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

by leave—I move opposition requests for amendments (1) to (18) on sheet 5741 in respect of the Customs Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009 and opposition requests for amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 5742 in respect of the Excise Tariff Amendment (2009 Measure No. 1) Bill 2009 together:

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:

(1)    Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 2), insert:

2A. Schedule 1A

The latest of: (a) the day after this Act receives the Royal Assent; and (b) the day after the Excise Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Act 2009 receives the Royal Assent. However, the provision(s) do not commence at all if the event mentioned in paragraph (b) does not occur.

(2)    Page 8 (after line 20), after Schedule 1, insert:

Schedule 1AReady-to-drink beverages

Customs Tariff Act 1995

1  Schedule 3 (subheading 2203.00.31, the rates of duty in column 3)

Repeal the rates of duty, substitute:

$40.82/L of alcohol

NZ/PG/FI/DC/LDC/SG:

$40.82/L of alcohol

2  Schedule 3 (subheading 2204.10.23, the rates of duty in column 3)

Repeal the rates of duty, substitute:

5%, and $40.82/L of alcohol

NZ/PG/FI/DC/LDC/SG:

$40.82/L of alcohol

DCS:4%, and $40.82/L of alcohol

DCT:5%, and $40.82/L of alcohol

3  Schedule 3 (subheading 2204.10.83, the rates of duty in column 3)

Repeal the rates of duty, substitute:

5%, and $40.82/L of alcohol

NZ/PG/FI/DC/LDC/SG:

$40.82/L of alcohol

4  Schedule 3 (subheading 2204.21.30, the rates of duty in column 3)

Repeal the rates of duty, substitute:

5%, and $40.82/L of alcohol

NZ/PG/FI/DC/LDC/SG:

$40.82/L of alcohol

5  Schedule 3 (subheading 2204.29.30, the rates of duty in column 3)

Repeal the rates of duty, substitute:

5%, and $40.82/L of alcohol

NZ/PG/FI/DC/LDC/SG:

$40.82/L of alcohol

6  Schedule 3 (subheading 2205.10.30, the rates of duty in column 3)

Repeal the rates of duty, substitute:

5%, and $40.82/L of alcohol

NZ/PG/FI/DC/LDC/SG:

$40.82/L of alcohol

7  Schedule 3 (subheading 2205.90.30, the rates of duty in column 3)

Repeal the rates of duty, substitute:

5%, and $40.82/L of alcohol

NZ/PG/FI/DC/LDC/SG:

$40.82/L of alcohol

8  Schedule 3 (subheading 2206.00.52, the rates of duty in column 3)

Repeal the rates of duty, substitute:

5%, and $40.82/L of alcohol

NZ/PG/FI/DC/LDC/SG:

$40.82/L of alcohol

DCS:4%, and $40.82/L of alcohol

DCT:5%, and $40.82/L of alcohol

9  Schedule 3 (subheading 2206.00.62, the rates of duty in column 3)

Repeal the rates of duty, substitute:

5%, and $40.82/L of alcohol

NZ/PG/FI/DC/LDC/SG:

$40.82/L of alcohol

DCS:3%, and $40.82/L of alcohol

10  Schedule 3 (subheading 2206.00.92, the rates of duty in column 3)

Repeal the rates of duty, substitute:

$40.82/L of alcohol

NZ/PG/FI/DC/LDC/SG:

$40.82/L of alcohol

11  Schedule 3 (subheading 2208.90.20, the rates of duty in column 3)

Repeal the rates of duty, substitute:

5%, and $40.82/L of alcohol

NZ/PG/FI/DC/LDC/SG:

$40.82/L of alcohol

DCS:3%, and $40.82/L of alcohol

12  Schedule 5 (cell at table item 1, column 3)

Repeal the cell, substitute:

$40.82/L of alcohol

13  Schedule 5 (cell at table item 9, column 3)

Repeal the cell, substitute:

$40.82/L of alcohol

14  Schedule 5 (cell at table item 11, column 3)

Repeal the cell, substitute:

$40.82/L of alcohol

15  Schedule 5 (cell at table item 13, column 3)

Repeal the cell, substitute:

$40.82/L of alcohol

16  Schedule 5 (cell at table item 15, column 3)

Repeal the cell, substitute:

$40.82/L of alcohol

17  Schedule 5 (cell at table item 17, column 3)

Repeal the cell, substitute:

$40.82/L of alcohol

18  Schedule 5 (cell at table item 19, column 3)

Repeal the cell, substitute:

$40.82/L of alcohol

19  Schedule 5 (cell at table item 21, column 3)

Repeal the cell, substitute:

$40.82/L of alcohol

20  Schedule 5 (cell at table item 23, column 3)

Repeal the cell, substitute:

$40.82/L of alcohol

21  Schedule 5 (cell at table item 31, column 3)

Repeal the cell, substitute:

$40.82/L of alcohol

22  Schedule 5 (cell at table item 42, column 3)

Repeal the cell, substitute:

$40.82/L of alcohol

23  Schedule 6 (cell at table item 4, column 3)

Repeal the cell, substitute:

$40.82/L of alcohol

24  Schedule 6 (cell at table item 12, column 3)

Repeal the cell, substitute:

$40.82/L of alcohol

25  Schedule 6 (cell at table item 14, column 3)

Repeal the cell, substitute:

$40.82/L of alcohol

26  Schedule 6 (cell at table item 16, column 3)

Repeal the cell, substitute:

$40.82/L of alcohol

27  Schedule 6 (cell at table item 18, column 3)

Repeal the cell, substitute:

$40.82/L of alcohol

28  Schedule 6 (cell at table item 20, column 3)

Repeal the cell, substitute:

$40.82/L of alcohol

29  Schedule 6 (cell at table item 22, column 3)

Repeal the cell, substitute:

$40.82/L of alcohol

30  Schedule 6 (cell at table item 24, column 3)

Repeal the cell, substitute:

$40.82/L of alcohol

31  Schedule 6 (cell at table item 26, column 3)

Repeal the cell, substitute:

$40.82/L of alcohol

32  Schedule 6 (cell at table item 34, column 3)

Repeal the cell, substitute:

$40.82/L of alcohol

33  Schedule 6 (cell at table item 45, column 3)

Repeal the cell, substitute:

$40.82/L of alcohol

34  Application

The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to:

             (a)    goods imported into Australia on or after the commencement of this Schedule; or

             (b)    goods imported into Australia before the commencement of this Schedule, where the time for working out the rate of import duty on the goods had not occurred before that commencement.

(3)    Schedule 2, item 7, page 10 (subheading 2203.00.91, the rates of duty in column 3), omit “$69.16” (twice occurring), substitute “$40.82”.

(4)    Schedule 2, item 11, page 11 (table item 8A, the rate of duty in column 3), omit “$69.16”, substitute “$40.82”.

(5)    Schedule 2, item 13, page 11 (table item 11A, the rate of duty in column 3), omit “$69.16”, substitute “$40.82”.

(6)    Schedule 2, item 15, page 11 (table item 10A, the rate of duty in column 3), omit “$69.16”, substitute “$40.82”.

(7)    Schedule 3, item 3, page 14 (subheading 2206.00.13, the rates of duty in column 3), omit “$69.16” (twice occurring), substitute “$40.82”.

(8)    Schedule 3, item 3, page 15 (subheading 2206.00.21, the rates of duty in column 3), omit “$69.16” (four times occurring), substitute “$40.82”.

(9)    Schedule 3, item 3, pages 15 and 16 (subheading 2206.00.23, the rates of duty in column 3), omit “$69.16” (three times occurring), substitute “$40.82”.

(10)  Schedule 3, item 4, page 16 (table item 20A, the rate of duty in column 3), omit “$69.16”, substitute “$40.82”.

(11)  Schedule 3, item 4, page 16 (table item 20C, the rate of duty in column 3), omit “$69.16”, substitute “$40.82”.

(12)  Schedule 3, item 4, page 16 (table item 20E, the rate of duty in column 3), omit “$69.16”, substitute “$40.82”.

(13)  Schedule 3, item 5, page 16 (table item 23A, the rate of duty in column 3), omit “$69.16”, substitute “$40.82”.

(14)  Schedule 3, item 5, page 16 (table item 23C, the rate of duty in column 3), omit “$69.16”, substitute “$40.82”.

(15)  Schedule 3, item 5, page 16 (table item 23E, the rate of duty in column 3), omit “$69.16”, substitute “$40.82”.

(16)  Schedule 3, item 6, page 16 (table item 22A, the rate of duty in column 3), omit “$69.16”, substitute “$40.82”.

(17)  Schedule 3, item 6, page 17 (table item 22C, the rate of duty in column 3), omit “$69.16”, substitute “$40.82”.

(18)  Schedule 3, item 6, page 17 (table item 22E, the rate of duty in column 3), omit “$69.16”, substitute “$40.82”.

(1)    Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 2), insert:

2A. Schedule 1A

At the same time as Schedule 1A to the Customs Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Act 2009 commences.

(2)    Page 3 (after line 9), after Schedule 1, insert:

Schedule 1AReady-to-drink beverages

Excise Tariff Act 1921

1  Schedule (cell at table item 2, column headed “Rate of Duty”)

Repeal the cell, substitute:

$40.82 per litre of alcohol

Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000—

These amendments are framed as requests because they are to a bill which imposes taxation within the meaning of section 53 of the Constitution. The Senate may not amend a bill imposing taxation

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000—

As this is a bill imposing taxation within the meaning of section 53 of the Constitution, any Senate amendment to the bill must be moved as a request. This is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate.

These bills have been roundly discredited in the contributions by coalition senators over the last couple of hours. Not even Labor senators in the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs were prepared to put their names to the proposition that the government’s increased tax on alcopops had in fact reduced at-risk levels of alcohol consumption by young people across Australia. I quote very quickly the concluding remarks from Labor senators on the committee, who said ‘it was not possible to definitively conclude that this reduction in consumption had resulted in a reduction in levels of risky and high-risk consumption of RTDs by young women, leading to improved health outcomes.’

I guess that says it all. If government senators on the committee make a damning statement like this, what hope has the government got to convince the broader Australian community that this is a tax measure that is actually working to achieve health outcomes? The reality is that this was a tax measure. It was a revenue measure which the government, for political purposes, sought to dress up as a health measure. The government never put in place any performance measures or targets that would enable the Senate or the Australian people to assess whether the measure had been successful in achieving the results it set out to achieve.

It went downhill from there. For the last 11 months we have had the government tell us that the evidence is there, but if you ask the experts it is very clear: not one single piece of evidence has been provided by the government that this measure has resulted in a reduction of levels of at-risk alcohol consumption or in a reduction of alcohol abuse related harm in the community over the last 11 months. Here we are: we have given the government every single opportunity—through estimates, through two Senate inquiries, through debate in the chamber—and today we still do not have any evidence presented by the government; all we have seen is the government scrambling to close loopholes. We have seen a collapse in the estimated revenue from $3.1 billion to $1.6 billion. The government, in its great ability to spin even when things clearly are not working according to plan, said that this was what the government wanted all along.

In any event, I have today moved a series of requests for amendments which essentially will implement the recommendations of coalition senators on the community affairs committee. The effect of the amendments will be to validate the tax collected by the government between 27 April 2008 and the date of royal assent. There are a number of other provisions in the requests that have been circulated.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert will speak a little bit more on the specifics of these requested amendments, but we are now looking at modifications to government bills which are going to raise some $1.6 billion over the next four years from the sale of what are called alcopops. The Greens and other members of the crossbench have been endeavouring to hypothecate a very small amount—I am talking about one to five per cent of that huge amount of income—to put into health measures and other measures to ameliorate and, hopefully, offset some of the impacts of alcohol abuse in Australia.

For reasons which are not quite evident to us—and I do not know how evident they are to the minister herself—the government has decided that it is not going to go that far. It will accept proposals to do with warning signs on labelling and on advertising but it will not go so far as to agree with proposals which would give sporting organisations an option other than alcohol advertising—and isn’t that a telling factor—or establish an alcohol hotline which would be available to those highly motivated Australians who wanted to get away from the problem they are in.

