Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This legislation, the Customs Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009 and a related bill, is asking the parliament to validate the increased tax on ready-to-drinks and is a clear demonstration that the Rudd Labor government does not believe in evidence based policy. Nearly 12 months ago the government increased the tax on ready-to-drinks by 70 per cent, and of course for political purposes the government dressed that up as a health measure. It is much easier to sell an increased tax, a $3.1 billion tax measure, if you can dress it up as something aimed at reducing binge drinking, reducing risky levels of alcohol consumption and reducing alcohol abuse related harm in the community.

Who would not agree that we should do everything we can to reduce binge drinking, to reduce alcohol abuse related harm and, more broadly, to reduce risky levels of alcohol consumption? But has the government presented us with any evidence whatsoever that as a result of this measure or since this measure came into effect on 27 April 2008 there has been a reduction in any of those indicators that I have just listed? Has the government presented us with any evidence that there has been a reduction in risky levels of alcohol consumption in the target group that the minister keeps talking about? She points out that this particular measure is aimed at younger people. Has the minister, the government or anybody presented us with any evidence that, as a result of this measure or since it became effective on 27 April 2008, there has been a reduction in alcohol abuse related harm in the community? No, of course the government has not, and neither has anybody else, not those who came before the inquiry last week to argue strongly that the Senate should support this measure and not the government.

The opposition pursued a Senate inquiry into this measure by the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs to give the Rudd Labor government every opportunity to present any evidence it had that the measure had worked, that the measure had indeed been effective in reducing alcohol related harm in the community. We have been asking the government for months to present us with the evidence. At Senate estimates in October we put a whole series of questions on notice. It took four or five months for the government to even get back to us, and some were straightforward questions—for example, this question to Treasury: how much additional revenue have you raised as a result of this increased tax on ready-to-drinks? It was not answered. Do you know what the reply from Treasury was? Do you know what the reply was from this arrogant government? ‘This information is not publicly available’—as if Senate committees could only ask questions about information that is on the public record. Why do we have Senate inquiries? Why do we have estimates processes if it is not to scrutinise the government and check whether what it said in the budget it would achieve is actually being achieved?

Focusing on the health aspects of this legislation for a moment, it is true to say that all of the health groups and experts came to our inquiry and said that they wanted this legislation supported by the Senate. Yet at the same time and within three minutes of that evidence being put to the community affairs committee—in the same breath—most of them said: ‘What we ultimately want is a volumetric approach to alcohol taxation. We want those beverages with less alcohol content to be taxed less than those beverages with a higher alcohol content because we think that ultimately that is the most effective way to address the alcohol abuse related problems in our community.’

You cannot have it both ways. I think that when they were asked questions about it during the Senate inquiry some witnesses actually realised that their logic was flawed—because you cannot argue that we should ramp up a tax on one product that is comparatively low in alcohol content while at the same time pursue a taxation regime that will result in lower levels of taxation for those same products. Considering that most of the health groups put the proposition that their holy grail—what they ultimately wanted to achieve—was a volumetric approach to alcohol taxation, I put it to the Senate that if that is the ultimate public health policy objective then this measure is a step in the wrong direction.

I just want to reflect on process for a moment. This measure became effective—it was implemented by the government—nearly 12 months ago. We are debating this measure in the Senate with four sitting days to go before we reach the ultimate deadline. There is absolutely no room for the Senate to have a proper conversation about whether this is an effective measure or whether it ought to be improved. The government ought to be ashamed of the way they are treating the Senate in relation to what they call an important piece of legislation. No doubt the government were concerned that perhaps they did not have the support of the Senate for the 70 per cent increase in the tax on ready-to-drink beverages. Let us just put this measure into the context of the budget. This was announced as part of an organised pre-budget leak towards the end of April—in good time for the Sunday papers. That date, 27 April, was a Sunday and all of the Sunday papers had a well-informed source, a ‘senior government official’, who happened to know a lot about the purpose of this tax grab from a health policy point of view. In the budget the government wanted to raise $3.1 billion with this tax. Just remember that this was after the government came out of a pre-election period where the Prime Minister sold himself as an economic and fiscal conservative. I know that that seems like a very long time ago. This was the period before the government rediscovered the ‘temporary deficit’. It was at a time when the government thought it was still important to maintain the pretence of preserving the surplus that was left to them by the previous government.

Let us just remind ourselves that the first budget of the Rudd Labor government increased net spending by $15 billion and increased taxes by nearly $20 billion. This is obviously not the message that the Rudd Labor government wanted to be out there in the community. So what did the government do? They quickly went ahead to find a couple of tax measures that were politically palatable: ‘How can we apply a tax to some people who are easy targets?’ or ‘How can we apply a tax and make sure that the community is going to go along with it? How can we make sure that the community is not going to come after us, because, contrary to what we said before the election, we are increasing taxes by nearly $20 billion in this budget?’ So they came up with a couple of measures, and this one was the biggest—at that time, at least. Things have changed in relation to that too. At the time the government thought that this was going to raise $3.1 billion.

As I said in my opening remarks, how can anyone possibly disagree that we should do everything we can to reduce binge drinking? If that was what this legislation did, how could we disagree? We would not. But this legislation does not do that. Who can forget—I am sure Senator Cash will remember it—the $2½ billion tax on the North West Shelf gas project? Who can disagree with hitting big oil and gas businesses with a tax slug? Essentially, we had a government, in their first term, looking for the easy tax targets. They were looking for a way to preserve the $22 billion surplus that they were left with.

So what is the government actually doing? It is talking about jacking up a tax on sweet drinks, but essentially all the government is doing is abolishing the category ‘other excisable beverages not exceeding 10 per cent by volume of alcohol’. In effect, the government is putting those ready-to-drinks with less than 10 per cent alcohol into the category of full-strength spirits. Since 27 April 2008 those ready-to-drinks with an alcohol content of less than 10 per cent have been taxed at the same rate as full-strength spirits. What is the logic in that? Essentially the government is removing the incentive—which is generally promoted by health groups, and was promoted by health groups before our community affairs committee inquiry—which is aimed at encouraging the consumption of comparatively lower strength alcoholic beverages. This legislation before the Senate today seeks to validate that decision. Where does this fit with the logic promoted by health groups that what they want is taxation of alcohol based on the level of alcohol content—on the strength of the alcohol in particular beverages? The reality is that it does not.

Before the election, and since, we have heard a lot from the Prime Minister putting the proposition that Labor was committed to evidence based policy development. It is quite funny, because, about three days after a senior government official leaked this particular measure, the Prime Minister addressed a number of senior officials, heads of agencies and other senior executive officers in the Great Hall in Parliament House and essentially told them that as part of its agenda for the Public Service the government was committed to ensuring ‘a robust, evidence based policymaking process’. He said:

Policy design and policy evaluation should be driven by analysis of all the available options, and not by ideology.

He went on:

The Government will not adopt overseas models uncritically.

We’re interested in facts, not fads.

Coalition senators identified in the first report that there was no evidence to suggest that this measure would work. In fact, where people had tried this overseas, the evidence demonstrated very clearly that it had not worked. In particular, evidence was brought forward about Germany. They increased a similar tax in 2004 only to see the consumption of alcohol increase in the period from 2004 to 2007. In promoting this particular measure, the government, in its rhetoric, relied very heavily on the data that came out of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s 2007 National Drug Strategy Household Survey. For example, this is what the Treasurer, Mr Swan, said when he was asked about this on 30 April:

… I can’t comment on budget decisions, that’s for Budget night. I just make this point about the excise increase on RTDs: that was closing a loophole that was left open some years ago, and it also relates to teenage binge drinking. So, it was a very specific initiative for very specific reasons.

David Speers, a very smart man, said:

… But teenagers binge drink beer and other drinks as well.

