# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A month after taking office, Gillard announced the election would be held on 21 August 2010, putting the government in caretaker mode. A much-criticised election campaign followed, with neither major party engaging voters nor communicating vitality and direction.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Julia Gillard was Australia's prime minister from 2010 to 2013 and is the only woman to have held the position. Drawn into politics as a student activist, she persevered through early election defeats to win a Labor Party seat and then served as deputy prime minister under Kevin Rudd before eventually challenging him for the top job. In 2012 she gained global fame for a speech decrying misogyny. A year later Rudd won a leadership contest against her, and she left government. She now focuses on advocacy for causes including education, gender equity, and mental health because, as she recently told the Simmons Leadership Conference, "If you are really passionate about something and raise your voice, you can make a difference."

Mark Harrison/Camera Press/Redux

HBR: Why did you go into politics?

Gillard: When I was young, it never occurred to me that people from families like mine were the sort who could. I was never the kid who at seven, 10, or 12 said, "I want to be the prime minister when I grow up." That was like saying, "I want to be an astronaut"-undoable. But I went to university and studied for law and arts degrees and got involved in the student movement, protesting education cutbacks. That's what spurred an activism and engagement in public policy in me, and I went on to lead the student movement nationally. I did get those degrees and practice as a lawyer. But people had said, "You really should consider politics." It was a slow dawning over time that it would be a fantastic way of putting my values into action-and realizing that someone like me could do it.

You suffered some early defeats. Why did you keep going?

Once I decided this was what I wanted, I became determined-some might say stubborn. I stood for preselection, which is like a U.S. primary, for a lower House seat in my party, and I lost. I stood for preselection a few times for the Senate, and I lost. I was finally preselected for the Senate, but in one of the more marginal slots and in a bad election for Labor, and I lost. That was a lot of hard knocks, but they just made me hungrier. I also think being an even-tempered person put me in good stead. I'm not prone to exaggerated highs or huge depths of despair. I am a true believer in the power of democratic politics to make big and important changes, and I wanted to play a personal role in that. So a sense of purpose and drive, together with a wonderful family and hugely supportive friends and colleagues, was enough to see me through.

How did you balance campaigning with governing over the course of your career?

They're not disconnected. If you campaign with clear messages about what you want to achieve, that gives you more space in government, and if you govern explaining to people what you're trying to do, there's a greater likelihood that they'll give you their consent to keep doing it.

As prime minister, how did you get things done?

The government machine is so big that I used to say to myself every morning, "Either I can run it, or it will run me." Enough gets fed up to you that if all you did was respond, you'd be busy. But you wouldn't be driving your agenda. So you need to be ruthlessly clear about that agenda and force the machinery to support and prioritize it-in internal decision making, expenditure reviews, implementation, communications. Core to my government were education reforms and the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and whilst we got many other things done, we were always determined to see those things through.

Apart from that ruthless prioritization, what kind of day-to-day manager are you?

I'm not a yeller. I don't think anybody works smarter or harder because they've been yelled at. I have a very loyal staff, and I always wanted them to feel bonded to the project. I'm a very methodical person, and I wanted that sense of method in the whole team. And even in the most difficult days we were a united, happy group. There was fun to be had.

When hiring people, then and now, what do you look for?

It depends what you're recruiting for. What you look for in the public service or your political office would be different. But I've always wanted to see people who are clear on why they want to do the job and what they want to achieve in it. I never wanted people who would just agree with me. I wanted people who would put a contest of ideas into the system.

In your parliamentary system, how did you form alliances?

It was a very partisan era, and the opposition had decided that they wanted to tear the government down and be negative about everything. So there wasn't much across-the-aisle work between our Labor Party and the Liberal Party, which is the conservative party in Australia. But because we were a minority government, we reached out to minor party players and independents and took their views into account. Politicians spend a lot of time being the ones in the room who are talking. I spent time thinking about what was core for me and what I could negotiate but then also really listening to my counterparts and trying to identify what was core for them and what they could negotiate. Sometimes they aren't good at picking, so you have to help them. We didn't just use this within Parliament, either. We had outreach into the business community, the trade unions, the environmental movement, to also get their perspectives brought to the table.

Is the approach different when you're building relationships with foreign leaders?

You should neither overestimate nor underestimate personal relationships in foreign policy dialogue. You don't do a trade deal that's bad for your economy or sell the weapons that you otherwise wouldn't have to someone just because you like them. But within the circumference of what is possible, I think you can get more done if there's some personal rapport. So you do have to think about how to build it, and although there's extra complexity when it's cross-cultural, it's the same set of skills.

How did you build personal support-allies not just for your party or platform but for you as a leader?

It's the same thing. People respond to ideas and vision, absolutely, but they also respond to being taken seriously and treated decently. Then, even when you have intense engagements and end up agreeing to disagree, a human bond is formed. That sustained me in leadership for the period I was there. I focus on education now, and I view it as not a body of knowledge poured into people's heads but the skills of collaboration and teamwork and emotional intelligence. The days of command-and-control leadership, if they ever truly existed in politics, are long gone. The big boss telling people what to do is not the model that will hold people in for big change projects any longer.

But it seems that leaders like that are being elected.

Yes, but if you look at what they claim and what they're actually getting done, there's often a very big gap. So I think that in politics, in business, in all walks of life, people will ultimately get through this phase of the strongman leader and be looking for enabling leaders who give them the opportunity to prosper, develop, live the lives they want.

You were attacked by the opposition, the media, even people in your own party. How did you cope?

By working on my own sense of self. I couldn't let myself feel good or bad depending on the headlines. There was a woman who would get the papers early for me at the official residence, and she told me after I left office that she had always tried to put the one with the nicest headline on top, but some days she'd get close to tears because she couldn't work out which was the least negative. But that didn't mean I'd turned from being ordinary Julia Gillard into some monster. I couldn't let it get in my head. I knew that ultimately what would count would be what I achieved during my time in office. It takes discipline and resilience, but I've always believed those are muscles. If you work them, they get stronger. And I gave mine a fair old workout.

Why did you decide to speak out on sexism when you did?

I wish there was some intricate backstory. The truth is, I hadn't decided that it was the moment. That day a man from another party whom I had supported to be speaker of the House of Representatives was unmasked as having sent some sexist text messages. So I was expecting criticism, even though I couldn't have known about the texts. When we got into question time in Parliament, the opposition leader, Tony Abbott, moved into the debate, and so, whilst he was speaking, I handwrote a reply. Because I'd been expecting him to talk about sexism, I'd had my office give me his top sexist quotes. But it wasn't some thought-through strategy with a wonderfully chiseled speech that we'd been working on for days. It welled up. I got a blank piece of paper and just scribbled down words to help guide me from one point to another. Looking back, I think it was driven by a deep frustration that after every sexist thing directed at me that I'd bitten my lip on, now I was going to be accused of sexism-the unfairness of that. That anger propelled it.

And how did you deal with the fallout?

I thought it was a forceful speech because the opposition leaders had dropped their heads during it. But I had no sense of how it was going to resonate outside the parliamentary chamber. Afterward, when I sat back in my chair, my deputy prime minister, Wayne Swan, had this odd expression on his face and said, "You can't give that kind of j'accuse speech and then sit down." Then the leader of government business, Anthony Albanese, said, "Oh, I felt sorry for Tony Abbott." So I could tell there was something in the air. By the time we'd been released from the debate and I'd walked back to my office, phones were ringing, and people were sending emails. But it was only over the next few days that it was reported around the world. At first I was somewhere between confused and amused that it could get so big. Nowadays, with social media what it is, you might realize. But this was then. Then there was a period when I felt almost resentful about it-"You know, I was in Parliament for 15 years, deputy prime minister for three, prime minister for three, and apparently it all telescopes down to this one speech." But I'm at peace with it now. At the end of the day, if it's the only thing people overseas know about Australian politics-and it often is-it's a pretty good one thing to know.

When you were Kevin Rudd's deputy and didn't feel that he was leading effectively, how did you make sure that things still got done?

For a long period I stepped in behind the scenes as much as I could to try to make up for the deficits-even things like diary management, political communications, intermingling with his staff. Whilst the workload was intense, it would have been sustainable provided there was a strong bond of trust between Kevin and me. But one fateful day some newspaper coverage indicated that even that had fallen away on his side. And I thought, Well, that means I can't keep doing all that I am to hold the government and the prime minister up. So there has to be change. As my great Labor predecessor Paul Keating always said, "Not a day to waste." Political leadership for me was always about what you could achieve through governing, not a status thing.

You stayed quiet for so long about those pressures and your reasons for challenging Rudd. Why?

Well, when I became prime minister, we needed to get ready to fight an election, and I wanted it to be about the big things we believed in and would do as a Labor Party, not about internal matters. Unfortunately, there were several big leaks during the campaign-distorted versions of internal discussions-which kept hijacking the agenda. There was some shock about how I emerged, and all sorts of static around being the first woman prime minister. But I wanted to form a government and get on with governing.

Australia's carbon tax was a big issue during your administration. Why did you back away from it?

My underlying beliefs never changed. Climate change is real, we have to address it, and the best way to do that is through market-based mechanisms. But it takes judgment about the politics, about when you can press and succeed, and when you can't. And what prevented Kevin Rudd from succeeding with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme was the inability to get it through the Senate. The Conservatives were opposed to it; the Greens refused to support it. In the days of our minority government there was a window to get an emissions trading scheme instead, and we went for it.

After you lost the 2013 leadership challenge, why did you leave politics?

I said that if I lost, I would. I thought it should be a clean decision. I didn't want to give instability to my political party. So I exited and laid low, lived my life like a fugitive to make sure that I didn't get caught by the media and create any distraction during that election. It was kind of an act of loyalty to the Labor Party. And personally, I think that if you're not on the way up, you're on the way down, so maybe it's time to think about a new future.

How did you decide on that second act?

