free choice of another section of the society, which is adults, we must question the balance of how the rights of all the individuals are protected. In the ten-minute break that we had when the division was about to be called, one of our members went out to have a cigarette, on the one hand. On the other hand, a member from our party who has smoked for 31 years, decided it was in the best interest of his health to quit - after 31 years. Now, these are the choices that I am talking about. Restrictive legislation is not the way to achieve primary health objectives.
The overzealous foot soldiers from the Department of Health were hell-bent on pushing through this Bill and spent much of their time vilifying the tobacco industry. I also suspect that the portfolio committee was misled on the department's consultation with the tobacco industry.
The DA supports the amendment of banning the sale of tobacco products at educational institutions which caters for under-18-year-olds. But at universities there are only a handful of 17-year-olds. I ask: Why ban the sale of cigarettes at universities? What about the majority of students over the age of 18 and the adult staff who work on campus? This overregulation is a disproportionate interference with the freedom of adults to choose and purchase tobacco products. There are two areas that the DA has issues with. The first one is the restriction on vending machines. The proposed amendment allows for the Minister to decide where vending machines selling tobacco products may be placed. This amendment flies in the face of free enterprise. Cigarettes are legal products and South Africa is not a nanny state.
The second matter that we take issue with is the prohibition of the sale of tobacco products through the internet. It is quite clear that the Minister of Health does not share the President of South Africa's love for the internet. We live in the global age. The Deputy Speaker herself is a great proponent of the IT age. Online shopping has become the order of the day. Many people shop for groceries, clothes, alcohol and cigarettes via the internet. Yet, the amendment introduces a measure as draconian as this. In this day and age, banning sales and purchases on the internet is bizarre. Again, I understand that we want to protect under-18s, but why do we punish adults for making choices?
This is the fourth major overhaul of tobacco control legislation in just over a decade. Approximately 10 million cigarettes are sold illegally in South Africa every day. This is a total excise loss of approximately R1,4 billion annually for government. The consequence of overregulation will facilitate and encourage the expansion of the illegal trade and associated criminal activities like tax avoidance and disregard for public health warnings. We have passed legislation in this House that allows children from the age of 12 years to have abortions and use contraception without parental consent, and here we are, running around and banning the sale of cigarettes at universities to students of 18 years old and above. The Minister should exercise her nanny inclinations on sensible regulations based on sound scientific research, and embark on public health education and campaigns rather than punishing adults who choose to indulge in their freedom of choice.