No kidding! Here is the Treasurer’s response:

… I think the evidence is pretty clear from all of the experts that this measure will have an impact on teenage binge drinking, and it should be seen in that light, not in the light of revenue.

We have been asking the government ever since to show us that evidence and we still have not seen it. We have tried every procedural trick in the book, including an order of the Senate, to try to force the government to provide us with some information. We have given the government every opportunity to show us some evidence, including a Senate inquiry which took place over two days last week. Here is a quote from the Prime Minister. A caller to Neil Mitchell’s show on Radio 3AW in Melbourne on 2 May 2008 said:

… But, these prices are also affecting the prices that adults, that have paid taxes like myself for 30 years, we’re just an average family, and mixed drinks like Johnny Walker and cola or Jim Bean and cola have all gone up.

The Prime Minister said:

… Well, we’ve got a real problem when it comes to teenage binge drinking. Talk to any police commissioner across the country and they’ll tell you that.

Later he said:

… the National Household Drugs Survey says that we’ve now got 30-40,000 teenage girls aged 14-19 and 23,000 boys the same age, consuming alcohol at a level that puts them at high risk of long term harm.

If ever there were selective quoting this was it. Have a look at the evidence and have a look at the submissions put to the committee by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. This is what they said about their 2007 National Drug Strategy Household Survey findings. They said a number of things, including:

• the overall drinking drinking status of the Australian population has been stable over the past two decades.
• there has been a modest increase in the apparent consumption of —

RTD—

alcohol beverages over the past five years

• the preference for RTDs has increased slightly over the period 2001-2007, particularly in older age groups …
• there has been virtually no change in the pattern of risky drinking over the period 2001-2007, including among young Australians … the increased availability of RTDs does not appear to have directly contributed to an increase in risky alcohol consumption

How could the Prime Minister get it so wrong when the evidence is so clear? Looking at the very extensive surveys conducted in 2001, 2004 and 2007 by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, we see they identified that the drink of choice for those drinking alcohol at risky or high-risk levels was—guess what? Do you think it was alcopops? Do you think it was RTDs? No, it was not. It was full-strength beer for males of all age groups, including 14- to 19-year-olds; full-strength bottled spirits and liqueurs for females in the age bracket 14 to 29; and wine for females 30 years and older. It looks like David Speers of Sky News was onto something.

So much for evidence based policy development! But that was then. The reason we had this inquiry was that we thought it had been nearly a year and perhaps the government had been able to collect some data. Perhaps the government now had some evidence that this measure had actually worked in reducing at-risk levels of alcohol consumption or alcohol abuse related harm in the community. The stated objective of the government was to reduce binge drinking, particularly among young people, to reduce at-risk levels of alcohol consumption and alcohol abuse related harm. Is that what we have seen? No, the only thing we have seen is a collapse in the estimated revenue, down by $1.5 billion. When you think it cannot go further, this government takes spin to another level. We have a government that estimated a year ago that this was going to bring in $3.1 billion. But it has missed out on $1.5 billion already. So what does the minister do? She turns around and says, ‘That’s what we always wanted. This just proves that the measure is really working.’ Where did it say that in the budget papers? Where did it say in the budget papers that the government expected to collect $1.5 billion less?

Look at the fine print. The government did actually have to provide some of the answers through some of the processes that we followed. Having listened to the minister over the last couple of weeks, you would say that the government expects alcopops consumption to be reduced as a result of this measure into the future. Senator Nick Xenophon, you should listen to this very carefully. The government, as a result of this measure, still expects alcopops consumption to increase over the years ahead from 2009-10 onwards and by 7.8 per cent every year. All of this spin and all of this rhetoric that this measure has been successful in reducing the consumption of RTDs is just that—spin and rhetoric. If you look at the figures in the MYEFO for 2008-09, clearance growth rate estimates, you see a 7.8 per cent increase in the sale and consumption of RTDs in 2009-10 and in every single one of the out years.

Is there any evidence of reduced consumption among problem drinkers? I am starting to run out of time, but I invite you to look very closely through the coalition senators’ dissenting report. You will see a whole series of quotes and statements made by various health experts, health professionals and health association representatives. Every single one of them conceded that there was absolutely no evidence that, since this measure had been implemented, there had been a reduction in at-risk levels of alcohol consumption or a reduction in harm from alcohol related abuse in the community.

Are Australians drinking less? It is true to say that in 2008 there was a reduction in the sale of RTDs. Who would have expected anything else? I agree with the proposition that if you increase price you will reduce demand. But who is drinking less? The reality is what is happening, and how sustainable is that? The Australian Drug Foundation and a lot of the other health groups presented a survey from ACNielsen. The Australian Drug Foundation also presented us with a very good graph that showed that overall alcohol consumption, compared with the same months in the previous year, has been trending upwards. In December and January, after eight months of this measure being in place, alcohol consumption was higher than it was in the same months the year before. Given that there was not any reduction in emergency department admissions as a result of alcohol abuse during the first eight months of this measure, now that we are back in an upwards trend do not expect any reductions in alcohol related hospital admissions in the future, and certainly not just as a result of this measure. The government will have to do all sorts of other things. (Time expired)

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Greens have maintained a consistent position on this issue throughout this debate on the Customs Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009 and related bill. We made it clear from the outset that we want a comprehensive approach when dealing with the abuse of alcohol in this country. We have a clear position focused on harm minimisation, reducing the influence of alcohol on our culture, protecting the young and the vulnerable and offering help and support to those in need. Our position is evidence based and, believe me, we have researched the issue very thoroughly. Our position is consistent with that advocated by doctors, public health advocates and drug and alcohol experts, and it has been developed in consultation with these groups.

We support, in principle, taxation measures that increase the costs of ‘bads’, which are the things that incur a cost to society, that cause people harm or do damage to the environment. Such measures send both a clear price signal and the message that these activities are undesirable. It also provides a secure source of revenue that can and should be directed to reducing the harm caused by these things. The impact of alcohol, its cost and the harm it does are very significant in our community. We noted with interest a statement released today by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians entitled ‘Alcohol taxation policy in Australia: public health imperatives for action’. The statement quotes figures in relation to alcohol harm and points out that, yet again, they are at an unacceptable level. It documents the following facts:

An estimated 3494 Australians died in the 2004–05 financial year because of their alcohol consumption.

The estimated cost to Australian society of alcohol-related health harms, lost productivity, and crime in 2004–05 was $15.3 billion.

In 2003, an estimated 3.2% of the total burden of disease and injury in Australia was attributable to alcohol.

In 2007, 37.4% of males and 41.2% of females aged 14–19 years reported consuming alcohol at a level that placed them at risk of short-term harm (eg, being involved in a fight or a car crash, or engaging in risky sexual behaviour) in the past year. Just under one in 10 in this age group (8.8% of males, 9.4% of females) did so every week..

In the 10 years to 2002, an estimated five people aged 15–24 years died and 216 were admitted to hospital every week as a result of drinking alcohol. People of this age account for about 52% of all alcohol-related serious road injuries.

In other words, alcohol places a very high financial cost on our society, but you cannot put a dollar value on the harm that it causes in terms of the misery, grief, assaults et cetera that arise from alcohol abuse.

At the same time that this alcohol related harm costs our community over $15 billion a year, alcohol delivers to the Commonwealth over $7 billion a year in customs and excise revenue—that is a lot of money. And that was before the introduction of the additional excise on RTDs, which is estimated to be $1.6 billion over the next four years. We believe the government needs to be spending much more of this money on preventing harm, reducing impacts and helping those who suffer. We have evidence of what works to reduce the risky consumption of alcohol, in addition to tobacco and junk food. It is not enough to put in place a price mechanism alone. We need a comprehensive strategy that will tackle alcohol in the way that we have tackled tobacco. As I said, the Greens have consistently advocated this position since this tax was introduced. Unfortunately, the government is offering only partial measures and holding back from tackling some of the most substantial issues, such as stopping the advertising of alcohol to children, phasing out alcohol sponsorship of sport, taking a tougher approach to the alcohol-fuelled bad behaviour of some of our high-profile people, mandating warning messages on all alcohol advertising and at points of sale, requiring prominent hard-hitting warning labels and investing in early identification, counselling and rehabilitation.