I was suspended in time for a period. When you have an absolutely relentless work schedule, you don't realize how tired you are until you stop. There's a physical recovery and an emotional decompression you need to do. After I came through that, I started to think about what in life I wanted to take with me or discard. I didn't want to be a continuing combatant commentator in Australian politics, but there were some things to which I wanted to contribute. So I structured my new engagements around those, a number of them at a global level.

Do you miss governing or politics?

I miss bits of it dreadfully-the ability to do the big things you believe in, the intensity of the bond you have with the best of your colleagues. But the sheer relentlessness of it I don't miss. I've never woken up any morning and said, "Gee, I miss the press gallery."

You chose the public sector. Is that the best way to make a difference in the world today?

I am 100% biased. There are other ways, but I don't think anything surpasses what politics can bring. At its best, it's a noble cause; we want the best, brightest, most motivated, passionate, concerned, to go into it. But you can't insult people's intelligence by pretending there will be no nasty bit, no gendered bit. The political life is not for everyone. But to lead a nation and make a huge difference to its future is an absolute privilege.

A version of this article appeared in the November-December 2019 issue of Harvard Business Review.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Life's Work: An Interview with Julia Gillard

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Julia Gillard was Australia's prime minister from 2010 to 2013 and is the only woman to have held the position. Drawn into politics as a student activist, she persevered through early election defeats to win a Labor Party seat and then served as deputy prime minister under Kevin Rudd before eventually challenging him for the top job.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Then-opposition leader Tony Abbott had recently been photographed at an anti-carbon tax rally next to placards calling her "Juliar", "[Greens leader] Bob Brown's bitch" and reading "Ditch the witch".

Opposition leader Tony Abbott speaking in March 2011. Source: AAP / Alan Porritt

There was a fixation on her wardrobe and a photo showing an

, for some a symbol of Ms Gillard's childlessness.

Ms Gillard later said she wished she had called out sexist media coverage earlier, saying she "didn't realise it was going to get as mad as it did". But under pressure in parliament, Ms Gillard addressed the issue in a speech that was voted the "most unforgettable" moment in Australian TV history by a Guardian Australia poll this year.

Julia Gillard in 2012. Source: AAP / Alan Porritt

Ms Gillard said she was initially "confused and amused" by the overwhelming response to the speech, including from media around the world, and even resentful that her years of parliamentary work had come down to one moment, but she has since made peace with it.

"At the end of the day, if it's the only thing people overseas know about Australian politics - and it often is - it's a pretty good one thing to know," she told the Harvard Business Review in 2019.

Who was 'Slippery Pete'?

One reason Mr Slipper, the Queensland MP for Fisher, was eager to betray his own party was because he was on track to lose Liberal preselection of his seat. He was reportedly nicknamed "Slippery Pete" by some in Canberra - a name repeated in the media - due to alleged incidents of drunken behaviour and questions around his use of parliamentary travel entitlements.

Peter Slipper and Julia Gillard during Question Time at Parliament House. Source: AAP / Lukas Coch

Mr Slipper acknowledged: "I've made some mistakes, as some of the colourful stories about me reveal," when he took the role as Speaker, but blamed dental medication rather than being drunk when he was refused permission to board a flight in 2003, and said being thrown out of a Canberra nightclub in 2007 was "entirely unprovoked". He would go on to win his appeal against a conviction for misusing taxpayer-funded taxi vouchers for non-job-related visits to wineries outside Canberra in 2015.

Mr Slipper said that suggestion was "wholly incorrect" and the court decision meant only that Mr Ashby could bring his allegations before the court to be tested - but Mr Ashby

Comments about Gillard's father

His words echoed those of former 2GB radio host Alan Jones, who infamously said

Alan Jones attacked Julia Gillard on air.

Speaking at a Young Liberals dinner in Sydney, Jones said: "Every person in the caucus of the Labor Party knows that Julia Gillard is a liar, everybody. I will come to that in a moment. The old man recently died a few weeks ago of shame. To think that he has a daughter who told lies every time she stood for Parliament," Jones said.

Gillard delivers blistering attack

"I was offended when the leader of the Opposition went outside the front of the parliament and stood next to a sign that said 'Ditch the witch'. I was offended when the leader of the Opposition stood next to a sign that described me as a man's bitch. I was offended by those things. It is misogyny, sexism, every day from this Leader of the Opposition."

"Looking back, I think it was driven by a deep frustration that after every sexist thing directed at me that I'd bitten my lip on, now I was going to be accused of sexism - the unfairness of that. That anger propelled it."

Speech goes viral

In the years since, her speech has been cited as an inspiration for many women, including Australian activist and founder of consent and sexuality education movement Teach Us Consent, Chanel Contos. She was 14 when she first heard the speech and "was in a social situation where it was made clear to my peers and I that women were subordinate to men".

Sydney activist Chanel Contos. Source: Instagram

"The speech really changed the conversation and challenged my perception of what it means to be a woman in society," Ms Contos told

"I'm still in the process of being able to confidently speak up in situations because so much of my socialisation as a girl has been to be submissive and passive. It's a lot easier to stand up for other people than yourself, which is why what Julia did was so incredible. Thanks to Julia paving the way, we can now take our turn."

And even former

, a former adviser claimed this year.

"Rather than 'playing the gender card', Gillard drew attention to it, calling out the sexism and misogyny that many women in politics had to silently endure."

"Particularly in feminist language ... if you refer to someone as a misogynist in that kind of argument you're not really saying that they have a pathological sickness ... they don't have this hatred that extends to all women. They merely have an entrenched prejudice against women."

"Like all politicians, she'll continue to have her critics, but her post-political life and demeanour has largely been admired," Dr Williams wrote. "Gillard's former foe, Abbott, even attended the 2018 unveiling of her official portrait."

Read and watch Julia Gillard's speech in full
Opposition members interjecting- Would you like to share your story with SBS News? Email

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why people are still talking about 'that' Julia Gillard speech 10 years on

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Then-opposition leader Tony Abbott had recently been photographed at an anti-carbon tax rally next to placards calling her "Juliar", "[Greens leader] Bob Brown's bitch" and reading "Ditch the witch". Opposition leader Tony Abbott speaking in March 2011. Source: AAP / Alan Porritt There was a fixation on her wardrobe and a photo showing an , for some a symbol of Ms Gillard's childlessness.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While she may look elsewhere, ultimately Julia Gillard has no-one to blame for her political demise but herself. AAP/Lukas Coch

In the middle of the 2012 winter, an influential supporter of Julia Gillard laid out for me the intricacies of the Labor caucus' power structures, the labour movement's web of personal antagonisms and the federal government's dire predicament. At the end of his treatise, with a wide-eyed look of resignation and a despairing tone, he summed up:

The whole show is f-ed and no-one can work out how to unf- it.

A few weeks later, a highly experienced Labor figure with deep knowledge of public attitudes to the Gillard government and how to harness voter support shared his assessment. He'd concluded that Labor was headed for defeat and had lost the capacity to independently influence the 2013 election outcome because the bulk of voters had lost any desire to listen to the government.

An avowed agnostic on the Kevin Rudd-Julia Gillard question, he averred that the only way Labor could re-enter serious consideration would be if the Liberal-National Coalition made a series of major public blunders.

Both encounters came after the introduction of the carbon tax, which Gillard had consistently told her MPs would be the moment when the dark electoral clouds would part for the government, and only a few months after Gillard had thrashed Rudd in a caucus ballot and declared that the leadership question had been settled for all time.

And yet, Gillard managed to hang on as Labor leader for almost another year, right up until Wednesday of this week. With Gillard having surrendered the leadership to Rudd in decisive but not overwhelming fashion, it seems that 26 Labor MPs who in February last year backed Gillard found, to borrow the aforementioned Gillard supporter's eloquent term, a way to "unf-" the government. They did so by switching back to the man Gillard thought she'd vanquished.

In doing so, they have at least created the possibility that the ALP can moderate, or perhaps even avoid, the electoral nightmare that was likely to consume the nation's oldest political party. Or maybe not. Rudd's return affords an opportunity for Labor, but that is all.

The caucus' decision also implies, heavily and unavoidably, that it made a mistake by elevating Gillard to the leadership on June 24, 2010.

The truth is that the Australian Labor Party nationally has in the past three years experienced its most rancorous divisions since the split of the 1950s. Unlike the period of the split, which occurred in opposition and guaranteed many more years of it, the party has endured these divisions while holding office, and the enmities have, for the most part, grown from ego rather than ideology.

If the events of the past few days are to have any meaning, they need to be seen in the context of what has happened to the Government since early 2010. First things first: Julia Gillard's downfall as prime minister is one of the greatest personal tragedies in Australian politics.

It is a tragedy because Gillard's ambition ultimately exceeded her political talent, and to the very end she would not see it. Her speech delivered after her caucus defeat on Wednesday night attributed her removal as leader to only two causes: a loss of fortitude among past supporters who buckled under external pressure and sexism directed at her as the nation's first female prime minister.

There was no acknowledgement that she had lost the confidence of most of her colleagues because of her own performance.

The pattern of failing to fully own her errors was set early during the 2010 election campaign when she said that she would no longer conform to her handlers' directives and from that point voters would see "the real Julia". Notably, it was the advisers who had made the big mistakes. Her mistake had been to follow their advice.

Gillard had been a brilliant deputy to Rudd, an earthy foil to his high-flown nerdishness. But as leader, she rarely looked comfortable and did not seem at ease with the natural authority that comes with the nation's highest political office.

Nor did she have the benefit of a deputy who could perform as well as she had. Indeed, in Wayne Swan she had one of the least effective communicators modern politics has seen. It has become a mantra for Labor and its supporters to bemoan the fact it does not get the credit it deserves for its handling of the economy.

The media gets the blame which, to a degree, it should. But Swan was charged with selling Labor's economic policy from December 2004 until last Wednesday. Should he not shoulder most of the responsibility?

