Changes in tobacco use in response to price increases occur in the context of other tobacco control policies. Econometric studies that tease out the impact of these factors are required to quantify the contribution of price increases to declines in consumption relative to other policies implemented over the same period. However, such studies require comprehensive longitudinal data on the volume of tobacco consumed in a population, such as sales data. In the absence of such publicly available data in Australia, numerous studies have examined the impact of changes in price on other measures of tobacco consumption (such as self-reported consumption), smoking prevalence, and other tobacco use behaviours, while accounting for increasing restrictions on tobacco over time, such as increasingly widespread smokefree policies and bans on advertising and promotion, and fluctuating public health measures such as mass media campaigns.
This section describes these studies of price and tobacco use in Australia, as well as those examining the impact of changes in price on specific population groups. Finally, influence of price on price-minimising behaviours and motivation to quit smoking will be examined.
13.8.1 Tobacco consumption and price in Australia
The relationship between price and consumption is more readily quantifiable in countries where both factors have fluctuated over time. Strong tobacco control measures have been in place in Australia for several decades and there have been no periods over that time when tobacco consumption has increased. Nevertheless, in line with the findings of price elasticity studies in numerous other countries,1-3 substantial real increases in the price of tobacco products in Australia have been followed by an acceleration of the decline in apparent and reported tobacco consumption. Figure 13.8.1 plots the per capita consumption of tobacco products, measured as per gram of tobacco excised per person aged 15 years or older, against the tobacco component of the consumer price index (tobacco CPI), which began in 1973. The tobacco CPI is the longest-running measure of retail tobacco prices in Australia, where the price of a basket of goods that might be purchased by a typical Australian household are measured each quarter using in-shop surveys.4
Figure 13.8.1 shows a clear inverse relationship between price and consumption over the almost 50 years since 1975 in 5-year increments. The largest proportional declines in consumption were associated with periods of substantial increases in price. Per capita consumption declined by 13% to 15% for each of the five-year periods from 1975 to 1990, and decreased by 21% from 1990 to 1995 and 1995 to 2000. The largest percentage declines were seen between 2010 and 2015 (noting the change in data sources over this time) at 36%, and between 2015 and 2020 at 22%. The escalation in the decline in consumption coincides with rapid growth in prices as reflected in the tobacco consumer price index.
13.8.1.1 Estimates of price elasticity of demand in Australia
A number of economic studies published in the 1970s and 1990s attempted to quantify the price elasticity of demand in Australia (that is, the contribution of price increases to declines in consumption). These were summarised by economist Terry Alchin in 19925 and are presented in Figure 13.8.2. These estimates very closely cluster around the approximate mean of –0.4 for high-income countries established by the World Bank in 1999, meaning that a 10% increase in price would be expected to lead to a drop in smoking prevalence on –4%.6 (See also Section 13.1.)
A 1999 study by economists Peter Bardsley and Nilss Olekalns7 concluded that virtually all the reduction in tobacco consumption in Australia between 1962–63 and 1995–96 (before widespread tobacco advertising bans, smokefree policies, and nation-wide anti-smoking mass media campaigns) could be attributed to increases in price resulting mainly from increases in tax levels. They estimated that short-run price elasticity in Australia was between –0.2 and –0.3 and long-run price elasticity was –0.5 to –0.6 for the period between 1960 to the early 1980s. They estimated much larger price elasticities for the period between 1992 to 1996 (–1.2 for short-run and –3.0 for long-run). However, these latter estimates, and the conclusion that price was the only significant contributing factor, were contested. Commentators pointed out that tax levels are the most easily quantifiable tobacco control policy, and that by using sales rather than consumption or prevalence data, this study would have been detecting the very close relationship between price increases and shifts to cheaper products rather than absolute changes in consumption.8,9
Studies analysing changes in prevalence of smoking after tax increases provide some information in Australia on the price elasticity of prevalence (or participation in the population of people smoke smoke)—see Sections 13.8.2 and 13.8.4. However, these are limited by lack of reliable information on the prices of products and the volumes of sales of individual products. No data are available to the Australian Government about the identity or even the precise numbers of retailers in the market, the full range of tobacco products available for sale, the actual prices of products sold, or the volumes of sales of each type of tobacco products or even all products in total.10 It has therefore been impossible to determine a robust contemporary estimate of recent price elasticity of tobacco consumption in Australia.
13.8.2 Longitudinal analyses of price and smoking prevalence
The impact of price increases on smoking prevalence in the context of other national tobacco control policies has been extensively examined since the mid-1990s. An analysis of prices and reported consumption following the reform of the Australian tobacco tax system between 1999 and 2001 showed evidence of reduced tobacco consumption corresponding with significant declines in the affordability of cigarettes and other tobacco products.11 This study also examined with impact of these tax increases in relation to a large multi-stage National Tobacco Campaign.
In a seminal study, Wakefield and colleagues12 found that reductions in the affordability of tobacco products was the most significant contributor to the decline in smoking prevalence among Australian adults over the period of 1995 to 2006. Using time series analysis, they examined the effects of televised anti-smoking advertising, cigarette costliness, population use of pharmaceutical smoking cessation products, and the extent of smokefree restaurant laws. Relatively small increases in the costliness of cigarettes—the price of cigarettes relative to average national income—were associated with rapid reductions in smoking prevalence. Anti-smoking advertising also had a measurable impact, but the effects were not as strong as the effects of price. They concluded, that prevalence of smoking among Australian adults could be reduced by 0.3 of a percentage point by either exposing the population to televised anti-smoking ads for an average of almost four times per month (equivalent to 390 gross ratings points) or by increasing the costliness of a pack of cigarettes by 0.03% of gross average weekly earnings.12
In their subsequent study, Wakefield and colleagues13 found that cigarette costliness, measured as the proportion of weekly income that an average popular pack of cigarettes cost, made significant contribution to the decline in smoking prevalence among Australia adults between 2001 and 2011. While other measures such as smokefree policies and mass media campaigns had lagged effects on smoking prevalence, change in cigarette price had an immediate impact. In practical terms, an increase in cigarette prices equivalent to 0.08% of average weekly income would lead to a 0.3 percentage point decrease in smoking prevalence, the equivalent of an increase from $17.35 to $18.16 in the cost of an average pack of cigarettes. For the majority of this study period—2001 to April 2010—there were no real increases in the excise on tobacco products, only biannual adjustments to keep pace with inflation (indexation), designed to prevent cigarettes becoming more affordable over time. Therefore, the same research group14 examined the impact of this indexation policy on adult smoking prevalence in Australia over this period. Using time series analyses, they found that indexation adjustments to duty were not associated with changes in smoking prevalence, while increases in the non-duty component of tobacco prices—when tobacco companies increased the price above what was required by indexation—were associated with declines in prevalence. They concluded that indexation likely prevented upward pressure on smoking prevalence by stopping tobacco product becoming more affordable over time.14
This work was then extended to examine the impacts of two significant increases to tobacco excise: a 25% increase in April 2010 that was not forewarned, and four annual 12.5% increases in 2013 to 2017, that were announced well before implementation. Wilkinson and colleagues15 used interrupted time series analyses to examine the impact of changes in tobacco excise on smoking prevalence overall, and prevalence of use of factory-made cigarettes (FMC) and roll-your-own tobacco (RYO) from 2001 to 2017. There was a consistent decline in smoking prevalence over this period, with immediate and large reductions associated with the 25% increase and onset of the 12.5% tax increases: –0.745 and –0.997 percentage points, respectively. These reductions were sustained in the subsequent months. However, further examination by type of tobacco showed that the impact of the 25% increase was driven by reductions in FMC smoking, while the prevalence of use of RYO increased between May 2010 and November 2013. After the first 12.5% excise increase in December 2013, the increase in RYO use stabilised, while the decreases in FMC use continued. These trends were also observed to be more pronounced in lower socio-economic status groups. The impact of price increases on particular population groups and the types of products used is explored further in Sections 13.8.4 and 13.8.5.
13.8.3 Impact of the April 2010 25% excise increase
In addition to Wilkinson et al. (2019)15 described above, the effects of the 30 April 2010 25% excise increase on smoking and quitting behaviour was examined in several state-based studies. These studies showed increases in quitting activity and increases in price minimising behaviours such as cutting down consumption, bulk buying, and switching to lower-cost products. The impact of this tax increase on remote Aboriginal communities in Australia is described in Section 13.8.4.2.
In New South Wales, an ongoing cross-sectional tracking survey of 50 smokers and recent quitters per week was used to compare recent quitting activity (stopping smoking or trying to quit within the previous one-month period) before and after the 25% tax increase. Dunlop and colleagues16 examined the three months before and five months after the tax increase in 2010, and compared this to quitting activity in the months of the previous year (2009). The proportion of New South Wales smokers and recent quitters who reported quitting activity in May 2010 was 22% compared to 13% in the preceding month and 12% in May 2009. Respondents interviewed in the three months following the tax increase (May–July 2010) were 84% more likely to report quitting activity than those interviewed in the three months prior to the tax increase.16 Rates of monthly quitting activity returned to previous levels three months after the tax increase.
Another study in New South Wales also using this tracking survey of smokers and recent quitters aimed to quantify a broader range of possible responses to price increases.17 Responses to the price increase included smoking-related changes (trying to quit, cutting down) and product-related changes (changing to lower priced brands, switching to loose tobacco, buying in bulk). Recent quitters were asked how much the increasing price of cigarettes influenced their behaviours. Overall, 47.5% of smokers made smoking-related changes, and 11.4% made product-related changes without making smoking-related changes. Multinomial logistic regressions showed differences by demographic groups: younger smokers were more likely to make product and smoking-related changes, low and moderate income smokers were likely to make smoking related changes, and highly addicted smokers were more likely to make product changes and less likely to make smoking changes. Changes over time were also seen, where the proportion of smokers making only product-related changes decreased with time, while smoking-related changes increased. Finally, recent quitters interviewed after the tax increase were more likely to report that price influence their decision to quit than those interviewed before May 2010.
In Victoria, one study examined the impact of the 2010 tax increase through self-reported changes in smoking habits among current smokers in a telephone survey conducted in November 2010.18 Almost half of current smokers (45%) reported that they had changed their smoking behaviour in response to the price increase, by trying to quit (28%) and/or by smoking fewer cigarettes (34%). Younger smokers were most likely to report that they tried to quit (37%, compared to 27% of mid-aged and 23% of older smokers). Approximately half of people of low socio-economic status (SES) who smoke reported trying to change their behaviour compared to 45% of mid-SES and 37% of high-SES smokers. In 2010, 48% of people who smoke had changed their purchasing behaviour in at least one way following the price increase. More than 20% had looked for a cheaper source for their regular brand, while 15% switched to a cheaper brand or bought in bulk. Small proportions reported having bought loose tobacco since the price increase: 9% had bought roll-your-own tobacco, and 3% reported that they had purchased unbranded tobacco. Only 18% of smokers changed their purchasing behaviour without attempting to change their smoking behaviour.
Another study in Victoria tracked smoking and purchasing behaviour before and after the April 2010 tax increase among a cohort of 491 smokers identified in the 2009 Victorian Smoking and Health Household Survey.19 This study found that 15% of smokers from the baseline survey were no longer smokers at follow-up (nine months after the 2009 survey and three months after the increase in excise duty). Based on annual quit rates from another comparable cohort survey running in Australia since 200220 it was estimated that between one-third and one-half of the people who had quit would have done so as a result of the tax increase. About 40% of those who were not smoking at the time of the follow-up survey claimed that they had tried to quit specifically in response to the tax increase. Another 18% of respondents reported having tried to quit in response to the tax increase but were smoking again at follow-up. More than one-third (36%) of respondents at follow-up indicated that they had tried to cut down on consumption in direct response to the tax increase. The average reported number of cigarettes smoked per day among those who smoked either factory-made or roll-your-own cigarettes regularly in both years declined from 15.45 per day to 15.02, with the decline most pronounced among the heaviest smokers. While 42% of the cohort responded to the increase in duty by engaging in some form of price-minimising behaviour (such as buying bulk or switching to a cheaper brand), the average price paid per stick still increased by 23%, in line with the 20% increases in recommended retail prices following the increase.
