Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Viva la olive revolution

By Molly Mahlouzarides - posted Monday, 8 October 2012

In 2010, the Rudd Government announced the world's first laws demanding the plain packaging of tobacco products.

Two years on, the policy has survived not only a change of government, but fierce resistance from big tobacco companies, culminating in the legal challenge concluded before the High Court little over a month ago. The case saw the claims of big tobacco rejected by the bench and the decision was hailed as both "a massive win for public health" and "global tobacco companies' worst defeat". As Attorney-General Nicola Roxon gleefully declared, "We have taken on big tobacco and we have won."

However, while the battle may have been won, the war on tobacco is far from over. Australia's plain packaging continues to be brought under intense scrutiny on an international level. Interestingly, each new development has seen the national policy, intended to improve the health of Australians, evolve into the most notorious international trade dispute the nation has ever faced.


Most significantly, Ukraine has initiated proceedings against the plain packaging laws via the World Trade Organisation (WTO), alleging that Australia has breached several of its trade obligations as a member-state of the WTO.

The claims, also supported by Honduras and the Dominican Republic, essentially assert that Australia's proposed plain packaging laws will impose unfair trade barriers upon them, as well as stripping them of their intellectual property rights under international law.

The grievances are especially intriguing in light of the fact that Ukraine has not traded tobacco with Australia since 2005 and therefore has negligible trade interests immediately affected by the legislation. As home to a subsidiary of Phillip Morris International, there is widespread suspicion that Ukraine is acting as a proxy state on behalf of multinational tobacco companies. This would be at odds with the WTO's state-based rules and procedures, which do not permit corporations to bring an action directly to the WTO themselves.

Regardless of the dispute's true origins, Australia appears set to continue its recent winning streak when the matter goes global. Its prospects of success in the upcoming WTO dispute are strong.

After all, the relevant treaties and agreements are subject to certain exemptions that justify the plain packaging provisions on the basis of public health objectives. Keeping in mind that smoking inflicts $31.5 billion worth of social costs upon the Australian economy and takes 15, 000 lives on a yearly basis, it is not difficult to see how plain packaging measures that seek to minimise these statistics support the interests of public health.

Should Australia experience success in defending its plain packaging laws to the WTO, a spate of other nations, including Britain, New Zealand, Canada and India, have indicated that they are prepared to follow suit. Such a movement would signal the dawn of what has been dubbed the "Olive Revolution", a reference to the drab green-brown colour of the suggested packaging.


Potentially, the so-called revolution would see a shared set of rules, norms and principles governing tobacco be gradually created between different nations, much in the vein of international regimes that have already been established in the issue areas of human rights and the environment over past decades.

Australia's capacity to institute far-reaching change of this nature reaffirms wavering beliefs of its diplomatic ambition and influence, as well as its ability to "punch above its weight" on the international stage. Therefore, the policy's effects might not be limited to improving public health in the long-term, but improving Australia's international reputation too.

In this respect, the trade dispute awaiting Australia before the WTO could be the start of something much bigger for Australia. It cannot shy away from the challenge. Too much rests on the matter's successful resolution.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

4 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Molly Mahlouzarides is a student at James Cook University’s School of Arts & Social Sciences and has recently returned from a Global Voices WTO Australian Youth Delegation.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 4 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy