Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Will the minister please outline to the House the government’s action on alcopops and any obstacles in its way?

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise. There was a distraction caused by some actions in the gallery which I understand were attended to. The Minister for Health and Ageing.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Newcastle for her question. I know that she, amongst many members on this side of the House, is very concerned about binge drinking in her own electorate and would be pleased to know that the government acted in the last sitting week and was able to pass in this House the measure to end the tax break for alcopops. Of course, we believe this was a victory for common sense. We hope that such common sense will also prevail in the Senate in the coming fortnight. We believe that when multinational companies specifically design their products to target underage drinkers they should not be rewarded with a tax break. I have to say I am constantly amazed that the Liberal Party, on the other side of the House, seem to think otherwise. I am equally amazed that the Liberal Party are determined to give $260 million-plus back to the distillers if they refuse to pass this measure in the Senate.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not true.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It seems that the shadow minister is determined to disagree with this. I would draw his attention and that of those opposite to the evidence given by the tax office at Senate estimates recently when the second commissioner was asked specifically this question: what would happen if the bill was blocked? I will read this particularly for the member for Dickson, who seems determined to ignore this very basic advice that has been given. The second commissioner replied to a question from a senator:

Basically, Senator, the situation is that if it comes to pass then we would need to refund the excise, and that would be given to the manufacturers.

There it is in black and white—the Liberal Party, if they refuse to support this measure, will be delivering hundreds of millions of dollars back to the manufacturers for this amount of money. Given that we have seen the success of this measure so far, I think the evidence is becoming clearer and clearer that this measure is deserving of support. AC Nielsen figures, the figures that those opposite regularly rely on, reported a few days ago in the Sydney Morning Herald, showed that overall alcohol sales have fallen by 124 million standard drinks. This is across all types of alcohol. On Sunday the Australian Drug Foundation published figures showing that sales of alcopops have fallen by 310 million standard drinks. And of course we have the tax office figures that show that to the end of January sales of alcopops have slumped 35 per cent while overall spirit sales have fallen by almost eight per cent—far better than our original predictions.

So it is no surprise that health experts overwhelmingly support action taken by this side of the House to close this loophole. Last week a group of 20 health experts took out a half-page ad in the Australian arguing for this measure to be kept. They said, amongst other things:

We trust the Senate can put aside political differences and vote on the basis of sound research evidence, rather than liquor industry propaganda.

Two weeks ago a study was published by health experts in the Medical Journal of Australia arguing that the tax was working. And I might draw the House’s attention to evidence given today in the Senate inquiry by the president of the AMA, Dr Rosanna Capolingua, who supported the government’s actions and said:

The AMA would see it as a retrograde step if the alcopops tax did not go through.

The Australian Drug Foundation said:

The Senate must ensure that alcopops are not sold at pocket money prices.

So we are getting clearer and clearer evidence here that is backing this measure. We have stronger and stronger support from public health advocates, from doctors, from researchers.

The only people who still oppose this measure are the distillers and the Liberal Party. It seems that these two groups get along very well together. In fact, people on this side of the House would remember that we voted on the alcopops legislation quite late one night last sitting week. As we all left the chamber, who should I run straight into but Mr Gordon Broderick, the executive director of the Distilled Spirits Industry Council, and who was he talking to? It was the member for Dickson, already huddled in a corner the instant we got out of here, getting a good pat on the head like a good schoolboy for having voted against this measure. It is about time he started listening to the real evidence, not just the advice of the distillers, and he should draw the line at giving hundreds of millions of dollars back to them even if he gets a pat on the head for voting against it.