13.8.4 Impact of price increases on specific population groups
Several of the studies described in Section 13.8.2 and 13.8.3 have shown differential impacts of price increases on tobacco use among population groups. For example, Wilkinson et al.15 showed that changes in tobacco use associated with major increases in tobacco excise—declines in factory-made cigarette smoking with small but significant increases in use of roll-your-own tobacco—were more evident among low socio-economic smokers. Studies of the impacts of the 2010 25% excise increased showed greater likelihood of changes to smoking behaviour among lower and moderate income smokers,17,19 and greater likelihood of changes to both smoking and product related behaviours among younger adults.17 This section focuses on the limited number of studies that have specifically examined the impact of tobacco prices and taxes on particular population groups in Australia.
13.8.4.1 Socio-economic disadvantage
Siahpush and colleagues21 demonstrated that raising tobacco prices can not only decrease smoking in the total population, but due to the greater impact of price increases on low-income smokers, price increases can also reduce disparities in smoking rates. They used cross-sectional monthly survey data from 1991 to 2006 inclusive, during which time several substantial increases to tobacco excise occurred but also there was an extended period of indexation-only adjustment to excise. More than 500,000 adult Australians living the five largest capital cities were surveyed about their smoking behaviour. Respondents were categorised as low, medium or high income based on the real income of the main income earner of the household. The real price of two popular cigarette brands was average for each state represented in the survey sample. A strong inverse relationship between cigarette prices and smoking prevalence was found, and this relationship was strongest among the low-income group. These findings equated to a $1 increase in the real price of tobacco resulting in a decline in prevalence of 2.6% among the low-income group, compared to a decrease of 0.3% and 0.2% in the medium- and high- income groups, respectively. The authors estimated that the prevalence price elasticity for Australian adults in these income groups was –0.32 for low, –0.4 for medium, and –0.2 for high.
The impact of financial stress on changes in smoking prevalence resulting from price increases was examined in a modelling study by Martire and colleagues (2010).22 They examined price elasticity in the US and Australia by modelling the impact of hypothetical large price increases in each country, then repeated the models accounting for financial stress. Financial stress was assumed to reduce the likelihood of making a quit attempt by 26%, and reduce the likelihood of a successful quit attempt by 49%. This reduction in quitting behaviour was applied to the proportion of the population in each country who reported experiencing financial stress in the past month. They found that the model that did not account for the impact of financial stress on quitting success overestimated the impact of the price increase, particularly for low income groups. They also found that the large price increase they modelled—49% in Australia—increased the proportion of Australian smokers who were experiencing financial stress.
13.8.4.2 Aboriginal people living in remote communities
There is very limited evidence on the impact of tax increases on tobacco use among Indigenous people.23 Two studies have examined the impact major increases to tobacco excise on Aboriginal people living in remote areas of Australia. The first examined impact of the 25% excise increase in April 2010 on tobacco sales and use in Aboriginal communities in Western Australia and the Northern Territory.24 Tobacco sales in 18 stores located in remote communities were examined for the 7 months prior to and 7 months following the tax increase. The observed 2.2% decline in average sales was not significant, with substantial variability across the stores examined. The authors suggest seasonal effects inherent in the data due to different months being examined contributed to reduced apparent impact of the tax increase. Interviews with 54 members of six communities also gave insight into changes in smoking and purchasing behaviour associated with the tax increase. For example, interviewees reported more demands to share cigarettes, and a perception of more reliance on those with more disposable income to purchase cigarettes for others, however there was no evidence of other price minimising behaviours in the sales data examined.24
The second study examined the impact of three annual 12.5% excise increases from 2016 to 2018 on tobacco sales in 32 stores in Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory.23 Interrupted time series analysis of weekly sales data examined the effect of the three tax increases on sales of tobacco products and fruit and vegetables. Examination of prices showed that the excise increases were passed on in full each year. Immediate declines of 5.8%, 1.6% (non-significant), and 8.2% were associated with the 2016, 2017, and 2018 tax increases, respectively. Notably, these decreases were mostly attributed to decreases in sales of mainstream and premium factory-made cigarette brands. Sales of RYO tobacco increased to 2018, following a drop in sales associated with the 2018 excise increase, in which the second adjustment to RYO excise was applied (see Section 13.6.c). Following this, RYO sales increased again, partially offset by declines in factory-made cigarette sales. There were no changes in sales of fruit and vegetables associated with the excise increases. This study was the first to demonstrate price sensitivity in response to tobacco tax increases among remote Aboriginal communities.23
