Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Change in public support for the introduction of plain packaging and new, enlarged graphic health warnings in the Australian state of Victoria, 2011–2013
  1. Linda Hayes,
  2. Melanie A Wakefield,
  3. Emily Bain
  1. Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Professor Melanie A Wakefield, Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, 615 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC 3004, Australia; Melanie.Wakefield{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


Since December 2012, all Australian tobacco products have been supplied in packaging that is a standardised drab brown colour with uniform fonts. The implementation of plain packaging coincided with the introduction of refreshed graphic health warnings (GHWs) that increased in size from 30% to 75% of the pack face, with coverage of the pack rear maintained at 90%.1

A slight rise in opposition to plain packaging among Australian smokers was reported immediately prior to implementation, followed by a significant increase in support, from 28% preimplementation (late 2011 to early 2012) to 49% postimplementation (early 2013).2 No data on the views of former or never smokers have previously been published.


We undertook cross-sectional telephone surveys in November and early December of 2011, 2012 and 2013 with representative samples of adults who reside within the Australian State of Victoria. The …

View Full Text


  • Contributors MAW and LH conceived the study. MAW, LH and EB designed the survey questions. LH and EB undertook data analyses, and MAW and LH drafted the manuscript. All authors approved the final submitted version. MAW is the study guarantor.

  • Funding The Victorian Smoking and Health survey was au spiced by Quit Victoria, with funding from VicHealth, the State Government of Victoria and Cancer Council Victoria.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Ethics approval Human Research Ethics Committee of Cancer Council Victoria (HREC 0018).

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement No additional data are available.