We do not believe it is acceptable for the government to sit back and rake in the alcohol tax dollars without taking a more comprehensive approach and investing more of the massive revenue from alcohol taxes in addressing alcohol related harm. We believe there is an absolute moral imperative for the government to act on this more comprehensive approach. All the public health experts have told us the same thing over and over again in evidence: we need a comprehensive approach. In the evidence presented to the committee—and I was obviously listening to different experts or to a different committee from that mentioned by Senator Cormann, because I heard the health advocates speak very strongly in favour of this tax.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did they give you any evidence?

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They also presented a large amount of evidence that I will get to in a minute. They did say that they would prefer a more comprehensive approach and that the alcopops tax needs to be part of an integrated and sustained national campaign if we want to turn around this scourge on our society. They said that we need more dollars invested in things that work.

High levels of risky drinking and high rates of alcohol related harm among young Australians are unfortunately nothing new. This is in fact not a sudden crisis. The real growth in risky drinking occurred in the eighties and it has been sustained since then. The medical evidence shows that, as does the evidence as to alcohol sales. It also shows that there has been a shift in the pattern of drinking, a shift to RTDs. In fact, Australia has the dubious distinction of having the highest rates of sales of RTDs in the world. Since the eighties, consumption has plateaued, but it remains very high in world terms. In other words, just to say that it has plateaued and that therefore we do not have a problem is not right. We have an exceedingly high rate of abuse of alcohol consumption in world terms. Therefore, we do need to be doing something about it.

The Greens are particularly concerned about the growth in the sales of alcopops. Their sweetness, we believe, is clearly designed to mask the taste of alcohol and make them particularly attractive to young drinkers. They are colourful and are designed to appeal to young drinkers. They have a high alcohol content. Their marketing is directed towards the young, despite what the industry says. It increases risky drinking behaviour by the young, particularly by young women. Unfortunately, there are lots of media stories about the risky drinking behaviour of young people.

The evidence presented to the Senate committee indicated that the RTD excise has reduced the sales of RTDs. I do not think there is any dispute from any of us about that. In fact, it also showed that overall sales of alcohol have gone down very slightly. There has been some level of substitution, but that is relatively small. The Australia Taxation Office figures show that the growth in excisable alcohol consumption—that is, beer, spirits and RTDs—has slowed by 0.1 per cent since the increase in the excise of RTDs for the period from May 2008 to January 2009. That is compared with the previous year. By comparison, the previous three years recorded solid growth in excisable alcohol consumption: 6.6 per cent in 2005-06, two per cent in 2006-07 and 2.7 per cent in 2007-08. So there was a very slight decrease in alcohol sales.

Evidence shows that young drinkers and problem drinkers are particularly sensitive to price signals. Increasing the cost of alcohol, particularly those drinks whose taste and marketing appeal to young drinkers, is more likely to delay when underage drinkers start drinking and how much they drink. The article I referred to earlier from the Royal Australasian College of Physicians also points out:

A 2009 review of 112 studies found that higher taxes and prices led to reduced consumption of alcohol, both for overall consumption and for measures of heavy drinking. In particular, young people’s drinking was very sensitive to price because their discretionary income is relatively small. A recent World Health Organization expert committee report concluded:

Policies that increase alcohol prices have been shown to reduce the proportion of young people who are heavy drinkers, to reduce underage drinking, and to reduce per occasion binge drinking. Higher prices also delay intentions among younger teenagers to start drinking and slow progression towards drinking larger amounts.

Substitution does remain a risk for those with established drinking patterns, which is why we need a comprehensive approach. In Scotland, for example, they are looking at other price mechanisms, such as the minimum price per standard drink. It was also in the media over the last few days or so that England is considering a similar sort of approach.

The Greens remain concerned that without complementary measures the impact of the RTD excise on levels of harmful drinking may be short lived. We believe we have a small window of opportunity that may be squandered if we do not put in place complementary measures. The Greens believe that the sales data indicates that there has been a reduction in consumption and that there has been some substitution but that that in no way matches the decrease in RTDs. But, as I said, we are very worried that what will happen is that this opportunity will be lost, that the price mechanism will become less and less effective if we do not also put in place comprehensive measures that the research very clearly shows are needed. Overseas evidence also indicates that where price has been used as a mechanism it has been successful when it has been done through a comprehensive approach. Where it has been used as a single mechanism it has failed. The evidence that was just quoted from overseas is selective in that the surveys do not include complementary measures, which is why the Greens are so emphatic that this measure needs to be part of a comprehensive package and have complementary measures included.

The Greens have been raising the issue of advertising. Our policy position for a number of years has been that we should end all advertising of alcohol products in the same way that we have ended the advertising of tobacco products. We first need to close the loophole that is in place at the moment that allows some advertising of alcohol to kids during sports transmissions. We need to expand the time when kids are not able to watch alcohol advertising on television to least 9.30 at night. We believe that there need to be very clear mandatory warnings on all alcohol advertising about the harm that alcohol can do. We also believe that the voluntary regulation of the industry has failed.

At this point I would like to point out my dismay and disgust at the campaign that the industry have run undermining this particular measure and the fact that Australia should be doing something about alcohol abuse in this country. That they offered every politician in this building alcopops just before Christmas absolutely dismayed me. I thought it was a disgrace that they should be out there campaigning and lobbying politicians in such a manner. They also refused, during the Senate inquiry, to tell us how much they had spent on advertising and promoting a position contrary to this pricing measure and undercutting it. It was very difficult, therefore, for the committee to establish how much their negative campaign had undermined the success of the price mechanism. They used ‘commercial-in-confidence’ as an excuse for not informing the committee as to how much they had actually invested in trying to stop this mechanism.

The industry were also unable to tell us how much had been spent in their promotional activities offering bottles of spirits with free bottles of Coke to replace alcopops—again, undermining the success of this measure. I do not know how many ads were placed in newspapers across this country encouraging people to beat the ‘alcopops meanies’ by buying straight spirits and mixing them with free bottles of Coke—again, undermining the intent of this measure.

The Greens are particularly concerned about the links between sports sponsorship and alcohol. Again, we think these links need to be broken. We believe sports sponsorship by the alcohol industry at every level of sport needs to be stopped, the same way it was with tobacco. We made that decision years ago because we understood the links between tobacco and sports sponsorship, and the same links are there between alcohol and sports sponsorship. We believe we need to phase that out. We cannot stop it straightaway of course, because we need to do it in a rational manner. We believe we need to start substituting alcohol industry funding of sporting bodies with funding from other sponsors. We need to encourage sports through sponsorship that promotes public health messages. We believe we need to offer help to local clubs and community organisations and give them a choice—to replace alcohol sponsorship or local tavern sponsorship with sponsorship promoting a healthy lifestyle. We also strongly encourage identifying and supporting champions and advocates of much healthier outcomes through sport.

We believe the Australian public has had enough of alcohol-fuelled bad behaviour by our sporting stars at sporting events or in violent public brawls and, unfortunately, in the sexual assaults that have been associated with binge drinking and alcohol abuse. We believe it is time for the government to act. We are concerned, for example, that the Australian cricket team is sponsored by VB. What messages does that send to young Australians when they see our cricket stars, when they win, all standing there for a group photo with VBs in their hands? It sends very poor messages: if you are going to be a successful sports star it is okay to drink or you have to drink to be a sports star. Those messages are all negative, messages that we should not be sending to our young people today.

We are also concerned about labels on alcohol products. We believe that there should be mandatory warning labels.