It needs to be said at this juncture, in this committee stage, that it is quite remarkable that the government in the Senate has said that it is not going to support those proposals. They are very, very modest proposals when it comes to the huge amount of revenue being raised here. Just a little later in the week, we are going to be asked by the government to agree to $2 billion to back the banks and big development corporations on the risk, which is yet unproven anywhere, that there may be some failure by overseas lenders to renew loans. That is $2 billion the government is going to put into the big end of town if that legislation goes through, but, as far as the proposals by the Greens are concerned, it refused to give a total of $20 million to provide an opportunity for sporting organisations not to have alcohol advertising funding them but to have the public purse doing it. That is money that did not have to come out of this $1.6 billion, but it is 1¼ per cent of this $1.6 billion and yet the minister said no. Now, a little bit of hypothecation goes a long way. It would have been wise of the minister to think this out a little bit better. The resolve of the Senate is being tested, no doubt, and there is a lot of thought, sense and community consultation that has gone into the proposals that Senator Siewert and the Greens have put forward, and I have no doubt the same is true for those put forward by Senator Fielding and Senator Xenophon. I would think that, if this debate does go overnight, the government should very seriously consider this intransigence, which is totally out of proportion to the matters we are dealing with here tonight and to the amount of money that this tax is raising.

I finally want to say at this juncture that last year I wrote to the Prime Minister asking for hypothecation of this money to help people who are having difficulties with alcohol and therefore offset the massive impact that alcohol abuse has on the economy, not to speak of society. I have had no reply. We passed a motion in this Senate almost 12 months ago warning the government that it could not take the Senate for granted as it went ahead and raised the money without bringing the legislation in 12 months ago. Well, that moment of test is now on. The government ought to be thinking very carefully overnight about whether or not it respects the role of the Senate and the very reasonable proposals that have been put before it or whether it expects to act like a steamroller. It might look at what happened to the Howard government. Obviously it has forgotten the three years leading to 2007. I think that in the cool of the morning the government might have time to think afresh. It would be very wise of it to do so.

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

As Senator Brown has articulated, the Greens are hugely disappointed with the government’s response to our very reasonable, very well thought out proposals to provide a much more comprehensive approach to dealing with alcohol related harm than, in fact, the government were taking. The government came to the Australian people and to this place with a proposal to increase the excise on ready-to-drink alcoholic drinks, commonly known as alcopops, and were very clear in saying that this was about dealing with alcohol related harm. They very clearly articulated the harm that is occurring in the Australian community caused by alcohol in general and ready-to-drink alcopops in particular. Unlike the coalition, we actually do believe some of the evidence that has been presented—that, in fact, there has been an increase in young people, and particularly young women, drinking alcopops, which increases alcohol related harm. Also, very importantly, it sets up early drinking patterns, and that is why, as I mentioned in my speech in the second reading debate, producers particularly go for the sweet taste: to mask the taste of alcohol for young drinkers.

The government went to the Australian people saying that this was about dealing with alcohol related harm, yet they will not spend part of that revenue on these proposals. We were not even asking for all of the revenue, though you would have thought that, if this were about alcohol related harm, they would actually commit that revenue to addressing that harm, which is a $15.3 billion problem in Australia. That is how much it costs. As I have said several times over the last couple of weeks, that does not put a cost on the grief that is caused by that harm. However, the government have said no. They will not commit all of it. They will not even commit a significant part of it. They will come back and run the argument that we are all being spoilers and that they have committed over half of the revenue raised to dealing with alcohol. In fact, it is not true. They have committed a lot of money—I will give them that—to preventative measures. They have, but that is not just about alcohol. When you consider that $800 million in the overall scheme of things—the fact that they are getting over $7 billion worth of revenue from alcohol taxation—it puts a bit of a different perspective on it. You have to wonder whether they can break their addiction to revenue from alcohol.