Gillard's defenders in the party room and in the electorate produce a list of reasons for her removal: Rudd's refusal to accept his loss of the leadership and leaks aimed at harming her; sexism; a ferocious, sometimes unhinged approach from some people in the opposition; harsh treatment by the media.

There is something to all of them. She definitely was the target of vicious, sexist attacks. The media was quick to turn on her and some elements were relentless in their dismissive attitude. The opposition treated her time as prime minister as one unbroken crisis.

And Rudd did undermine Gillard. The leaks against her during her first weeks as leader either came from Rudd or people sympathetic to him and they hurt her. One revealed that she had opposed a rise in welfare payments chiefly on the basis of Labor's political interests.

Another far more damaging leak, put directly to Gillard during an appearance at the National Press Club, suggested that during a long meeting with Rudd on June 23, 2010, she had undertaken to give him several months to repair his faltering leadership. During a break in the meeting, she was told by her supporters that she already had the caucus numbers stitched up, whereupon she returned to Rudd and withdrew her undertaking: she was challenging him.

To this day, this leak is regarded by many on the Labor side as appalling treachery, which it was. But one thing needs to be said: it has not been challenged successfully on the grounds of veracity. The real damage was not in the act of leaking but in its substance, which presented Gillard as someone who would put her ambition ahead of her word.

From that moment, her troubles never left her. Her trustworthiness was in question but voters were still willing to give her the benefit of the doubt - until she committed after the 2010 election to a carbon tax.

Gillard favoured an emissions trading scheme until early 2010, when in the face of an onslaught by Tony Abbott and some bad polls she urged Rudd very strongly to put the policy on ice until there was a cross-party consensus. Rudd, revealing his own severe propensity for misjudgement, accepted that advice. Then Gillard replaced him as leader and once again favoured an ETS.

During the 2010 election campaign, Gillard promised to refer the issue to a hazily-designed "people's assembly" and vowed there would be no carbon tax. After the election, under pressure from the Greens, she dropped the idea of the assembly and adopted a temporary carbon tax as Labor policy. But, incredibly, rather than emphasising its temporary nature and perhaps calling it a levy, which has a different meaning for many voters, she declared that she was happy to call it a tax.

That sealed the trustworthiness question and it's why there was no recovery in Labor's polling numbers after July 1 last year. Too many voters resented the way she had pursued the policy much more than the policy itself.

The argument in defence of Julia Gillard is that her government managed to get hundreds of pieces of legislation through a parliament in which Labor did not have majorities in its right in either house. This included the signature reforms of new education funding arrangements and the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Again, the argument has merit.

But the story must also include the failed idea of a processing centre in East Timor, the enlisting of Peter Slipper as Speaker of the House, the crazy idea of setting a September election date in January and the departure of two Cabinet members two days after the announcement, the costly architecture of the minerals resource rent tax, and the threat in late 2011 to force a parliamentary vote on the Malaysia solution as a wedge tactic against the Coalition which was withdrawn when she realised she would lose.

Worst of all, it must also include the oft-repeated pledge by Gillard and Swan to return the budget to surplus this year. The signs were there in mid-2012 they could not deliver but they kept promising it until the end of the year. Incredible.

Neither Rudd nor the media nor pollsters nor the nation's sexists forced these errors. They were entirely the work of a politician who, like all leaders, was fuelled by immense personal ambition but who could not learn from her mistakes. Sadly, the journey Gillard took to the summit deprived her of some of the skills and the sense of legitimacy she needed to fully inhabit the role she had sought so desperately.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the middle of the 2012 winter, an influential supporter of Julia Gillard laid out for me the intricacies of the Labor caucus' power structures, the labour movement's web of personal antagonisms and the federal government's dire predicament.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Conversation is running a series of pieces on key figures in Australian political history, examining how they changed the country and political debate.
When Julia Gillard was sworn into office as Australia's first female prime minister on a chilly Canberra morning in 2010, it seemed like the ultimate glass ceiling had been smashed.

But this momentous occasion was marred by the onslaught of sexism and misogyny Gillard endured from the opposition, and especially the mainstream media, over the next three years of her term.

Read more: Hillary Clinton and Julia Gillard: how the media shape our view of leaders as 'women'

Since she lost the prime ministership in 2013, Gillard has fostered a legacy that extends beyond parliamentary politics, with a focus on women's rights, education and mental health.

The two Es: education and equality

Born in Wales in 1961, Gillard's family moved to Australia in 1966. She grew up in Adelaide as the daughter of a nurse and aged care worker.

Gillard was educated at local public schools before studying at the University of Adelaide and then the University of Melbourne.

She told the Harvard Business Review last year her involvement in the student movement, protesting education cutbacks, was a formative experience:

That's what spurred an activism and engagement in public policy in me, and I went on to lead the student movement nationally ... people had said, 'You really should consider politics'. It was a slow dawning over time that it would be a fantastic way of putting my values into action - and realising that someone like me could do it.

Graduating with an arts/law degree, Gillard joined law firm Slater & Gordon in 1987 and was a partner by 1990.

While she has said she felt " quite at home in many ways" as a young woman in the "larrakin" culture of the law firm, she also worked on affirmative action campaigns in the 1990s. She was a founding member of Labor women's support network, EMILY's List Australia.

She continues to maintain this focus on gender and education in her post-politics advocacy.

Going to Canberra, creating history

Gillard was elected to federal parliament in 1998 and was a frontbencher by 2001. In 2007, with Labor's election victory, she became deputy prime minister and minister for education, workplace relations and social inclusion.

However, despite the popularity of prime minister Kevin Rudd, the Labor party became increasingly frustrated with his leadership style ahead of the 2010 federal election.

These tensions saw Gillard challenge Rudd for the top job in June 2010, in one of the most dramatic episodes in recent Australian political history.

Gillard's unexpected promotion would have lasting consequences for her, the Labor Party and Australian political culture.

It initiated a "coup culture" in Australian politics, where a series of challenges saw the removal of four out of the five most recent prime ministers.

A sexist backlash

The unprecedented removal of a popular first-term prime minister during an election year also prompted an overwhelming backlash from the opposition, the media and the public.

Gillard faced accusations of disloyalty that marred the historic significance of her victory and status as the "first woman". It also unleashed what seemed like a ceaseless tirade of sexism and misogyny that she endured for the next three years of her term.

The more prominent examples include broadcaster Alan Jones saying Gillard should be put in a " chaff bag" and taken "out to sea". A menu at a Liberal National Party fundraiser described a dish as "Julia Gillard Kentucky Fried Quail - small breasts, huge thighs and a big red box".

Read more: Dining out on the prime minister - time to change the 'Menugate'?

Opposition leader Tony Abbott stood in front of - and tacitly endorsed - sexist placards.

A productive parliament

After the 2010 federal election, Gillard had to work with a minority government.

But in a sign of her formidable negotiating skills, Gillard's term as prime minister was extremely productive.

Despite the surrounding political turmoil, 570 bills were passed by the Senate, with key achievements including the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the child abuse royal commission, a carbon price, education funding and paid parental leave.

Read more: Labor's legacy: six years of ... what exactly?

It wasn't all warm and fuzzy

Yet not all Gillard's policies are so fondly remembered.

On the same day Gillard delivered her famous " misogyny speech", her government passed welfare reforms that moved single parents off the parenting payment and onto Newstart (now called JobSeeker Payment). This reduced people's payments by $60 to $100 a week, disproportionately affecting women.

Her asylum seeker policies and opposition to marriage equality also garnered widespread criticism from progressive Australians, particularly the LGBTIQ+ community and refugee advocates.

'I will not be lectured by this man'

Twelve iconic words have come to define Gillard's legacy:

I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man.

This statement launched a blistering 15-minute speech, in which Gillard called out the sexism and hypocrisy of Abbott during Question Time in October 2012.

The anger and frustration she felt about Abbott - known for his sexist sentiments - and the systemic double standards she'd endured for years, resonated with women around the world.

Though it was initially critiqued by the Canberra Press Gallery, which accused Gillard of " playing the gender card ", the speech went viral.

It has become the definitive moment of her prime ministership and is often the only thing people overseas know about Australian politics.

Read more: Gillard's misogyny speech looks even better than it reads

Earlier this year, it was voted the " most unforgettable" moment in Australian TV history by a Guardian Australia poll. Last month, a senior advisor to former-US President Barack Obama revealed they often watched the speech whenever they were frustrated with then-prime minister Abbott.

The misogyny speech has even entered into the pop cultural canon, inspiring young women today to create memes and TikToks paying homage to those famous words.

Changing the way we talk about sexism and politics

Gillard's misogyny speech and her time as our first woman prime minister changed the way that politics and sexism were talked about in Australia and highlighted the toxic nature of parliament.

Rather than "playing the gender card", Gillard drew attention to it, calling out the sexism and misogyny that many women in politics had to silently endure.

Speaking with Gillard last year in preparation for my doctoral research, she noted how the conversation around gender and sexism is "everywhere now", and that people are far more aware of and likely to challenge gendered double-standards.

In recent years, we have seen multiple women politicians breaking their silence, from Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young suing fellow senator David Leyonhjelm for defamation, to former Liberal MP Julia Banks calling out "gender bias" and "bullying".

Post-politics: 'what would Julia do?'

Gillard lost the Labor leadership in 2013, when Rudd got his revenge and his old job back.

But she has left a lasting legacy as a role model for girls and young women. This stems not just from her political career, but for the way she has gracefully moved on.

Since leaving politics, Gillard continues to work in the areas she cares about, with high-profile appointments in education, mental health and women's leadership. Earlier this month, she was also appointed as the next chair of medical research giant, the Wellcome Trust.

Like all politicians, she'll continue to have her critics, but her post-political life and demeanour has largely been admired. Gillard's former foe, Abbott, even attended the 2018 unveiling of her official portrait.