We are concerned about the fact that access to data in this area is inadequate. It is an issue that has come up again and again in this debate, including from health professionals in committee hearings. What has come up repeatedly is the manner in which data is collected, and its consistency, reliability and accuracy across the country. We believe there needs to be a national approach to data collection and that data collection is fundamental to monitoring and evaluating the impact of not only this policy but also our other policies related to alcohol harm.

We also believe we need early identification and support services. We need to develop and resource early identification and referral services for at-risk drinkers, and maximise the benefits of early intervention, particularly for young drinkers. The Greens are particularly keen that we have early intervention nurses in emergency departments and a single national drug and alcohol hotline number to connect individuals, their family or friends through to existing state and territory drug and alcohol services. There also need to be services focused on particular groups of people—for example, for older people—because alcohol related harm is not just about young people. We need to remember that alcohol abuse affects the whole spectrum of society and we need to offer services to all those people. We need joined-up services offering a client-focused approach to referral, treatment and rehabilitation in a timely manner.

Then, of course, we believe very strongly that we need a well-resourced, sustained national campaign to curb risky drinking and reduce alcohol related harm. We need well-targeted, hard-hitting messages, and not just for young people, as I said. We need an evidence based approach. We need these messages created by an independent authority with no industry involvement. We believe our social marketing programs need to evolve based on the evolving body of evidence.

In conclusion, I would like to just point out the key elements of the Greens’ suggested approach. We have very strong sympathy for this price mechanism. We do think price is a key part of a comprehensive package, but we do not believe that the government have delivered enough of a comprehensive approach. They have not addressed the issues around advertising and sponsorship, which we believe are key components. We very strongly encourage them to look at mandatory warning labels on alcohol products and in advertisements. In addition, they need to look at the issues around data collection, because they are absolutely vital if we are going to have evidence based policy driving our approach to alcohol abuse and alcohol related harm.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the second reading amendment standing in my name:

At the end of the motion, add “but the Senate calls on the Government to appropriate all revenue collected as a result of the increased tax on ready-to-drink alcoholic beverages between 27 April 2008 and the date of commencement of these bills towards genuine measures to address binge drinking, including an alcohol abuse prevention, research, education, treatment and other measures package”.

I seek leave to make a brief explanatory statement. I ran out of time before.

Leave granted.

Essentially, this amendment relates to the opposition’s intention to see all revenue collected by the federal government since 27 April 2008 as a result of the increased tax on RTDs invested in an alcohol abuse prevention, research, education and treatment package.

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I sought leave to make a brief statement.

The Acting Deputy President:

Yes, okay. I am just making sure that you are not seeking to have a second bite at debating the issue.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I make the point that this is consistent with the recommendations of coalition senators and is in the context of the Minister for Health and Ageing’s second reading speech where she raised the concern that, if this measure were defeated, the revenue collected so far would have to be returned to the alcopops industry. Of course, this is not the intention of the opposition, which is why I have moved on behalf of the opposition the amendment standing in my name.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Customs Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009 and the Excise Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009 will not cease binge drinking in our country. To be fair, no-one has ever claimed that they would. There has been a particularly emotional debate around this issue, and in many ways that should be applauded. The issue of binge drinking and the range of measures that must be taken in this country to address this problem are now clearly on the agenda.

The Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs has had three opportunities in the last year to look at the issue of alcohol in our community. This process has been very valuable. It has been confronting and quite scary for those people who have had the opportunity to see the submissions that have been presented from across the board. A wide range of public health groups, drug and alcohol agencies and individuals who are concerned about what is happening in this country are on one side claiming that any step forward, particularly one that is looking at the impact of alcohol on young people, is the right thing to do. On the other side there are the marketers, the hotel industry, the distillers and the people who provide and market alcohol claiming that they also want to be part of this process. I commend those people from the industry who do want to be part of this process. They have shown at different times that they wish to be so. Throughout this process there has been a clear divide. I encourage people to look at the submissions, the evidence and the conclusions of the community affairs committee and weigh up what has come before us.

It is very clear that there has never been a claim from the government that introducing these two pieces of legislation will in itself end the alcohol issues in this community. I am disappointed that there has been an attempt to portray it in such a way. We have an integrated process of policy, community consultation and engagement looking at the issues in our community and coming up with ways in which we can be part of the solution. This tax that is before us was introduced about 12 months ago. There has been a process of community involvement in that time. This tax is but one step, and that must be remembered.

No matter how many times the various public health groups before us were asked whether they thought this was right, whether they thought it would be a backwards step and whether it was their key issue, consistently they said that, whilst there needs to be more action taken and there is support for changes to the wider taxation system—and the people who came before the community affairs committee had taken the opportunity provided by the government with the Henry tax review to consider the wider issues of tax—this is a step that must be taken. That is clear and on the record. This step has brought forward the debate in the community and is part of the wider response to the issue. The point was made in the submissions put forward by a wide range of public health groups to the Henry tax review and which were provided to our committee that, whilst considering that in some ways a change to a volumetric tax system may be positive, there always remains the need for flexibility within the system to respond to particular issues. If particular products raise questions or could provide danger, there should be the flexibility in our system to handle them differently, to isolate them. We need to go forward with a tax system that can do that.

The attempts to say that the legislation before us today is not in tune with the wider review of the tax system are just not true. In fact, people were given the opportunity in the community affairs committee consistently by the opposition, who were seeking to bring forward that answer, to say that and consistently the people gave the response that they want this measure passed as well as they want wider discussion and wider consideration of the tax issues. That is on the record, and I draw people’s attention to it.

This legislation is not a one-off response to the issue. The Rudd Labor government introduced as part our election commitment the National Binge Drinking Strategy. That does look at advertising campaigns, engagement with the community and the process of early intervention. It is all spelt out and it is all available. Of course, there is the argument that more could be done. I think that is part of the debate that we must have. The alcopops tax—that is the jargon that is being widely used, and instead of reading out the full title I will continue to use that term—is but one step. It was brought into being because of widespread concern amongst the community about these drinks. The history of the alcopops tax was discussed by the committee. In the midst of the GST discussions there was consideration to put these drinks at a different level of taxation to bring them in line with some of the beer products. However, from that point on we have seen a clear blossoming of this industry across the country and an amazing increase in the way these products are marketed and the community’s response in buying them.

Of particular concern—and this has been raised many times—was the way that these attractive sweet drinks, be they the white based spirits that are in the pink and green alcopops or the dark spirits contained in the RTDs, were marketed to young people who were beginning to look at going into a drinking culture. These could be the way that they take the first step. Whilst it is very difficult in this case to point to particular evidence, this could be seen with the alcohol sales, the people who were buying them and the people who were seen using them. The marketing campaigns were clearly focused on younger drinkers—both male and female. Whilst much of the evidence that came before our committee focused on young women, certainly there was a focus on young men as well, particularly in relation to the darker spirits.

Through the series of committee inquiries, we saw examples of alcohol campaigns that were focused on young people. Concerns were raised by a number of public health associations and the Australian Medical Association about the marketing of very sweet alcohols—where the actual alcohol taste is blanketed—so that people start to use large volumes of these spirits without really understanding the volume that they were consuming. In terms of the public health message this was a consistent theme in all the committees in which I was able to take part.

We had within the system the identification of a particular product, which was a very high sales based product that is drunk by young people. That was identified by the government as a step to reverse the taxation treatment for that particular product which led to a wider ranging campaign on the evils of binge drinking and to raise awareness across the community about what can occur, what is a healthy rate of drinking and then to engage people in this discussion. For too long these issues have been seen as a wowserish approach to the issue or something that is done by people in an isolated way in health academia or as some form of punitive treatment.

Indeed, this is one of the hallmarks of the current National Binge Drinking Strategy, which has been implemented by the Labor government. What we are clearly trying to do is get people involved at the local level so that all these issues are on the table so that they can work with their communities to come to an understanding and identify what is harmful drinking and to work with the stats and figures that are produced by various respected organisations. It does not matter how many times people use the term ‘risky drinking’ or throw around the term ‘how many drinks are safe’. Until people actually own those issues and identify what is appropriate behaviour and spread that message, effectively, there will be no change.

