Institute of Public Affairs

The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) is an Australian think tank which advocates for de-regulation and has a history of opposing tobacco control policies.
The IPA has been opaque about its funding sources, citing concerns over the privacy of its donors.¹
The IPA is a ‘partner’ of the Atlas Network.

Relationship with Tobacco Industry

In July 2018, an exposé on the IPA by The New Daily claimed that Philip Morris International and British American Tobacco (BAT), amongst other multinationals, had donated to the IPA.¹ The newspaper reported that PMI had declined to comment, and that BAT Australia had responded by stating that the company had not been a member of the IPA “for some time”.¹
However, in June 2013 BAT headquarters in London had confirmed to British health charity Action for Smoking and Health that “British American Tobacco Australia is a corporate member of a number of business organisations in Australia, including the Institute of Public Affairs”.² One year earlier, a spokesman for BAT Australia had also confirmed that the company was a member of the IPA.³
In a 2002 opinion piece in The Australian, IPA’s Don D’Cruz stated that the IPA “receives support from tobacco companies”.⁴
Internal industry documents archived in the Truth Tobacco Industry Documents Library demonstrate that BAT Australia (previously known as W.D. & H.O. Wills) had a long-term relationship with the IPA going back decades.⁵ For example, a Public Affairs Review document dated 1993, under a paragraph discussing “corporate image”, notes that the Australian arm of the company “contributes financially to prominent think tanks such as the Institute for Public Affairs and the Sydney Institute”.6
BAT’s involvement went beyond ‘contributing financially’. BAT appears to have actively shaped the structure of the IPA. In 1994 Wills funded the establishment of IPA’s Regulator Review Unit to be an advocating voice for deregulation.⁷ Two years later, Wills’ Company plan mentions the need to “revamp” this unit and “ensure they are more effective in meeting the company’s needs”.⁸

Challenged Tobacco Control Legislation

IPA’s Alan Moran told the Australian Senate Productivity Commission’s Inquiry in 2001 of the IPA:
“We’ve got about 4000 funders…there are occasions when we may take positions which are somewhat different from those of funders. Obviously, that doesn’t happen very often, otherwise they’d stop funding us, but it does happen occasionally”.³

Second-Hand Smoke: “Dangerous Mix of Science and Propaganda”

IPA used the tobacco industry consultant John Luik to create doubt about the science around the causal link between second-hand smoke and cancer, and oppose in IPA’s words, “moralistic party-poopers who want smoke banned from public places”.⁹
In 1996, the year that the Will’s corporate plan called for a revamp of IPA’s Regulation unit to ‘better meet the needs’ of the tobacco company,⁸ the IPA commissioned Luik to author a report that criticised the Australian National Health & Medical Research Council’s Draft Report on Passive Smoking.¹⁰ A few months later, IPA flew Luik to Australia for a nationwide “lecture tour” to talk to several media outlets about the campaign against second-hand smoke, which he called “a dangerous mix of science and propaganda”.⁹¹¹
In an appearance on the current affairs show Today Tonight, Luik dismissed scientific consensus on the causal link between second-hand smoke and cancer, arguing that: “What I object to is people claiming that it smoke kills people. It’s this use of science to further a politicised end, which I think is really unfortunate”.¹²
Luik continued: “I think if in fact you really look at the science, you would conclude that the risk of getting lung cancer if you share an office with someone who’s a smoker is about the same in Australia of the lifetime risks of dying from drinking chlorinated water, And that risk’s about 1 in 1.5 billion”.¹²
Although most media outlets reported that Luik had been “brought to Australia by the Institute of Public Affairs”,¹² none disclosed IPA’s and Luik’s financial links with the tobacco industry.

Plain Packaging: “Government May Have to Pay Tobacco Companies Compensation”

When the Australian Government announced its intention to introduce plain tobacco packaging in 2010, the IPA’s Tim Wilson took part in several national and local broadcast interviews opposing the plans. He claimed that the new law violated tobacco companies’ intellectual property rights, an argument frequently used by the tobacco industry.
For more information on this topic see:

• Australia: Trademark Claims
• Countering Industry Arguments Against Plain Packaging: It Breaches Intellectual Property Rights.

Wilson further argued that “under the constitution and Australia’s international obligation” the government may have to pay “compensation up to $3billion a year to tobacco companies”.¹³ Wilson did not clarify how he came to this figure, but it was widely reported in news outlets across the country.¹³
Wilson made similar points about trademarks, intellectual property and compensation in a submission to the Australian Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into plain packaging. He wrote:¹⁴
“With annual retail sales for… tobacco products at $10 billion per annum it is possible that the removal of trademarks would result in taxpayers being required to contribute hundreds of millions of dollars, and potentially billions”.
The submission contained no information about the Institute taking funds from the tobacco industry.
In October 2016, the tobacco industry cited reports from IPA’s Senior Research Fellow Sinclair Davidson to criticise plain packaging legislation and its impact on public health in Australia.¹⁵

TobaccoTactics Resources

• British American Tobacco
• Sinclair Davidson
• John Luik
• Atlas Network