Read more: The political tragedy of Julia Gillard

And her career continues to resonate with people, particularly women.

This was recently seen when she received a handwritten note from a stranger on a flight, which thanked her for being "such a strong, intelligent and unapologetic role model for myself and so many of my peers".

The note added that the author and her female colleagues used the phrase "WWJD" or "what would Julia do".

As the woman explained: "It's our rallying cry to be the absolute best at our jobs".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Julia Gillard forever changed Australian politics - especially for women

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Conversation is running a series of pieces on key figures in Australian political history, examining how they changed the country and political debate. When Julia Gillard was sworn into office as Australia's first female prime minister on a chilly Canberra morning in 2010, it seemed like the ultimate glass ceiling had been smashed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A crash course on the different political parties in Australia | Voting 101

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This graphic shows the steps required to form a political party in Australia.

How to form a political party.

Parliamentary Education Office (peo.gov.au)

Description

This graphic shows the steps required to form a political party: register with the Australian Electoral Commission, have at least 500 members, and write a party constitution.

About us

The Parliamentary Education Office (PEO) educates Australians about, and inspires their enthusiasm for, Australia's parliamentary democracy.

Through our accessible, immersive, experiential programs and resources, the PEO fosters informed, engaged and active citizens of all ages.

Let us help you...

The PEO acknowledges the traditional owners of country throughout Australia and their continuing connection to land, culture and community. We pay our respects to elders past and present.

© Commonwealth of Australia | Page last reviewed 03 May 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to form a political party - Parliamentary Education Office

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This graphic shows the steps required to form a political party in Australia. Parliamentary Education Office (peo.gov.au) This graphic shows the steps required to form a political party: register with the Australian Electoral Commission, have at least 500 members, and write a party constitution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Australia's system of government is based on the existence of political parties. While the Members of the House of Representatives are individually elected to represent constituents within each electoral division, in most cases Members belong to and support a political party.
Parties and the formation of government
The party (or coalition of parties) which has the support of the majority of Members of the House forms the government. The party (or coalition of parties) with the greatest number of non-government Members in the House forms the official opposition. Each parliamentary party (that is, all Members and Senators of the party) elects its own leader-the leaders of the government and opposition parties become the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, respectively.

A hung Parliament is said to exist when no single party or coalition of parties has a majority of seats in the House of Representatives. A minority government can be formed when a party or coalition, which does not have a majority of seats in its own right, is able to achieve a majority on the floor of the House with support from independent Members or minor parties.

Between 1901 and 1910 allegiances to party were more fluid than they would later become; governments were minority governments and were made and unmade on the floor of the House. Since 1910, Australia has generally had majority governments under which either the Australian Labor Party or a coalition of non-Labor parties has held office.
The main political parties in the House of Representatives
There are three main parties represented in the House of Representatives-the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party of Australia, and the Nationals. The Labor Party is Australia's oldest political party, established federally in 1901.[1] The present Liberal Party was formed in 1944. The Country Party was formed in 1920, renamed the National Country Party in 1975, the National Party of Australia in 1982, and since 2003 has been known as the Nationals.

In 2008 the Queensland branches of the Liberal Party and the Nationals merged to form the Liberal National Party of Queensland. However, Liberal National Party candidates elected to the Federal Parliament have continued to sit as Liberals or Nationals.

Since the general election of 1949, the Liberal Party and the Nationals (under various names) when forming government have done so as a coalition.
Minor parties and independents
Since the general election in 1949 the other parties represented in the House have been:

Australian Labour Party (Anti-Communist)[2] - 1955 (seven former members of the Australian Labor Party);

One Nation - 1997 (one former independent Member)

Australian Greens - 2002 (one Member), and from 2010 (one Member)

Nationals (Western Australia) - 2010 (one Member)

Katter's Australia Party - from 2013 (one former independent Member)

Palmer United Party - 2013 (one Member)

Centre Alliance, formerly Nick Xenophon Team - from 2016 (one Member).

Most Parliaments since 1996 have also had a Member from the Northern Territory based Country Liberal Party; however this party has been part of the Liberal-Nationals coalition.

In recent Parliaments there have been up to six independent Members elected or Members of minor parties elected.
Significant parties historically
Other parties which have formed government:

Protectionist Party, 1889-1909. Formed first federal government with Labor Party support;

Free Trade Party, 1889-1909. Renamed Anti-Socialist Party in 1906

Commonwealth Liberal Party, 1909-16. Formed from Anti-Socialist Party and elements of the Protectionist Party (also called 'the Fusion')

National Labor Party, November 1916-February 1917. Formed from elements of the Labor Party

Nationalist Party, 1917-31. Formed from merger of the National Labor Party and Commonwealth Liberal Party

United Australia Party, 1931-45. Formed from Nationalist Party, Australian Party (former Nationalists) and elements of the Labor Party. Predecessor to the modern Liberal Party.

Parties and the operation of the House of Representatives
Parliamentary activity involves the parliamentary wings of the political parties-that is, the elected representatives. The extra-parliamentary or organisational wings of the political parties have no role in the formal parliamentary structure and workings of the Parliament.

Political parties are not formally recognised in the standing orders of the House. However, in many respects the functioning of the House is based on the relationship between government and opposition-that is, the opposing political parties. The working arrangements and conduct of business reflect this division. This can be seen in the physical layout of the Chamber, with government Members sitting to the right of the Speaker's Chair and opposition Members to the left. Another example is the practice that opportunities for Members to speak in the House are alternated between government and non-government Members.
Party meetings
The major parties have designated party rooms in Parliament House. Parties have meetings in sitting weeks, usually at times when the House is not sitting, where all members of the party in the Parliament (that is, Senators and Members) meet together. These meetings are a forum for communication between backbenchers and party leaders, internal party discussion of party policy, parliamentary activity and tactics, the resolution of internal party disputes and the election of officers. The proceedings of party meetings are regarded as confidential, and details of discussions are not normally made public.
Party committees
Both the government and the opposition parties have backbench committees to assist them in the consideration of legislative proposals and other issues of political significance. These committees provide backbenchers with the opportunity to discuss matters and influence party policy or decisions in particular subject areas.
Party whips
All parties have whips whose main function is to act as administrative officers to their parliamentary parties. Although whips, and especially the Chief Government Whip, have duties in relation to the proceedings of the House, they occupy essentially party positions. Outside the Chamber the whips may be required to provide support for such matters as party meetings and consultations, party committees, arranging party nominations to parliamentary committees and organising any party balloting which may be required.
Parties in the Senate
The system of proportional representation used to elect Senators results in more opportunity for the election of minority parties and independents. This has meant that minor parties with a significant and often influential Senate presence may have no or little representation in the House (for example, previously the Democratic Labor Party and the Australian Democrats, and more recently the Australian Greens).

Further information on political parties in the House of Representatives is displayed in tables 1 and 2 below.

[1] Established in colonial Parliaments from 1891. 'Labour' until 1912.

[2] This later became the Democratic Labor Party, 1957-78 (not represented in the House).
KEY TO TABLE 1 Party strengths indicated are those after general elections and do not allow for by-elections, changes in affiliation between elections or as a result of elections declared void and recontested.

1. The Free Trade Party was renamed the Anti-Socialist Party in 1906.

2. Members of the Liberal and Country League (South Australia) included from 1946.

3. The Country Party was formed after the 1919 election from Members returned under endorsement of primary producers' organisations. In 1975 party name changed to National Country Party of Australia. In 1982 party name changed to National Party of Australia and in 2003 to the Nationals.

4. Revenue Tariff Party.

5. Includes 4 Independent Protectionists and 2 Western Australia Party.

6. Derived from elements of former Protectionists and Anti-Socialists. Also referred to during election as 'Fusion'.

7. Formed by elements of Labor Party and former Liberals.

8. Independent Nationalist.

9. From 1922 total figure includes a Member for the Northern Territory who did not have full voting rights until 1968.

10. Country Progressive.

11. Includes 3 Independent Nationalists and one Country Progressive.

12. Formed by elements of the Labor Party and former Nationalists.

13. NSW Labor.

14. Independent United Australia Party.

15. Non-communist Labor.

16. Includes one Liberal Country.

17. From 1949 includes a Member for the ACT who did not have full voting rights until 1966.

18. Although the Labor Party had the same number of seats as the coalition parties (62), two of its Members (Northern Territory and the ACT) did not have full voting rights.

19. Includes one seat filled at a supplementary election held after the first meeting of the new House.

20. Includes one Australian Greens and one Nationals (Western Australia).

21. Includes one Australian Greens, one Katter's Australia Party and one Palmer United Party.

This table is based on the table at Appendix 10 of House of Representatives Practice. Note that early records and subsequent histories do not always agree on party affiliations.
TABLE 1: Party affiliations in the House of Representatives

TABLE 2: GOVERNMENT PARTIES-periods in office

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Australia's system of government is based on the existence of political parties. While the Members of the House of Representatives are individually elected to represent constituents within each electoral division, in most cases Members belong to and support a political party.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
About us

The Parliamentary Education Office (PEO) educates Australians about, and inspires their enthusiasm for, Australia's parliamentary democracy.

Through our accessible, immersive, experiential programs and resources, the PEO fosters informed, engaged and active citizens of all ages.

The PEO acknowledges the traditional owners of country throughout Australia and their continuing connection to land, culture and community. We pay our respects to elders past and present.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
People in Parliament - Parliamentary Education Office

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Parliamentary Education Office (PEO) educates Australians about, and inspires their enthusiasm for, Australia's parliamentary democracy. Through our accessible, immersive, experiential programs and resources, the PEO fosters informed, engaged and active citizens of all ages. The PEO acknowledges the traditional owners of country throughout Australia and their continuing connection to land, culture and community.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The use of e-cigarettes is unsafe for kids, teens, and young adults.