13.8.4.3 Young people
The impact of tobacco prices, relative to other tobacco control policies, on smoking prevalence among Australian adolescents was examined over a 15-year period from 1990 to 2005. 25 The study examined past-month smoking from cross-sectional surveys of more than 20,000 secondary school students aged 12 to 17 years across Australia, and quantified the impact of policies relating to youth access to tobacco, indoor smokefree laws, advertising bans, per capital tobacco control spending, and tobacco price. Tobacco price was defined as the change in real price per stick of popular cigarette brands. Adjusting for other tobacco control policies, a 1 cent increase in price per stick was associated with a significant 2% decline in past-month smoking (odds ratio: 0.98 (95% confidence interval: 0.97-0.99), p<0.01). Greater tobacco control spending and indoor smokefree policies were also associated with declines in adolescent smoking. The authors concluded that tobacco control policies targeted at adults, when part of a well-funded tobacco control program, also contribute to declines in adolescent smoking.25
13.8.5 Relationship between price and smoking and quitting behaviours
As described in Section 13.8.2 above, several studies showed that the April 2010 25% tax increase prompted many Australian smokers to make quit attempts, reduce their smoking, and make changes to their tobacco purchasing behaviours.
In a systematic review of international studies examining price minimising behaviours, Cho and colleagues identified types legal and illegal behaviours, summarised in Table 13.8.1.
13.8.5.1 Product use and purchasing behaviours in Australia
Other studies have examined they ways that Australian smokers engage in price minimising behaviours over periods in which the prices of tobacco products have increased. As Australian tobacco sales data are not available to researchers, these studies often rely on periodical survey data for information on what products smokers are using and self-reported changes in behaviour.
Several studies have used data from the International Tobacco Control survey to compare product use behaviours in Australia compared to other jurisdictions, or to examine patterns within Australia over time. Studies combining ITC data from Australia, the United Kingdom, United States, and Canada demonstrated that smokers of low socioeconomic status were 25% more likely to engage in price minimising behaviours, such as purchasing lower-priced products or buying in bulk,26 but that smokers from any SES group (across all countries examined) that do engage in these behaviours were 28% less likely to report quitting smoking at follow-up.27
A study using ITC data over 2002 to 2012—a period of mostly indexation-only adjustments to tobacco prices then a large increase in excise in 2010—found Australian smokers to be highly brand loyal, especially among higher-income smokers, but that price was a major consideration for those that did switch brands.28 However, later analyses by Cho and colleagues29 showed that over 2007 to 2020—a period of numerous large increase to tobacco excise—there were notable changes to Australians’ tobacco purchasing patterns. Both the brands commonly purchased and the type of tobacco used changed over time, especially among low income smokers and those with higher nicotine dependence: budget brands became more popular, and exclusive use of FMCs decreased while use of RYO tobacco became more popular. Differences in pack size preferences were observed: use of larger FMC packs, which represent better value per stick, increased until smaller pack sizes with lower upfront purchase prices became more popular after 2016. Small RYO pouch sizes also increased in popularity, as these were progressively introduced to the market.
Finally, self-reported consumption of RYO tobacco in the ITC survey from 2006 to 2015 showed that Australian smokers were rolling progressively lower-weight RYO cigarettes over time, using an average as 0.53 grams of tobacco per cigarette in 2015 (standard deviation: 0.28 grams).30 This has corresponded to the availability of very thin ‘micro’ RYO cigarette filters in Australia.31
13.8.5.2 Quitting motivation and intentions
Intentions to quit smoking or reduce consumption in response to a hypothetical price increase tend to be higher among those who live in areas with high cigarette prices, such as Australia, or who buy higher-price cigarette products, however, the magnitude of the price increase is more important to motivation than current prices.32
Many smokers report that high prices of tobacco products are a key factor motivating their attempts to quit or cut down smoking. Figure 13.8.3 presents from the National Drug Strategy Household Survey showing that the proportion of smokers who made changes to their smoking behaviour, such as attempting to quit or reducing their consumption, who cited the cost of smoking as a motivating factor increased from 2007 to 2019, as tobacco excise increased substantially in 2010 and from late 2013. While the proportion who were motivated by cost decreased from 2019 to 2022–23, it remained above 50%. The proportion of smokers who stated that an increase in cost would motivate them to quit has remained steady at around 24% since 2016.