One of the things that we had in the National Binge Drinking Strategy of which I am most proud was the number of community grants that have been made to organisations across the country with the theme of working at the local level to ensure that people are making their own decisions and are actually working effectively. I want to particularly mention one that I have been involved with, which is on the Sunshine Coast, working with some of the providers and outlets that are selling the alcohol, with communities, youth organisations and families to work together so that these messages can be provided. Within and as part of that structure the issue of alcopops is on the agenda. What we have to identify are the initial steps towards drinking and how we can actually engage at that time.

It is particularly clear that the updated National Health and Medical Research Council figures, which only came out last week, show that drinking amongst young people, particularly those under the age of 18, should not happen—but we know that it does. What we need to happen is for those statistics to be made real so that people identify their own risk and work towards coming up with a solution, not having it mandated from outside so that there is no ownership. One of the key aspects of what the government have come up with is a demand for an evidence based approach. It is particularly important that we work to ensure that we have effective data that people can agree on rather than what has happened consistently in the community affairs processes, which is an argument over whose data is better. Sometimes the exact same survey results are used to make arguments and are phrased in such a way that it is as though they are in two different languages.

The Department of Health and Ageing have given a particularly clear response to that question in their submission that they brought to the community affairs committee last week. We need to have some form of agreed database and some way of evaluation so that we can see what is working and what is not, so that the community can understand that this is not something that people will use for quick, five-second media grabs to make their own point. It is all too easy to use it in that way. You create an expectation, you throw around a few figures, and then that issue is finished and you go onto the next one.

We need to have is an agreed database. What we found in the community affairs committee inquiry is that there are a number of surveys that are auspiced by the government to gather information, key of which are the Australian Secondary School Students Use of Alcohol Survey and the National Drug Strategy Household Survey. Both of these are conducted at certain periods and the information then takes time to be collated and then publicised. Senator Cormann made comments about the fact that, within the 12 months, there is no absolute evidence that can be brought forward using the survey data to show that particular elements have worked.

The one thing that became clear for our committee was that the tax office figures on excise show exactly what alcohol has been bought by markets in the last period of time. No-one can argue with that. How that data is being used and how particular organisations can then say what has happened in their own market is subject to a great deal of debate, which we saw.

The department said that they need to design a specific RTD module for inclusion in the 2010 Australian Secondary School Students Use of Alcohol Survey and also in the 2010 National Drug Strategy Household Survey. When they have that data collected, there will be particular modules on RTDs so that we will be able to look specifically, on the basis of the survey results, at what people have said about their consumption, the harms and the risky behaviour.

There is also a series of national evaluation reports that are coming up in the next few months about the steps that have already been taken on the national binge drinking campaign. There is the advertising campaign and information on what has been happening with the community grants. They will be able to feed that information into the mix and see what exactly has been going on.

In 2009 the department is implementing a program that will standardise and improve the quality of alcohol data in Australia. Previously, indicators of harm have come from the National Alcohol Indicators Project, which was the sole source of high-quality alcohol related harms data at the national level. We need to update that and we need to have this particular database understood and agreed so that we will not have the wrestling around whose figures are better than others.

In 2009 the department will also commission a national drug and alcohol research organisation to develop agreed national standards for deriving alcohol statistics covering consumption, harms and, most importantly, sales and other relevant information. This will and must enable the derivation of more reliable trends that will add to a better understanding of the extent of risky drinking and the harms it can cause. This data collection is essential, but we heard from the public health groups during our discussions both last year and last week that it takes a long time to actually identify and see the results of any change brought about through public health initiatives. In 12 months it is impossible to come up with quantifiable data that can be used effectively to mount an argument. What we need is an agreement whereby, as one part of the national scheme, we closely watch these products to see what happens as the tax continues to cut in.

There is data that this tax has caused a lowering of the sales of RTD products. There is no doubt that it has. Where there is doubt is exactly where the sales have gone, and conflicting figures have been brought forward. The industry groups—the brewers and the wine industry—were very clear that they felt there had not been a ballooning of sales towards a substitute. As you would remember, Madam Acting Deputy President, when the prospect of this tax was raised last year a lot was made of the evils of substitution and how, as soon as people could not buy the alcohol in one form, they would turn to another. There was never any promise that that would not happen; in fact, there was an understanding that it would. What we need to do is quantify that and, most importantly, engage effectively with drinkers and with the suppliers of these products to see how we can best address the issue of unwise drinking. Different labels continue to be used. I do not think we are using the term ‘risky’ anymore; the latest information talks about ‘safe’ and ‘unsafe’ drinking.

There is no doubt that alcohol and the alcohol culture must be considered as a serious threat to some people in our community—not all. There continues to be the issue that, in attempts by some to make an argument, it has to be everything or nothing. We need to engage reasonably on this issue, work effectively together and not just be most concerned about our own particular market. The government stands committed to retaining these two pieces of legislation as one part of a wider strategy to address the horrors—and I use that term advisedly—of drinking in our community. We have seen examples of the effects of binge drinking when families have come before parliamentary committees to talk about the impact on them and most particularly on young people. The media certainly has a very large role to play in this process, and there have been various media reports about what is happening, particularly with young people and drinking. I think we need to be particularly aware that more people need to be involved in the process of considering our response to this.

I am very disappointed that there is not bipartisan support for this one element of our approach to binge drinking. It would be a great message for the community if we could work cooperatively on this issue. We can continue to argue about figures and we can produce coloured pictures and graphs, of which there are many, to our heart’s content. But the most important thing must be what we as a government will do within our community to develop an effective strategy to recognise and respond to the horror of drinking in our community.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Customs Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009 and Excise Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009. I often say to my children: ‘I didn’t just drop into this world at 50 years old; I was actually born as a baby and grew up.’ I lived in a country town where, as with most country towns, going to the local pub and having a beer, especially on a Friday night, was a common occurrence. Unfortunately, I have seen a change in behaviour, especially amongst young people, over many years where, instead of beer, spirits and much stronger drinks are being consumed. I see these habits as a danger, but today I question what real effect this alcopops tax is going to have.

One thing is for sure: when young people in particular are mixing their drinks themselves out of bottles of spirits and soft drink instead of buying cans of mixed drink, the elements of danger are far greater. I say that because a can of, say, Bundy and cola has a constant alcohol level of around five per cent. But, when young people—and often older people, of course—instead of buying a canned drink that has a constant alcohol level, buy a bottle of, let’s say, Bundaberg Rum and a bottle of Coke and mix their drinks themselves, here is the problem. You can imagine three or four young fellows sitting around in the car shed on a Friday night in some country town, as I know my son does at times, with one bottle of rum and one bottle of Coke. The first drink might contain half an inch of rum, the second might contain an inch and the third might contain an inch and a half. As they have more drinks it becomes, ‘Don’t worry about the Coke, just put more rum in.’ That is the problem with this legislation—it fails to stop binge drinking and is actually making the situation worse. Instead of consuming an alcoholic drink with a constant alcohol level, people are mixing their own.

When the government first proposed this tax, they expected about a $3.1 billion tax grab over four years. That, of course, has been revised to some $1.6 billion. I have here a graph which was part of the dissenting report by the coalition after the Senate inquiry into this. The mid-year economic forecast clearly shows that, even on Treasury figures, the increase in sales of alcopops will be around 7.8 per cent for the years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. Surely that emphasises the fact that the 70 per cent increase in this tax will not have the desired effect.