Most e-cigarettes contain nicotine. Nicotine is highly addictive and can harm adolescent brain development, which continues into the early to mid-20s.1

E-cigarettes can contain other harmful substances besides nicotine.

Young people who use e-cigarettes may be more likely to smoke cigarettes in the future.

Find Data on E-cigarette Use Among Youth

E-cigarettes are electronic devices that heat a liquid and produce an aerosol, or mix of small particles in the air.

E-cigarettes come in many shapes and sizes. Most have a battery, a heating element, and a place to hold a liquid.

Some e-cigarettes look like regular cigarettes, cigars, or pipes. Some look like USB flash drives, pens, and other everyday items. Larger devices such as tank systems, or "mods," do not look like other tobacco products.

E-cigarettes are known by many different names. They are sometimes called "e-cigs," "e-hookahs," "mods," "vape pens," "vapes," "tank systems," and "electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS)."

Using an e-cigarette is sometimes called "vaping."

Some e-cigarettes look like regular cigarettes, cigars, or pipes.
Some look like USB flash drives, pens, and other everyday items.

E-cigarettes produce an aerosol by heating a liquid that usually contains nicotine, flavorings, and other chemicals that help to make the aerosol.

The liquid used in e-cigarettes often contains nicotine and flavorings. This liquid is sometimes called "e-juice," "e-liquid," "vape juice," or "vape liquid."

Users inhale e-cigarette aerosol into their lungs. Bystanders can also breathe in this aerosol when the user exhales it into the air.

E-cigarette devices can be used to deliver marijuana and other drugs.

News outlets and social media sites report widespread use of JUUL by students in schools, including classrooms and bathrooms.

JUUL is a brand of e-cigarette that is shaped like a USB flash drive. Like other e-cigarettes, JUUL is a battery-powered device that heats a nicotine-containing liquid to produce an aerosol that is inhaled.

All JUUL e-cigarettes have a high level of nicotine. According to the manufacturer, a single JUUL pod contains as much nicotine as a pack of 20 regular cigarettes.2

JUUL is one of a few e-cigarettes that use nicotine salts, which allow particularly high levels of nicotine to be inhaled more easily and with less irritation than the free-base nicotine that has traditionally been used in tobacco products, including e-cigarettes.

News outlets and social media sites report widespread use of JUUL by students in schools, including classrooms and bathrooms.

Approximately two-thirds of JUUL users aged 15 - 24 do not know that JUUL always contains nicotine.

Although JUUL is currently the top-selling e-cigarette brand in the United States, other companies sell e-cigarettes that look like USB flash drives. Examples include the MarkTen Elite, a nicotine delivery device, and the PAX Era, a marijuana delivery device that looks like JUUL.

Additional information about USB-shaped e-cigarettes and actions that parents, educators, and health care providers can take to protect kids is available at CDC's Infographic [PDF - 1.2MB]

Most e-cigarettes (vapes) contain nicotine-the addictive drug in regular cigarettes, cigars, and other tobacco products.

A CDC study found that 99% of the e-cigarettes sold in assessed venues in the United States contained nicotine.1

Some vape product labels do not disclose that they contain nicotine, and some vape liquids marketed as containing 0% nicotine have been found to contain nicotine.

Nicotine can harm the developing adolescent brain.2 The brain keeps developing until about age 25.

Using nicotine in adolescence can harm the parts of the brain that control attention, learning, mood, and impulse control.2

Each time a new memory is created or a new skill is learned, stronger connections - or synapses - are built between brain cells. Young people's brains build synapses faster than adult brains. Nicotine changes the way these synapses are formed.

Using nicotine in adolescence may also increase risk for future addiction to other drugs.2

When a person is dependent on (or addicted to) nicotine and stops using it, their body and brain have to get used to not having nicotine. This can result in temporary symptoms of nicotine withdrawal.

Nicotine withdrawal symptoms include irritability, restlessness, feeling anxious or depressed, trouble sleeping, problems concentrating, and craving nicotine.3 People may keep using tobacco products to help relieve these symptoms.4

Youth may turn to vaping to try to deal with stress or anxiety, creating a cycle of nicotine dependence. But nicotine addiction can be a source of stress.

What may start as social experimentation can become an addiction.

The most common reason U.S. middle and high school students give for trying an e-cigarette is "a friend used them." 5

The most common reason youth give for continuing to use e-cigarettes is "I am feeling anxious, stressed, or depressed." 5

Youth e-cigarette and cigarette use have been associated with mental health symptoms such as depression.9, 10

Yes. As long as a person stays quit, withdrawal symptoms will fade over time as the brain gets used to not having nicotine.

Scientists are still learning about the effects of quitting vaping on mental health. Quitting smoking cigarettes is associated with lower levels of anxiety, depression, and stress, as well as improved positive mood and quality of life.9

Scientists are still learning about the long-term health effects of e-cigarettes.

Some of the ingredients in e-cigarette aerosol could also be harmful to the lungs in the long-term. For example, some e-cigarette flavorings may be safe to eat but not to inhale because the gut can process more substances than the lungs.1

Defective e-cigarette batteries have caused some fires and explosions, a few of which have resulted in serious injuries.

Children and adults have been poisoned by swallowing, breathing, or absorbing e-cigarette liquid through their skin or eyes. Nationally, approximately 50% of calls to poison control centers for e-cigarettes are for kids 5 years of age or younger.

E-cigarette aerosol is NOT harmless "water vapor."

The e-cigarette aerosol that users breathe from the device and exhale can contain harmful and potentially harmful substances, including:

Nicotine

Ultrafine particles that can be inhaled deep into the lungs

Flavorings such as diacetyl, a chemical linked to a serious lung disease

Volatile organic compounds

Cancer-causing chemicals

Heavy metals such as nickel, tin, and lead1

The aerosol that users inhale and exhale from e-cigarettes can expose both themselves and bystanders to harmful substances.

It is difficult for consumers to know what e-cigarette products contain. For example, some e-cigarettes marketed as containing zero percent nicotine have been found to contain nicotine.3

E-cigarettes come in various flavors, including fruit, candy, mint, and menthol.

A study from 2013-2014 showed that most youth who use e-cigarettes first start with a flavored variety, and flavors are the primary reason youth report using e-cigarettes.⁶

In 2023, most youth who reported using e-cigarettes used flavored varieties (89.4%). Among middle and high school students who currently used any type of flavored e-cigarette in 2023, the most commonly used flavors were fruit (63.4%), candy, desserts, or other sweets (35%), mint (27.8%), and menthol (20.1%).¹¹

On January 2, 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) finalized an enforcement policy that prohibits the sale of prefilled cartridge e-cigarettes in any flavor other than tobacco or menthol, unless authorized by FDA. FDA has since taken additional steps to prohibit certain companies from selling youth-appealing, flavored disposable e-cigarettes and flavored e-liquids without authorization.⁷

Several states and communities have restricted the sale of flavored tobacco products, including menthol-flavored products.⁸

E-cigarettes are also advertised using the same themes and tactics that have been shown to increase youth initiation of other tobacco products, including cigarettes. In 2021, approximately 76% of students reported exposure to tobacco product marketing through traditional sources and approximately 74% of students who used social media had seen e-cigarette-related posts or content.¹²

Widespread advertising for e-cigarettes, including via media for which advertising for conventional tobacco products is prohibited (e.g., TV), and the lower costs of some e-cigarettes relative to regular cigarettes has contributed to use among youth.¹

Many youth also report using e-cigarettes because they are curious about these products.¹

Many young people who use e-cigarettes also smoke cigarettes.1 There is some evidence that young people who use e-cigarettes may be more likely to smoke cigarettes in the future.

Specifically, a 2018 National Academy of Medicine report found that there was some evidence that e-cigarette use increases the frequency and amount of cigarette smoking in the future.4

E-cigarettes also can be used to deliver other drugs, including marijuana; in 2016, approximately one-third of U.S. middle and high school students who have ever used an e-cigarette reported using marijuana in the device.

But e-cigarette use among young people is still unsafe, even if they do not progress to future cigarette smoking.

E-cigarettes expose users to fewer harmful chemicals than burned cigarettes.1

But burned cigarettes are very dangerous, killing half of all people who smoke long-term.

The use of any tobacco product, including e-cigarettes, is unsafe for young people.

Yes. In August 2016, the regulatory authority of the FDA was extended to cover e-cigarettes through the agency's "deeming rule."

Through authority granted by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (FSPTCA), FDA has authority to develop regulations that address the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of e-cigarettes.

There are some strategies that the FDA does not have authority to implement, such as including e-cigarettes in smoke-free policies or increasing the minimum legal sales age for these products, unless directed to do so by Congress. However, the FSPTCA does not prevent states and communities from including e-cigarettes in smoke-free policies or from regulating the sale and distribution of e-cigarettes. These types of strategies can include further raising the minimum legal sales age, licensing retailers, implementing price policies, and restricting or prohibiting the sale of tobacco products.

Yes. In 2018, the FDA expanded its successful youth tobacco prevention campaign, "The Real Cost," to reach the more than 10 million youth aged 12-17 who have used e-cigarettes or are open to trying them. The campaign educates youth about the potential risks of using e-cigarettes.

The "Real Cost" reaches teens where they spend most of their time: in school and online. The campaign is also placing e-cigarette prevention materials in high schools across the nation, both in school bathrooms and on educational digital platforms accessed by students during the school day.

Heated tobacco products (HTPs) like IQOS and Eclipse, sometimes marketed as "heat-not-burn" technology, represent a diverse class of products that heat the tobacco leaf to produce an inhaled aerosol. They are different from e-cigarettes, which heat a liquid that can contain nicotine derived from tobacco.