Related reading
Test your knowledge
References
1. Gallet C and List J. Cigarette demand: a meta-analysis of elasticities. Health Economics, 2003; 12(10):821–35. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14508867/
2. US National Cancer Institute and World Health Organization, The Economics of Tobacco and Tobacco Control. National Cancer Institute Tobacco Control Monograph 21. NIH Publication No. 16-CA-8029A. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute; and Geneva, CH: World Health Organization; 2016. Available from: https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/tcrb/monographs/21/docs/m21_complete.pdf.
3. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Chapter 4. Tax, price and aggregate demand for tobacco products, in Effectiveness of tax and price policies for tobacco control. Lyon, France: IARC; 2011. Available from: http://www.iarc.fr/en/publications/list/handbooks/.
4. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Consumer Price Index FAQs. Canberra 2024. Last update: Viewed 27/02/2024. Available from: https://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/home/consumer+price+index+faqs.
5. Alchin T. Tobacco taxation in Australia. in The 21st Conference of Economists. Melbourne, Australia. The University of Melbourne; 1992.
6. The World Bank. Curbing the epidemic: governments and the economics of tobacco control. Washington: World Bank, 1999. Available from: https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/914041468176678949/curbing-the-epidemic-governments-and-the-economics-of-tobacco-control.
7. Bardsley P and Olekalns N. The impact of anti-smoking policies on tobacco consumption in Australia. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 1999; 9(3):202–5. Available from: http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=458489558583424;res=IELHEA
8. Borland R. On apparent consumption and what goes up in smoke: a commentary on Bardsley & Olekalns. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 1999; 9(3):208–9. Available from: http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=458452292640908;res=IELHEA
9. Chapman S. Commentary: if you can't count it... it doesn't count: the poverty of econometrics in explaining complex social and behavioural change. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 1999; 9:206-7. Available from: http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/tobacco-related-papers/HPJAEconometrics.pdf
10. Scollo M. 2.6 Comparisons of quality and results using various estimates of tobacco consumption in Australia, in Tobacco in Australia: Facts & issues. Greenhalgh E, Scollo M, and Winstanley M, Editors. Melbourne: Cancer Council Victoria; 2020. Available from: https://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-2-consumption/2-6-comparisons-of-quality-and-results-using-vario.
11. Scollo M, Younie S, Wakefield M, Freeman J, and Icasiano F. Impact of tobacco tax reforms on tobacco prices and tobacco use in Australia. Tobacco Control, 2003; 12(suppl. 2):ii59–66. Available from: http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/suppl_2/ii59
12. Wakefield M, Durkin S, Spittal M, Siahpush M, Scollo M, et al. Impact of tobacco control policies and mass media campaigns on monthly adult smoking prevalence: time series analysis. American Journal of Public Health, 2008; 98:1443-50. Available from: http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/98/8/1443
13. Wakefield M, Coomber K, Durkin S, Scollo M, Bayly M, et al. Which policies reduce adult smoking prevalence? A time series analysis of Australian monthly adult smoking prevalence, 2001-2011. World Health Organization Bulletin, 2014; 92(4):413–22. Available from: http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/92/6/en/
14. Wilkinson AL, Scollo M, Durkin SJ, Bayly M, Spittal MJ, et al. Indexation of Tobacco Excise and Customs Duty and Smoking Prevalence Among Australian Adults, 2001-2010: A Serial Cross-sectional Study. Nicotine Tob Res, 2018. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30304468
15. Wilkinson AL, Scollo MM, Wakefield MA, Spittal MJ, Chaloupka FJ, et al. Smoking prevalence following tobacco tax increases in Australia between 2001 and 2017: an interrupted time-series analysis. Lancet Public Health, 2019. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31759897
16. Dunlop S, Cotter T, and Perez D. Impact of the 2010 tobacco tax increase in Australia on short-term smoking cessation: a continuous tracking survey. Medical Journal of Australia, 2011; 195(8):469–72. Available from: http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/195_08_171011/dun10074_fm.html
17. Dunlop SM, Perez D, and Cotter T. Australian smokers’ and recent quitters’ responses to the increasing price of cigarettes in the context of a tobacco tax increase. Addiction, 2011; 106(9):1687-95. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03492.x
18. Hayes L. Smokers' responses to the 2010 increase to tobacco excise; findings from the 2009 and 2010 Victorian Smoking and Health Surveys. Melbourne, Australia: Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, 2011.