I was always a keen listener to John Laws. He said many things that I agreed with. One of the things he used to often say was that the more you tax something the less you have of it. That is true in most cases, but in this case it is not true because there is a substitute. If we had a situation where we only had the ready-to-drink cans, and some in bottles, more tax on that would certainly reduce the drinking level, but the substitute is that people can buy a bottle of spirits and Coke—whatever they are putting with it—and mix their own. A few months ago, I walked into a large liquor outlet in a supermarket in Inverell. I asked the young fellow behind the counter, ‘What effect has the alcopops tax had on your sales?’ He said, ‘There’s no doubt whatsoever that the sales of ready-to-drinks has declined enormously, but have a look at the Bundaberg Rum shelf.’ I looked around and the shelf was empty. He said, ‘We cannot keep the stocks up. People are buying the full bottles of rum, instead of cans of Bundy and cola, and mixing it themselves.’ This is not a solution to the problem, and that proves it.

I would like to quote some publicans I have spoken to recently. I spoke to an Inverell publican and asked the question: has the increase in tax on alcopops reduced binge drinking? This was his reply: ‘It has not had one effect on binge drinking. Alcopop sales may be down slightly, but people are now turning to buying spirits off the shelf and mixing the drinks themselves.’ He made the point, just as I have been saying: ‘With alcopops, at least people were restricted to alcohol content per drink, but now they buy a bottle of spirits off the shelf and mix it with soft drinks or buy a cask of wine, and there is no restriction on how much alcohol they pour in each drink.’ He has noticed people turning up to beat his hotel’s curfew at 10 o’clock at night a lot more affected by alcohol than previously when the increase in tax was not on alcopops. What he is saying is that people are drinking stronger mixed drinks at home and then going to the pub. I understand why people go to hotels, especially on Friday or Saturday nights after a week’s work, and especially in country towns where there is not a lot of entertainment and perhaps not a lot to do. The local pub is a meeting place where people socialise. I must admit I frequented the pub myself quite often in my younger days. It is a gathering place, but now people are showing up there a lot more intoxicated than previously—as I said, because they are drinking at home and mixing their own drinks.

A Glen Innes publican—no names mentioned—said sales of alcopops have slowed right down, but people are now buying spirits and similar off-the-shelf drinks and mixing them, just as I have been saying. The publican’s words to my office were: ‘The alcopops tax is not stopping binge drinking and they are kidding themselves if they think it is.’ Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation Director Ian Webster is quoted on 10 March admitting he was yet to see any evidence that clearly showed that the higher tax on alcopops had caused a decline in binge drinking. He said on the same day that he had not seen any evidence which had found a decline in alcohol problems in the community since it was introduced. The Australian Hotels Association has produced figures which prove there is no significant increase in per capita alcohol consumption to justify this tax increase. Current Australian per adult alcohol consumption has been steady for the last 10 years and is below the levels recorded in the seventies and eighties.

The Independent Distillers say the alcopops tax has not and will not work as it has pushed drinkers to stronger forms of alcohol associated with risky drinking. Risky drinking—that is the point I make. When they mix their own, they have a couple, it starts to take effect and then they mix them stronger. Here is a problem in itself. The Independent Distillers say the excise increase has moved drinkers from relatively low-strength RTDs, with an average alcohol content of five per cent, to drinks of between two and seven times that alcohol content. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s 2007 National Drug Strategy Household Survey clearly showed that, in every age group for both men and women, those who were categorised as risky or high-risk drinkers chose beer, wine or spirits, not alcopops, as the drink of choice, yet the government is ignoring those drinks and taxing alcopops.

There is an interesting comment from a young lady who spoke to my office today. Many of her friends still buy alcopops, even though they are more expensive. She personally now buys the rum specials off the shelf and mixes them herself because it is the cheapest way to go. The question was put to her: has it stopped binge drinking? Not amongst her circle of friends. She said, ‘They are not drinking any less. In fact, they tend to get drunk more quickly because they are mixing their own.’ This is the point I make in this whole presentation: the 70 per cent increase in tax on RTDs may have, and probably has, reduced the consumption of those drinks, but it has led us to a situation where people are buying their drinks and mixing their own. As one company said to me, ‘When they buy a can of Bundy and cola they are looking at five per cent alcohol. When they buy a bottle of rum, a lot of times they only buy one bottle of Coke, but to mix that drink you need five litres of Coke to one bottle of rum to keep the same strength as in the can.’ This is a problem in itself.

Unfortunately we have a situation where many people drink too much. How do we solve the problem? Awareness and education—bringing it to people’s attention that if they are going to fill their brain with alcohol they will suffer the consequences. Just putting this tax on the ready-to-drinks is not having the desired effect the government sought, or was it simply a tax grab? That is the question I am asking. The net effect is not there. As I said, we see far too many people who have destroyed their lives with alcohol through addiction—and not only alcohol but many other drugs—but the situation is simple: if they do not want to buy the mixed drinks they will buy the bottles and mix the drinks themselves, and I think that is far more dangerous than the previous situation.

At that, I just say that the tax is not working. The tax has been gathered and put aside, and that money should be used for education, especially in our schools. We now hear so often of the 15- and 16-year-olds having parties. Just look at their situation. I know they are not allowed to; I know it is illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to drink alcohol. But the fact is that they do get alcohol and they do take it to their parties, wherever they hold them. If they are buying bottles of spirits and soft drink and mixing them themselves, that is far more dangerous. We know that alcohol is a dangerous drug. We know what happens when youngsters who have never had alcohol before in their life go to a party and drink—they flake out, they get sick and they get into all sorts of trouble. I even saw a situation where a doctor was called to basically keep a young lady alive.

It is a tragic situation, but the tax increase of 70 per cent specifically on ready-to-drink beverages is not going to make one ounce of difference. It has been proven in the figures. I admit that sales of those canned and bottled drinks are down, but sales of spirits have risen markedly. This problem needs to be addressed through education, through going to our schools and warning the youngsters: if you fill yourself with grog, you are going to have trouble for the rest of your life. The addiction is real; the addiction is frightening. I oppose this extra tax grab because it is not having the desired effect.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia is at a crossroads and we as a parliament must make a decision: do we support the government’s attempts to hide behind a blatant tax grab with this Customs Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009 and related bill? We all know the alcopops tax is just a revenue raiser. Some believe it goes a small way to changing the binge-drinking habits of Australians, but does it do enough? Back in September 2007 Family First introduced a bill called the Alcohol Toll Reduction Bill. It was quite clear, quite specific, in its three-pronged approach. One part was to do with having health warning labels on all alcohol products. The second part was to look at advertising restrictions. The third part was to look at getting alcohol ads out of industry hands and into the hands of a regulatory body. Those three things would do more than the alcopops tax.

In regard to having health warning labels on alcohol products, it would be such a simple thing to do. The government should stand up to the alcohol giants and enforce responsible drinking messages on alcohol products—all of them—through alcohol labels. Secondly, they should stand up to the alcohol giants and restrict alcohol advertising to late at night. There is a crazy exemption that allows alcohol ads to appear at any time of the day because of sports programming. There is already a regulation in place that says ads for alcohol should appear late at night, but it is blatantly disregarded for sports programming. Thirdly, the government should get the alcohol ads out of the hands of the industry and into the hands of a regulatory body to make sure we do not tie things like being successful in sport, being successful in life and being successful in relationships to alcohol.

The key thing is: do we want to make the tough decisions and expect more from our government in its efforts to tackle this terrible problem of binge drinking? I imagine all of us in this chamber know someone who has struggled with a drinking problem, who has found themselves in the grip of a problem that rules their life—a problem that often leaves their family devastated and unable to cope with the fallout. We have all read the reports on domestic violence and street violence. We all know the terrible consequences that alcohol bingeing has on our families and especially on our children. Today we have an opportunity to say that we want more than just tax on one product to address this growing problem.