HTPs are available in at least 40 countries and several have been authorized for sale in the United States by the FDA. In 2018, few U.S. adults (2.4% of all surveyed, including 6.7% of people who currently smoke surveyed) had ever used HTPs. In 2023, 1.0% of U.S. middle and high school students, combined, reported having used heated tobacco products in the past 30 days.¹¹

Scientists are still learning about the short-term and long-term health effects of HTPs, but the available science shows they contain harmful and potentially harmful ingredients. Youth use of any tobacco products, including heated products, is unsafe.

It is important that we continue to modernize proven tobacco prevention and control strategies to include newer products entering the market such as HTPs.

Talk to your child or teen about why e-cigarettes are harmful for them. It's never too late.

Set a good example by being tobacco-free and ensure that your kid is not exposed to the secondhand emissions from any tobacco products, including e-cigarettes.

If you use tobacco, it's never too late to quit. For free help, visit smokefree.gov or call 1-800-QUIT-NOW.

Talk to your child or teen about why e-cigarettes are harmful for them. It's never too late.

Get the Talk With Your Teen About E-cigarettes [PDF - 5.2MB] tip sheet for parents. Start the conversation early with children about why e-cigarettes are harmful for them.

Let your child know that you want them to stay away from all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, because they are not safe for them. Seek help and get involved.

Set up an appointment with your child's health care provider so that they can hear from a medical professional about the health risks of tobacco products, including e-cigarettes.

Speak with your child's teacher and school administrator about enforcement of tobacco-free school grounds policies and tobacco prevention curriculum.

Encourage your child to learn the facts and get tips for quitting tobacco products at Teen.smokefree.gov.

Fact Sheet for Educators:

Conversation Card for Educators:

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Smoking Cessation: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2020 [accessed 2022 April 4].

2. Truth Initiative Mental Health x Vaping Headline Survey Internal Data - August 2021.

3. Gentzke AS, Wang TW, Cornelius M, et al. Tobacco Product Use and Associated Factors Among Middle and High School Students - National Youth Tobacco Survey, United States, 2021. MMWR Surveill Summ 2022;71(No. SS-5):1-29. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss7105a1.

4. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking-50 years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2014.

5. Birdsey J, Cornelius M, Jamal A, et al. Tobacco Product Use Among U.S. Middle and High School Students - National Youth Tobacco Survey, 2023. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2023; 72(44);1173-1182.

6. Cooper M, Park-Lee E, Ren C, Cornelius M, Jamal A, Cullen KA. Notes from the Field: E-cigarette Use Among Middle and High School Students - United States, 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2022;71:1283-1285. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7140a3

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Quick Facts on the Risks of E-cigarettes for Young People

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn quick facts on the risks of e-cigarettes for kids, teens, and young adults, including how they work, why nicotine is unsafe, what is in e-cigarette aerosol, and resources for parents to prevent their child from using e-cigarettes or help them stop.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On Friday, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) updated its review of proposed reforms to the regulation of nicotine vaping products. It reported the federal government is now "actively considering" the TGA's advice.

The TGA's advice has not been released at this time, but a top-level summary of the review consultation submissions was. It restated the review's scope, focused on changes to border controls for nicotine vaping products, minimum quality and safety standards - including the idea of categorising nicotine vaping products as therapeutic goods.

The update's emphasis on enforcement and safety supports the goal to ensure nicotine vaping products are available only to people using them to try to quit smoking.

Nothing is off the table

Three weeks ago, all the Australian health ministers agreed to set up a working group to consider options to address the availability of all e-cigarettes, including nicotine and non-nicotine containing devices.

Since then, Federal Health Minister Mark Butler has been increasingly vocal about improving border controls to enforce Australian laws that say nicotine vapes should only be available via prescription.

Butler says " nothing is off the table " - except allowing the sale of nicotine e-cigarettes without a doctor's prescription in retailers such as convenience stores. Currently, illicit sales of nicotine vaping products are occurring on a growing scale, with hundreds of retail outlets selling nicotine e-cigarettes in blatant breach of public health laws.

Read more: Marketers are targeting teens with cheap and addictive vapes: 9 ways to stem rising rates of youth vaping

What do the consultation responses tell us?

The TGA published almost 4,000 submissions.

They came primarily from two viewpoints. On the one hand, the majority of public health stakeholders (including non-government organisations and state and territory government health and education agencies) who called for stronger border controls. On the other, those aligned with commercial interests calling for nicotine e-cigarettes to be sold legally over the counter.

The TGA noted a large number of submissions from "the general public" appeared to be "campaign responses" calling for vaporiser nicotine to be removed from the poisons standard so it can be sold by any retailer.

This is a well-worn tactic used by the tobacco industry and its retailer allies - orchestrate responses to public consultations purporting to be the voice of the community. In reality, these represent the interests of commercial entities. And anyway, repealing the scheduling of vaporiser nicotine as a prescription-only substance is not within the scope of the review.

Read more: A potted history of smoking, and how we're making the same mistakes with vaping

Unresolved issues

Although state and territory government health and education agencies called unanimously for tighter border controls, there were varied views on how this could be achieved.

Some proposed the introduction of an import permit. Others suggested amending customs regulations administered by the Department of Home Affairs, which would require Australian Border Force to seize nicotine vaping products imported without medical authority. Many submissions proposed extending this to non-nicotine vaping products as well.

Independent health groups - particularly the Cancer Council, the National Heart Foundation and the Australian Council on Smoking and Health, who were previously involved in landmark policy achievements such as plain packaging of tobacco - all supported customs seizures.

Based on all the evidence, including the harms of vaping, patterns of use and current policies, this option would turn the tap off at the border. State and territory governments must also end illegal retail sales in their respective jurisdictions. This would end current exemptions for non-nicotine vaping product sales, and ensure all vaping products, regardless of claimed nicotine content, are only accessed through the prescription pathway.

The proliferation of so-called non-nicotine vaping products, many of which contain nicotine when tested, is disrupting enforcement efforts to make nicotine vaping products prescription-only.

Read more: Learning about the health risks of vaping can encourage young vapers to rethink their habit

What happens next?

It's time for greater enforcement and regulatory reform action - not just deferral to "working groups", "consultations" and "inquiries". Queensland's parliament just moved to conduct another inquiry of e-cigarettes, at least the fourth in Australia since 2017.

Soon we'll hear what the government plans to prioritise. If the federal response to the TGA review turns out to be an import permit instead of prohibiting imports, then it must be backed with effective enforcement. Retailers are already flouting federal laws (both the poisons standard and the Therapeutic Goods Order) and state/territory public health acts by importing and selling nicotine vaping products. Without enforcement, an import permit will be just another policy instrument to be ignored.

Nothing turns a profit like commercialised addiction. Vaping manufacturers and retailers know this and appear determined to addict as many users as possible through increasing lawbreaking, while Australian governments "consider their options". Not since the debut of mass-marketing of cigarettes in the 19th century has a whole population been at such risk of nicotine addiction and health harms on an industrial scale.

The evidence is clear. E-cigarettes are harmful to health, non-smoking users have a three-fold risk of smoking uptake, the largest user groups are young adults aged under 25, and teenagers and few people are successfully using e-cigarettes to quit smoking.

Australian governments are clear about their shared commitment to restricting nicotine vaping products to a prescription pathway. Now they need to commit to action - by seizing all imported vaping products not destined for a pharmacy, and extending the current restrictions and enforcement to all vaping products.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
TGA review strengthens case for much tighter vape restrictions at the border

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On Friday, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) updated its review of proposed reforms to the regulation of nicotine vaping products. It reported the federal government is now "actively considering" the TGA's advice. The TGA's advice has not been released at this time, but a top-level summary of the review consultation submissions was.

# data[].attributes.headline
Parliament of Australia: How laws are made

# data[].attributes.subject
Parliament of Australia: How laws are made

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
About half of the total sitting time of the House is spent considering bills, that is, proposed laws. These range from comparatively minor proposals of an administrative nature to comprehensive initiatives of major social, economic or industrial significance.

This infosheet describes how government bills-those proposed by ministers-are considered and passed by the House. However, all members of the House, as well as ministers, are entitled to propose legislation. Procedures for private members' bills are, in the key elements, the same as those for government bills. Infosheet No. 6 Opportunities for private members discusses this topic in more detail and explains the differences that do exist.
The Federal Parliament's legislative powers
A new Commonwealth (national) law can only be made, or an existing law changed or removed, by or under the authority of the Federal Parliament; that is, by or in accordance with an Act of Parliament.

Under Australia's Constitution the Federal Parliament can make laws only on certain matters. These include: international and interstate trade; foreign affairs; defence; immigration; taxation; banking; insurance; marriage and divorce; currency and weights and measures; post and telecommunications; and invalid and old age pensions. The Australian states retain legislative powers over many areas such as local government, roads, hospitals and schools.

The Governor-General assents to an Act of Parliament

In some respects, the legislative powers of the two Houses of the Federal Parliament-the Senate and the House of Representatives-are not equal. In matters relating to the collection or expenditure of public money the Constitution gives a more powerful role to the House of Representatives-the House of government. Bills which authorise the spending of money (appropriation bills) and bills imposing taxation cannot originate in the Senate. The Senate may not amend bills imposing taxation and some kinds of appropriation bill, or amend any bill so as to increase any 'proposed charge or burden on the people'. It can, however, ask the House to make amendments to these bills.
Preparation of a bill
A bill, which is a formal document prepared in the form of a draft Act, is no more than a proposal for a law or a change to the law. A bill becomes an Act-a law-only after it has been passed in identical form by both Houses of the Parliament and has been assented to by the Governor-General.

The original ideas for government legislation come from various sources. They may result from party policy, perhaps announced during an election campaign, from suggestions by members and senators or from interest groups in the community. Many proposals, especially those of a routine nature which may be thought of as matters of administrative necessity, originate in government departments.

In whichever way a proposal originates, it is considered by Cabinet or the Prime Minister. If agreed to, the minister responsible has his or her department arrange preparation of a bill.