19. Scollo M, Zacher M, Warne C, Hayes L, Durkin S, et al. Impact in Victoria of the April 2010 25% increase in excise on tobacco products in Australia. Short-term effects on prevalence, reported quitting and, reported consumption, real cost, and price-minimising strategies. Melbourne, Australia: Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, 2012.
20. Fong GT, Cummings KM, Borland R, Hastings G, Hyland A, et al. The conceptual framework of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Policy Evaluation Project. Tobacco Control, 2006; 15(suppl_3):iii3-11. Available from: http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/15/suppl_3/iii3
21. Siahpush M, Wakefield M, Spittal M, Durkin S, and Scollo M. Taxation reduces social disparities in adult smoking prevalence. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2009; 36(4):285–91. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19201146?ordinalpos=19&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVBrief
22. Martire K, Mattick R, Doran C, and Hall W. Cigarette tax and public health: what are the implications of financially stressed smokers for the effects of price increases on smoking prevalence? Addiction, 2011; 106(3):622-30. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03174.x/full
23. Thomas DP, McMahon E, Wang Z, Scollo MM, and Durkin SJ. Impact of three annual tobacco tax rises on tobacco sales in remote Australian Aboriginal community stores. Tobacco Control, 2020. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32967983
24. Thomas DP, Ferguson M, Johnston V, and Brimblecombe J. Impact and Perceptions of Tobacco Tax Increase in Remote Australian Aboriginal Communities. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2012; 15(6):1099–106. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/nts232
25. White V, Warne C, Spittal M, Durkin S, Purcell K, et al. What impact have tobacco control policies, cigarette price and tobacco control program funding had on Australian adolescents' smoking? Findings over a 15-year period. Addiction, 2011; 106(8):1493-502. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03429.x/pdf
26. Licht AS, Hyland AJ, O’Connor RJ, Chaloupka FJ, Borland R, et al. Socio-economic variation in price minimizing behaviors: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) four country survey. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2011; 8(1):234–52. Available from: http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/8/1/234/pdf
27. Licht AS, Hyland AJ, O’Connor RJ, Chaloupka FJ, Borland R, et al. How Do Price Minimizing Behaviors Impact Smoking Cessation? Findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2011; 8(5):1671-91. Available from: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/8/5/1671
28. Cowie GA, Swift E, Borland R, Chaloupka FJ, and Fong GT. Cigarette brand loyalty in Australia: findings from the ITC four country survey. Tobacco Control, 2013. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/09/27/tobaccocontrol-2013-051071.abstract
29. Cho A, Scollo M, Chan G, Driezen P, Hyland A, et al. Tobacco purchasing in Australia during regular tax increases: findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project. Tob Control, 2023. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37652676
30. Branston JR, McNeill A, Gilmore AB, Hiscock R, and Partos TR. Keeping smoking affordable in higher tax environments via smoking thinner roll-your-own cigarettes: Findings from the International Tobacco Control Four Country Survey 2006-15. Drug Alcohol Depend, 2018; 193:110-6. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30352334
31. Bayly M, Scollo MM, and Wakefield MA. Who uses rollies? Trends in product offerings, price and use of roll-your-own tobacco in Australia. Tob Control, 2019; 28(3):317-24. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30030409
32. Ross H, Blecher E, Yan L, and Cummings K. Predictors of what smokers say they will do in response to future price increases: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country survey. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2011; 13(6):419-25. Available from: http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/03/08/ntr.ntr015.full