In fact, we demand more. We demand it for those children who huddle frightened at night in their homes as an adult with a gutful of alcohol rages. We demand it for those black and blue, bruised women who turn to strangers at refuge centres for support and solace after a loved one has turned them into a punching bag. We demand it for those young men and women enjoying a night out who end up in the back of an ambulance after becoming the target of a drunken thug on our streets. We demand it for all of us in the community who fear the uncertainty of our streets, where a simple look or an accidental brush against a stranger can invoke an assault.

Family First acknowledge that the Rudd government has announced it will spend some money from the revenue raised by the alcopops tax on health measures. But we are disappointed that the health measures announced last week do little to tackle the epidemic of binge drinking. Let us have a look at them: healthy eating programs for children, bike paths and breastfeeding programs. All are worthy, but they are nothing to do with alcohol abuse.

Australia’s alcohol toll is going to be a hard problem to fix. It is going to take a long time and require an enormous amount of work and commitment to change the cultural mindset that exists in Australia about alcohol. We need to change the belief that the only way to enjoy yourself and have a good time out is to get blind drunk. We need to create a culture where it is no longer cool to egg on your mates to drink until they are stupid, because someone with a drinking problem is not funny. We need to create a culture where it is no longer okay to harass women, to get into fights, to vomit in the street and to damage property because ‘I was drunk and I didn’t know what I was doing’.

Victoria’s new chief commissioner, Simon Overland, said on his appointment to the role that the biggest drug and social problem facing Victoria is alcohol abuse. He said:

It’s an enormous driver of the road toll, it’s a factor in family violence, it’s a factor in sexual assault, so alcohol is the most problematic drug in our community.

Like Chief Commissioner Overland, I am not a wowser and I enjoy a drink responsibly. But this tax does nothing to help those who do not drink responsibly, and that is why this government must do more. I applaud the comments by Chief Commissioner Overland that public drunkenness must become as hated by the community as much as drink driving is today.

We also know there is a big link between alcohol advertising and sport. Alcohol companies spend over $40 million a year on advertising during sports programs, and it is not because they like to watch sport. It is because, as Fosters spokesman Troy Hay said, ‘Sport is popular and it’s a way of us getting our brands in front of people.’ All of us here understand that business is business, but this parliament many years ago made a decision about restricting advertising of alcohol on television to programs after 8.30 pm. That decision was taken because others before us who came here to determine laws for Australia realised that unrestricted advertising of alcohol on television was causing harm. They understood that unrestricted advertising of alcohol was targeted at vulnerable teenagers and children and that restrictions should apply. But, unfortunately, a lifeline was given to alcohol companies with a loophole allowing alcohol advertising to be broadcast during sporting programs. This loophole allows ads promoting alcohol to be shown on Australian television at any time of the day, so long as it is during a sporting program. Research shows that one in three Australian kids under the age of 12 has seen these ads. Research shows that 72 per cent of Australians want alcohol advertising restricted until after 9.30 pm. That is almost three-quarters of the Australian population who want these ads stopped. Why is the government not listening to their demands? The government refuses to stand up to the alcohol giants and trots out the tired argument that sporting programs would not survive without the dollars pumped into them by the alcohol companies. That is the same old argument that was used decades ago when the push to get tobacco advertising off our screens began. The argument was that without the tobacco dollar sport would crumble. It clearly has not, and it will not if alcohol ads are banned.

Alcohol companies spend $40 million on alcohol advertising, but ordinary Australians have to fork out $15.3 billion to clean up the mess that binge drinking and alcohol abuse create in Australia. Those who are pushing for this tax to go through can spin it any way they like, but the facts are that alcohol related admissions to Victorian hospital emergency rooms have risen dramatically in the last decade. They have risen five per cent for males but, more disturbingly, they have jumped 10 per cent for women. Alcohol causes 4,300 deaths each year. More than half a million abuse cases are directly related to alcohol. Alcohol factors in one in five road deaths. And alcohol accounts for 40 per cent of police work in Victoria.

As I said before, Australia’s alcohol toll is not an easy problem to fix. Research shows that young people care about their friends and are often concerned about their drinking habits, but they do not know how to help them, how to raise difficult topics with them. Health warning labels on alcohol products would open the door to those discussions. Health warning labels give people the information that the choices they are making when it comes to drinking alcohol should be thoroughly considered because drinking too much has consequences. We are not talking about horrific, graphic labels; we are talking about the first step on the long road to changing the mindset of binge drinking within our society.

I think it is time we did so much more to help people struggling with this problem and to give hope to those families and communities dealing with the terrible fallout from binge drinking and alcohol abuse. This government must take real steps to change the culture. It must put health warnings on alcohol products with effective key messages warning of the damage excessive alcohol consumption can cause. It must do the hard yards and shut down the loophole that allows alcohol advertising on television during sports programming. It must stand up to the alcohol industry and govern for those 72 per cent of Australians who want these ads gone from sporting programs.

Today we have an opportunity in this chamber to improve Australia beyond measure. I urge those in this chamber to say that no longer will our society be tarnished by a culture of binge drinking and no longer will getting blind drunk be used as an excuse for bad behaviour. We must listen to those we answer to, the men and women of Australia, and act to create a better society for our children, a culture where alcohol fuelled violence and abuse can no longer threaten our communities.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The young people of Australia are the future of Australia. We as a government need to ensure that our future is looked after. We need to make sure that our young people have what it takes to keep this nation functioning effectively. That is why the Rudd government is acting on alcopops with the Customs Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009 and related bill: because we believe that, when abused, alcopops can cause considerable destruction to both individuals and society as a whole. This destruction occurs partly because alcopops are similar in taste to cordials and soft drinks, and it is possible to drink them without realising how much alcohol you have drunk—it is one of the sales pitches with regard to alcopops.

Our young people are not always equipped with the skills to make the best decision and alcopops do affect their judgment, as does any alcohol if you are not careful how much you consume. We need to help our young people to make the right decisions for their future as individuals but also for the nation as a whole. The statistics on young drinkers are nothing short of alarming. Binge drinking is a serious problem, and this is a concern not only for the Rudd government but also for police and health professionals. Parents of teenagers are also rightly concerned and want action from the government. The Rudd government is listening to the Australian people. After all, this is what the government is supposed to do. Binge drinking is a community wide problem that requires a community wide response. It needs to be addressed and it needs to be addressed now.

Alcohol is the second largest contributor to drug related harm in this country, with tobacco in front. Alcohol causes approximately 3,000 deaths each year in Australia. Cancer, alcoholic liver cirrhosis and road trauma are the main problems that arise from alcohol consumption. Younger people are more likely to succumb to road trauma or intoxication, while the older age group usually die as a result of long-term alcohol abuse. It is a fact that in the 25 to 34 year age group alcohol is the cause of more hospitalisations and deaths than all illicit drugs combined and certainly causes more hospitalisations and deaths than tobacco.

The other problem is that the distillers are taking advantage of young people, targeting these drinks right at them. They are in fact targeting young people with vigour. In the Senate inquiry last week I saw examples of advertisements, of the pretty colours of the drinks, and of Facebook and other websites that are aimed directly at young people, encouraging young people to drink these products. To put it simply, the distillers care more about their profits and little about the health and wellbeing of young people. We all understand that businesses must be profitable, but it cannot and should not be at the expense of health. This cannot be allowed to continue. The distillers have already admitted that their sales have grown by 250 per cent since the then Howard government introduced the tax break. The former, Howard government gave the alcopops industry tax relief in 2000, and since then the problems associated with young people drinking have increased dramatically.

The Liberals cannot agree on whether alcohol taxes need reform or not. Mr Turnbull on the Sunday program with Laurie Oakes on 18 May 2008 said:

… but is the whole system of taxing alcohol full of anomalies and inconsistencies and contradictions? Yes, it is you’re quite right … I think what you need to fix it right across the board … we’ve got to look at where the inconsistency are, how that system can become more efficient and have fewer anomalies of the kind we are discussing.