Bills are drafted by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel in accordance with detailed instructions issued by departments. Draft bills are usually examined by government party committees, on which Members of Parliament belonging to the governing party or parties serve. The Parliamentary Business Committee determines the program of bills to be introduced for each parliamentary sitting period.
Passage of a bill through the House-the normal routine
During its consideration by the House, a bill passes through successive stages. Proposals are made (motions moved) in relation to the bill's progress or content, speeches may be made for and against such proposals (debate) and the proposals are voted on (decisions of the House).

Giving notice

Usually a minister who wishes to introduce a bill gives written notice (advance warning) to the Clerk of the House of his or her intention. The Clerk arranges for the bill to be listed on the Notice Paper (the House's agenda of business) for the next sitting day. The notice follows a standard format:

I give notice of my intention to present, at the next sitting, a Bill for an Act to . . . [remainder of bill's long title].

The 'long title' is the bill's full title and sets out in very broad terms the purpose or scope of the bill, for example 'A bill for an Act to repeal certain obsolete Acts relating to agriculture, and for related purposes'. Each bill also has a short title-in this case Agriculture Legislation Repeal Bill 2019. Notice is not necessary for bills which appropriate money or bills dealing with taxation.

Presenting a bill to the House-first reading

Bills are introduced when the House is dealing with government business (see Infosheet No. 2 A typical sitting day for information on the different types of business and the times they are considered). First the Clerk announces the next notice on the Notice Paper, for example, 'Notice No. 1' and reads the short title of the bill. Then a minister stands and says 'I present the . . . . . . . Bill 2022', and hands a signed copy of the bill to the Clerk together with an explanatory memorandum (a document which explains the reasons for the bill and outlines its provisions). The Clerk stands and reads out the long title of the bill. This is known as its first reading.

Copies of the bill (and the explanatory memorandum), which until this time have been treated as confidential, are then given to members and made available to the public on the Parliament's website at: www.aph.gov.au/bills.

The next step usually happens immediately with the minister moving that the bill 'be now read a second time'. He or she then makes a speech (the second reading speech) explaining the purpose, general principles and effect of the bill.

At the end of the minister's speech, debate on the bill is adjourned (deferred) and set down as an item of business for a future sitting. The purpose of this pause in proceedings is to give members time to study the bill and its effects before speaking and voting on it, and to provide the opportunity for public discussion and reaction.

The second reading speech (along with the explanatory memorandum) plays an important role in the legislative process and may be taken into account by the courts in deciding the meaning or intention of an Act.

Second reading debate

The second reading debate is the discussion of the motion moved by the minister. It is normally the most substantial debate that takes place on a bill. Its purpose is to consider the principles of the bill. Debate may cover, for example, reasons why the bill should be supported or opposed, the necessity for its proposals or alternative means of achieving the same objectives. Although listed on the Notice Paper 'for the next sitting', the second reading debate does not usually commence for several sitting days, and sometimes much later. The timing will depend on the Government's legislative program and is usually negotiated with the Opposition.

When the debate resumes an opposition member (usually the 'shadow minister') outlines the opposition's position on the bill. Government and non-government members then usually speak in turn. The total time for the debate is not restricted by the standing orders.

At the end of the debate a vote is taken to decide the House's view on the motion moved by the minister-'That this bill be now read a second time'. If this is agreed to, the House has agreed to the bill in principle and the Clerk stands and reads out the long title of the bill to signify the completion of this stage-the second reading.

Consideration in detail

The purpose of this stage is to consider the text of the bill in detail, clause by clause, and to enable changes to be proposed. Proceedings are less formal than they are for the second reading debate and procedures can be more flexible. For example, members may speak briefly (5 minutes each) an unlimited number of times on each proposal put forward.

Clauses are taken in their numerical order but, if no member objects, a number of clauses may be taken together, the question put from the Chair being 'That the clause (or clauses) be agreed to'. Often members may be happy to consider the bill as a whole and in this case the question is simply 'That the bill be agreed to'.

The form of an amendment may be by omitting, substituting, or adding words. When an amendment has been moved, the Chair proposes a question to the House usually in the form 'That the amendment be agreed to', although sometimes more complicated procedures may be necessary. If the House votes to accept an amendment it must then decide on a further proposal 'That the clause/clauses/bill as amended be agreed to'. These procedures ensure that every part of the bill is considered and agreed to with or without changes.

However, members may be in agreement that a particular bill does not need to be examined in detail. In this case, the consideration in detail stage may be bypassed. The Chair ascertains the wish of the members in the House and if no-one objects, allows the bill to proceed directly to the third reading. Detailed debate is considered unnecessary for many bills which are supported by all parties or, in a technical or drafting sense, are very limited in scope or when, in the case of appropriation and taxation bills, private members would be prevented from moving certain amendments.

Third reading

This is the final stage in consideration of a bill and is usually a formality. Although the standing orders (written rules) provide for the third reading to take place on another sitting after the consideration in detail has been completed, in practice the House allows the minister to move the motion 'That this bill be read a third time' immediately.

Debate at this stage is relatively rare and is restricted to the contents of the bill, that is, the matters contained in the clauses and schedules of the bill. When the motion has been agreed to, the Clerk again reads out the long title of the bill. This signifies that the bill has finally passed the House.
Alternative procedures
Bills considered by the Federation Chamber

Following the minister's second reading speech in the House, a bill may be referred to the Federation Chamber for the remainder of the second reading and the consideration in detail stages. The Federation Chamber is a committee established to be an alternative to the main Chamber of the House for the consideration of a restricted range of business. All members of the House can take part in the debates in the Federation Chamber. It meets while the House is sitting, making it possible for two streams of legislation to be debated at the same time. Generally speaking, bills are only referred to the Federation Chamber following agreement on the referral between government and non-government members.

The Federation Chamber's procedures are substantially the same as they are in the House. The Federation Chamber can amend the bill just as the House can and the same rules of debate apply. However, the Federation Chamber operates by agreement-divisions cannot take place-and matters on which the Federation Chamber cannot agree are referred back to the House for decision.

Before their third reading, bills which have been considered in the Federation Chamber go through an additional stage-the report stage-when the House considers and votes on the bill as reported back to it. Debate is restricted to matters the Federation Chamber could not agree on.

See also Infosheet No. 16 The Federation Chamber.

Cognate debate-bills debated together

When there are two or more related bills before the House, if no member objects, a 'cognate' second reading debate may take place, during which the bills are debated together. On the conclusion of the debate separate questions are put as required on each of the bills and they pass through other stages separately.

Imposing a time limit on debate-the guillotine

If for some reason the Government wishes to hasten a bill's progress, a minister can declare it an 'urgent bill'. The question 'That the bill be considered an urgent bill' is then put by the Chair and must be decided without debate. When a declaration of urgency has been agreed to by the House, the minister proceeds to move a motion specifying the times to be allotted for the various remaining stages of the bill. If these details are agreed to, when the time fixed for a stage has been reached, the debate is interrupted immediately and the questions necessary to dispose of that stage are put. This procedure is known as "the guillotine".

The passage of a bill or group of bills may also be hastened by a motion to suspend standing orders in order to impose time limits and/or variations from normal procedures. A programming motion of this type is, in effect, a kind of guillotine.

Reference to a committee

It is possible for a bill to be referred for an advisory report to a committee which specialises in the subject area of the bill. The committee can hear witnesses and gather evidence relating to the bill and can recommend action to the House, although it cannot amend the bill itself.

If the Government accepts changes to the bill recommended by the advisory report, these are incorporated into government amendments moved during the consideration in detail stage.

If the committee finds no issues requiring a formal report, the chair or deputy chair may make a statement to the House to that effect. The statement, together with the presentation of the relevant minutes of proceedings, discharges the committee's obligation to report on the bill.

Special types of bill

Additional or slightly different procedures apply to financial legislation-appropriation and supply bills and taxation bills (see Infosheet No. 10 The Budget and financial legislation), and to proposals to make changes to the Constitution-constitution alteration bills (see Infosheet No. 13 The Constitution).

Bills introduced from the Senate

The great majority of government bills are initiated in the House of Representatives, because of the constitutional restrictions on the nature of bills which can originate in the Senate and because most ministers are members of the House.

When a Senate bill has passed all stages in the Senate, it is transmitted to the House under cover of a formal message and introduced to the House by the Speaker reading the terms of the message to the House. Subsequent proceedings follow the same processes as House bills.
Proceedings after leaving the House
Transmission to Senate

After a bill has passed the House the Clerk signs a certificate attached to the bill stating:

THIS Bill originated in the House of Representatives; and, having this day passed, is now ready for presentation to the Senate for its concurrence.

If the bill has been amended by the House it is reprinted before it is sent to the Senate. When the bill is ready, the Speaker signs a document, known as a 'message', addressed to the President of the Senate which reads:

The House of Representatives transmits to the Senate a Bill for an Act . . . [remainder of long title of bill], in which it desires the concurrence of the Senate.

The message and bill are then delivered to the Senate by the Serjeant-at-Arms.

Senate proceedings

The bill again goes through three readings in the Senate. When the bill has passed the Senate, the Senate then returns the bill to the House, either with or without amendments. The Senate may also request that the House make an amendment in cases where the Senate is prevented by the Constitution from making an amendment itself. Senate amendments and requests are considered by the House, and may be accepted or disagreed to.

Disagreement between the two Houses

Where there are disagreements, messages may pass between the two Houses to seek to reach agreement as to the bill's final form.

If the two Houses cannot agree, a bill may be 'laid aside' (not further pursued). In circumstances provided for by the Constitution, an unresolved disagreement may lead to the dissolution of both Houses by the Governor-General and elections for each House (see Infosheet No. 18 Double dissolution).

When a bill has finally passed both Houses in identical form and been checked and certified accordingly by the Clerk of the House, it is presented to the Governor-General for assent.

The words of assent used by the Governor-General are:

In the name of Her Majesty, I assent to this Act.

At this point the bill becomes an Act of Parliament and part of the law of the land, although the validity of the Act may be tested in court subsequently.

When a law comes into effect

Acts do not necessarily come into operation immediately on assent, although this is common. An Act may specify a particular date for commencement, perhaps retrospective, or the day of a stipulated event, or a date to be decided later by the government and announced ('proclaimed') by the Governor-General. If no commencement date is specified in an Act, it comes into effect on the 28th day after it receives assent.
Some statistics from the 46th Parliament
A total of 573 bills were introduced in the 46th Parliament. Of these, roughly 91 per cent originated in the House of Representatives. Approximately 71 per cent of bills introduced finally became Acts. The consideration of legislation took up some 52 per cent of the House's time.
Delegated legislation
The Parliament may delegate some of its legislative powers to the Executive Government, which may make regulations, statutory rules, by-laws, orders, ordinances, instruments or determinations, etc. (referred to collectively as legislative instruments) according to the powers bestowed by an Act of Parliament.

Delegated legislation must be authorised by an Act, must be presented to both Houses of the Parliament and can be disallowed (vetoed) by a motion agreed to by either House. In some cases Acts provide that specific pieces of delegated legislation made under their authority must be approved by both Houses before coming into effect. All delegated legislation is closely scrutinised by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation.
Historical note
The legislative processes followed in the Commonwealth Parliament (and in the Australian states) are derived from British practice dating back several centuries. The word 'bill' originally meant the same as 'petition' and was in effect a request from the Parliament to the King to take certain action or to state that the law was as the Parliament thought it should be. These bills became statutes if and when the King agreed to them.

The term 'reading' for a stage in a bill's progress dates back to the time when most people, including Members of Parliament, could not read and printed copies were not available. In those days a bill had to be read out in full by the Clerk of the House on several occasions so that members would know what it was about.
For more information
House of Representatives Practice , 7th edn, Department of the House of Representatives, Canberra, 2018, pp. 343-414.

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Legislation Handbook, Canberra, 2017, www.dpmc.gov.au/resource-centre/government/legislation-handbook .

For copies of bills, explanatory memorandums and second reading speeches: www.aph.gov.au/bills .

For information on the progress of bills through the House: House of Representatives Daily Bills List, published daily during sittings and available from: www.aph.gov.au/bills .

For a list of bills debated each sitting week: Last week in the House: www.aph.gov.au/house/lastweek .

Debates on bills can be found in Hansard available from: www.aph.gov.au/repshansard .

Image courtesy of AUSPIC.
The legislative process
Bills (proposed laws) may be introduced first in either the House of Representatives or the Senate but must be considered by each House in turn.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
About half of the total sitting time of the House is spent considering bills, that is, proposed laws. These range from comparatively minor proposals of an administrative nature to comprehensive initiatives of major social, economic or industrial significance. This infosheet describes how government bills-those proposed by ministers-are considered and passed by the House.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Central to the wheel and the rule of law is the concept that no one is above the law - it is applied and to both the government and citizens. This means that all people, regardless of their status, race, culture, religion, or any other attribute, should be ruled equally by

Beyond this, the of the wheel illustrates a number of interrelated principles that reflect the rule of law in Australia, such as the presumption of innocence, and fair and prompt trials.

These principles can be considered essential elements that contribute to maintaining the rule of law. Without these, the wheel would fail to turn and Australia's rule of law would not continue to be upheld and maintained.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Central to the wheel and the rule of law is the concept that no one is above the law - it is applied and to both the government and citizens.

# data[].attributes.headline
Activity - Making a Law: House of Representatives 

# data[].attributes.subject
Activity - Making a Law: House of Representatives 

# data[].attributes.body
Parliamentary Education Office

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Make a law: House of Representatives - Parliamentary Education Office

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Discover how bills – proposed laws – are introduced, debated and voted on in the House of Representatives by turning your class into a Parliament and doing it yourselves!

# data[].attributes.body
The Conversation article into the risks of vaping.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Vaping regularly makes headlines, with some campaigning to make e-cigarettes more available to help smokers quit, while others are keen to see vaping products banned, citing dangers, especially for teens.

So just how dangerous is it? We have undertaken an evidence check of vaping research. This included more than 100 sources on tobacco harm reduction, vaping prevalence and health effects, and what other countries are doing in response. Here's what we found.

How does vaping compare to smoking?

Smoking is harmful. It's the leading preventable cause of death in Australia. It causes 13% of all deaths, including from lung, mouth, throat and bladder cancer, emphysema, heart attack and stroke, to name just a few. People who smoke regularly and don't quit lose about ten years of life compared with non-smokers.

Nicotine, a mild stimulant, is the active ingredient in both cigarettes and nicotine vaping products. It's addictive but isn't the cause of cancer or the other diseases related to smoking.

Ideally, people wouldn't be addicted to nicotine, but having a safe supply without the deadly chemicals, for instance by using nicotine patches or gum, is safer than smoking. Making these other sources available is known as "harm reduction".

Vaping is not risk-free, but several detailed reviews of the evidence plus a consensus of experts have all estimated it's at least 95% safer to vape nicotine than to smoke tobacco. The risk of cancer from vaping, for example, has been estimated at less than 1%.

These reviews looked at the known dangerous chemicals in cigarettes, and found there were very few and in very small quantities in nicotine vapes. So the argument that we won't see major health effects for a few more decades is causing more alarm than is necessary.

Is 'everyone' vaping these days?

Some are concerned about the use of vaping products by teens, but currently available statistics show very few teens vape regularly. Depending on the study, between 9.6% and 32% of 14-17-year-olds have tried vaping at some point in their lives.

But less than 2% of 14-17-year-olds say they have used vapes in the past year. This number doubled between 2016 and 2019, but is still much lower than the rates of teen smoking (3.2%) and teen alcohol use (32%).

It's the same pattern we see with drugs other than alcohol: a proportion of people try them but only a very small proportion of those go on to use regularly or for a long time. Nearly 60% of people who try vaping only use once or twice.

Smoking rates in Australia have declined from 24% in 1991 to 11% in 2019 because we have introduced a number of very successful measures such as restricting sales and where people can smoke, putting up prices, introducing plain packaging, and improving education and access to treatment programs.

But it's getting harder to encourage the remaining smokers to quit with the methods that have worked in the past. Those still smoking tend to be older, more socially disadvantaged, or have mental health problems.

Read more: My teen's vaping. What should I say? 3 expert tips on how to approach 'the talk'

Should we ban vapes?

So we have a bit of a dilemma. Vaping is much safer than smoking, so it would be helpful for adults to have access to it as an alternative to cigarettes. That means we need to make them more available and accessible.

But ideally we don't want teens who don't already smoke to start regular vaping. This has led some to call for a " crackdown " on vaping.

But we know from a long history of drug prohibition - like alcohol prohibition in the 1920s - that banning or restricting vaping could actually do more harm than good.

Banning drugs doesn't stop people using them - more than 43% of Australians have tried an illicit drug at least once. And it has very little impact on the availability of drugs.

But prohibition does have a number of unintended consequences, including driving drugs underground and creating a black market or increasing harms as people switch to other drugs, which are often more dangerous.

The black market makes drugs more dangerous because there is no way to control quality. And it makes it easier, not harder, for teens to access them, because there are no restrictions on who can sell or buy them.

Read more: Learning about the health risks of vaping can encourage young vapers to rethink their habit

Are our current laws working?

In 2021, Australia made it illegal to possess and use nicotine vaping products without a prescription. We are the only country in the world to take this path.

The problem is even after more than a year of this law, only 8.6% of people vaping nicotine have a prescription, meaning more than 90% buy them illegally.

Anecdotal reports even suggest an increase in popularity of vaping among teens since these laws were introduced. At best, they are not helping.

It may seem counterintuitive, but the way to reduce the black market is to make quality-controlled vapes and liquids more widely available, but restricted to adults. If people could access vaping products legally they wouldn't buy them on the black market and the black market would decline.

We also know from many studies on drug education in schools that when kids get accurate, non-sensationalised information about drugs they tend to make healthier decisions. Sensationalised information can have the opposite effect and increase interest in drugs. So better education in schools and for parents and teachers is also needed, so they know how to talk to kids about vaping and what to do if they know someone is vaping.

What have other countries done?

Other countries allow vapes to be legally sold without a prescription, but impose strict quality controls and do not allow the sale of products to people under a minimum age. This is similar to our regulation of cigarettes and alcohol.

The United Kingdom has minimum standards on manufacturing, as well as restrictions on purchase age and where people can vape.

Aotearoa New Zealand introduced a unique plan to reduce smoking rates by imposing a lifetime ban on buying cigarettes. Anyone born after January 1 2009 will never be able to buy cigarettes, so the minimum age you can legally smoke keeps increasing. At the same time, NZ increased access to vaping products under strict regulations on manufacture, purchase and use.

As of late last year, all US states require sellers to have a retail licence, and sales to people under 21 are banned. There are also restrictions on where people can vape.

A recent study modelled the impact of increasing access to nicotine vaping products in Australia. It found it's likely there would be significant public health benefits by relaxing the current restrictive policies and increasing access to nicotine vaping products for adults.

The question is not whether we should discourage teens from using vaping products or whether we should allow wider accessibility to vaping products for adults as an alternative to smoking. The answer to both those questions is yes.

The key question is how do we do both effectively without one policy jeopardising the outcomes of the other?

If we took a pragmatic harm-reduction approach, as other countries have done, we could use our very successful model of regulation of tobacco products as a template to achieve both outcomes.

Read more: It's safest to avoid e-cigarettes altogether - unless vaping is helping you quit smoking

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How bad is vaping and should it be banned?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vaping regularly makes headlines, with some campaigning to make e-cigarettes more available to help smokers quit, while others are keen to see vaping products banned, citing dangers, especially for teens. So just how dangerous is it? We have undertaken an evidence check of vaping research.