But Mr Dutton, in the Manly Daily on 25 November 2006, said:

Moves by Manly Council to change alcohol taxation and warning labels on bottles have been unsuccessful. The council wrote to Health Minister Tony Abbott, Prime Minister John Howard and Minister for Revenue Peter Dutton calling for the changes.

A letter from Mr Dutton’s office said the Federal Government was satisfied with the current system of taxation on alcohol.

Mr Turnbull, in an address to the National Press Club on 22 September 2008, running up the white flag on doing anything about binge drinking, said:

One should never underestimate the enterprising ingenuity of the Australian drinker.

So that makes it okay, does it? Tony Abbott said about binge drinking on 3AW on 17 June 2008:

Trying to say that binge-drinking is happening nearly all the time, in ways which are a deadly threat to the youth and even to the adults of this country, is a beat up, not to put too fine a point on it …

Nine years after the tax break was given, the current opposition do not realise the consequence of their decisions. Every week one in 10 children between the ages of 12 and 17 is engaging in binge drinking or drinking with high risk. Nearly 20,000 girls between 12 and 15 admit to drinking daily or at least weekly. This is horrific given that alcohol consumption by those under 18 is illegal in this country. Even the numbers of women between 18 and 24 being admitted to hospital as a result of alcohol consumption has increased since 2000. The increase has been dramatic—so dramatic that it has in fact doubled. It shows that alcohol related hospital admissions are an unnecessary burden on our hospitals. The Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, has released figures showing that there are approximately 670,000 preventable hospital admissions a year.

The harm caused by alcohol consumption may be as simple as falling over and spraining an ankle or it may result in lifelong problems or even death. Some of the harm caused is accidental, but much of it is also caused through violence as a result of people drinking too much and losing the ability to make good decisions. The Rudd government is working hard to reduce alcohol related violence. The physical harm caused is not the only harm that results from alcohol consumption. There is also a huge cost to the economy. In 2004-05 it was estimated that approximately $15.3 billion was the cost of dangerous alcohol consumption in Australia. It affects not only the health of individuals but also the productivity of the workplace.

Police are worried about the effect of alcohol on the community. In 2008 the New South Wales Police Commissioner, Andrew Scipione, estimated that 70 per cent of police matters while policing the streets involved alcohol. This is indeed a worrying statistic. In my own state of Tasmania 19 per cent of road deaths in 2006 were alcohol related. Research indicates that an increase in price plays a vital role in attacking the problem that is binge drinking. Higher prices make it more difficult for young people to afford the alcohol, and this in turn brings about a reduction in the amount they drink.

Australian tax office statistics show that in the nine months following the introduction of the alcopops tax, as it is commonly referred to, the sales of alcopops decreased considerably. They had decreased by 35 per cent when compared to the same period in the year prior to the introduction of the tax. This is a massive decrease in such a short time frame. Not only is this result wonderful but it exceeded the government’s expectations. It was hoped that the tax would stop the increase in sales, and modelling predicted that this would be achieved. The sales of spirits as a whole decreased by nearly eight per cent, and there has been only a minimal increase in sales of full-strength spirits. This is a reduction of around 124 million standard drinks overall, according to ACNielsen figures. This goes a long way to silencing our critics, who claimed that the tax would see young people turn to other drinks.

Numerous health organisations have supported the government’s tax on alcopops. They include the Australian Drug Foundation, the Australian National Council on Drugs, the Alcohol and other Drugs Council of Australia, the Public Health Association of Australia as well as the AMA. Dr Capolingua, from the Australian Medical Association, last week told the Senate committee:

The AMA would like to inform the committee that we believe it would be a retrograde step to remove the tax on alcopops. We support the alcopops tax in the context of broader measures to address harmful drinking, particularly among young people.

This government is not foolish, unlike the former, Howard government, which ignored reports it had commissioned despite those reports indicating that action was needed. But the alcopops tax is not all the government has done to reduce binge drinking. It is part of a broader process, and the government introduced a national binge-drinking strategy in early March 2008.

The funding for this strategy includes $53.5 million in order to combat the binge-drinking culture among our young people. There is $14.4 million being used to target community groups and local sporting clubs. This is being done because we know we need local solutions to local problems. The amount of $19.1 million has been allocated to early intervention programs to encourage our young people to take responsibility for their own actions. This funding is designed to target those under 18 who have already been involved in an incident involving alcohol, in order to prevent more problems arising.

There has been $20 million put into an advertising campaign to educate young people about the dangers of drinking and also the costs involved with drinking. This campaign is brutally honest, but it needs to be in order to get the message across. It is focusing on the short-term problems caused by alcohol intoxication and is encouraging young people to make better decisions. It is also targeting parents so that they are better equipped to educate their children and so that they lead by example with their own drinking behaviour. To have parents talk to their children about the responsibilities that come with alcohol use is essential to give our young people the information needed to make the right decisions about their drinking habits. The Rudd government stands by that campaign and hopes that, by the end of the two-year campaign, it will have made a difference to young people and the way they drink. This in turn will hopefully have decreased the damage caused by alcohol.

The funding from the alcopops tax is being used to engage in preventive health measures. On 11 March 2009, Minister Roxon announced that $872 billion is being spent on preventative health measures. The Australian government is working with state and territory governments through COAG to improve preventative health measures, and alcohol is one of the biggest issues being tackled.

The Preventative Health Taskforce is well on the way to developing a comprehensive strategy, and alcohol is one of its priorities. When the alcopops tax was introduced Minister Roxon stated, ‘This change will see the single biggest investment ever by a Commonwealth government into preventative health measures,’ and we have followed through on this to the tune of $872 billion. No-one can argue that the Rudd government is not committed to preventative health measures.

The young people of Australia are our future and we need to protect them to ensure a healthy Australia for years to come. There is a considerable problem with binge drinking among many of Australia’s young people, both males and females. We as the government need to attack this problem with everything we have in order to keep our young people—and, for that matter, the rest of the population—safe. The alcopops tax is one way to help combat the problem of binge drinking and is one of many strategies the Rudd government is putting into place.

The tax from the alcopops is being used to educate, to prevent health problems that arise as a result of alcohol consumption and to fund other preventative health measures. The Rudd government is committed to the health of Australians and will do everything possible to make sure Australians have the support needed to help them improve their health. The fewer alcohol related problems we have in society, the more productive and safe Australia will be. This is what the Rudd government wants for Australia and it is what the Australian people want for their nation. It is what the Australian people demand and deserve. I commend the bills to the Senate.

Alan Eggleston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the very short time that I have to begin this speech on the Customs Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009 and related bill, I say that this alcopops tax is no more than a revenue raising gesture, and it certainly does not deal with the real, underlying problem of the impact of excessive alcohol consumption in our community or the need to reform the entire system under which alcohol is taxed.

Rather than selectively increasing tax on one form of alcoholic drink, the so-called alcopops, it is time that alcoholic drinks were taxed on a volumetric basis—that is, by a standard tax on the percentage of alcohol in any drink. And that is a view shared by a wide variety of professional and community organisations who are concerned about the impact of alcoholism in our community, including the Australian Medical Association; the Australian Council of Social Service; the Productivity Commission; the National Centre for Research into Prevention of Drug Abuse; the Salvation Army, which has always had a great concern about the impact of alcoholism in our community; and the Alcohol Advisory Council of WA, among others. These bodies all have the view that rather than having different levels of tax on the alcohol in various drinks we should go to a very simple volumetric system so that if there is more alcohol in a drink it will cost you more.

The fact has been demonstrated by Curtin University, in some pivotal research done several years ago in the Northern Territory, that cost is a deterrent to excessive alcohol consumption. In fact, under our present system, the tax on a standard glass of wine, with 12 per cent alcohol, is six times less than the tax on a glass of low-alcohol beer. That simply underlines the fact that there is a need to reform the taxation system for alcoholic drinks and until that is done we are not in any way seriously going to deal with the problems that alcoholism has caused in our community.

Debate interrupted.