We were being very sensible. I have spent a lot of time over the last year thoroughly researching, as have other Greens senators, the impact of alcohol on our community and how we should be addressing alcohol related harm. The overwhelming evidence is that things like this need to be part of a comprehensive strategy. Price is a very important factor; in fact, it is top of the list in terms of dealing with alcohol. But it should always be part of a comprehensive approach.

Senator Brown wrote on behalf of the Greens to the Prime Minister, saying, ‘If you want our support for this measure, you have to show us how it is part of a comprehensive approach.’ That was not quite 12 months ago—it was just after this tax was introduced, and we know that it has not been in place for 12 months yet. We never had a response to that letter. I also sent a copy of that letter to the health minister. We never had a formal response to that letter. We are still waiting for that formal response.

We not only wrote but followed that up with proposals that were framed in the context of (a) being a comprehensive approach and (b) being evidence based. The government also talk about evidence based approaches to a lot of their policies but in particular this policy. We have looked at the evidence; we have looked at what works; we have looked at the overseas examples. Guess what one of the other No. 1 issues is? Advertising. You have to address advertising. That is where the government do not want to go. It is No. 2 on the list, but the government do not want to go there. They do not want to close the loophole which allows alcohol advertising to be shown during children’s viewing times if you sponsor sport. If big alcohol sponsors sport, they get to show that ad during children’s television viewing times.

But that is not the only major issue with advertising and sponsorship; there is all the other sponsorship across sports, from what is termed big alcohol to taverns sponsoring the local sports group. I do not know about other states, but in my home state of Western Australia this is a really big issue. I know that it is a big issue because, when I raised this link between sports sponsorship and alcohol through the media, I got lots of phone calls from community sporting organisations saying, ‘You want to take away our funding.’ I said: ‘No, I don’t want to take away your funding. But I want to make sure that the funding that you get is not from taverns and from alcohol manufacturers so that you do not have to have their logo on your shirts.’ You know what? The international evidence shows that there is a direct link between alcohol abuse, sponsorship and the use of logos. Alcohol abuse goes up proportionally to the amount of sponsorship there is. There is a direct link there. Why doesn’t the government want to go there?

Do you know what? Although the Greens would prefer to ban advertising tomorrow, we are realistic and we know that that is not going to happen. We know that cutting off sponsorship is not going to happen tomorrow. We came up with a very sensible plan to phase out sponsorship. We came up with a very sensible plan to put a toe in the water in dealing with sponsorship. But did the government go there? No, they will not even consider it. They dismiss it. They will not fund any extra measures related to alcohol related harm. They will not take a comprehensive approach. The Greens have said all along that the government needed to fund a comprehensive approach, and they have not.

The problem with the price measure is that the impact will not last long. Yes, it has had an impact in reducing the number of standard drinks sold in Australia—we agree; it has. But, as I pointed out earlier, it will last a short time if we do not take a broader approach. That is what the evidence has shown overseas. The overseas evidence that the government quoted at the numerous inquiries that we have had in alcohol—and I have participated in three in the last 12 months—shows that price has an impact, but where it has been successful is where it has been linked to other measures in a comprehensive approach. It needs to be linked to addressing advertising, sponsorship and reducing licensing hours, and linked to social marketing programs, rehabilitation programs and support programs. All the evidence shows that. We know that it works: this is how we dealt with tobacco. We are not asking for anything different to what we asked for regarding tobacco in the past.

The community is behind these sorts of measures. They are sick of the damage that alcohol causes, whether it is when they are at a local sporting event or in their own family or domestic situation. They are sick of seeing alcohol abuse associated with sport splashed across the front pages. They do not want to see that anymore. There is strong support for these sorts of measures, and it is about time that the government woke up to it.

As I have said repeatedly, if this is genuinely about dealing with alcohol related harm, why aren’t the government prepared to spend a relatively small amount? The Greens asked for less than two per cent of this funding to be allocated to start dealing with the issues around sponsorship. The government decided that they could not go there. We do not think that this measure will be effective if it is not part of a comprehensive approach. The government are squandering the window of opportunity that this tax has generated. They have managed to reduce the amount of alcohol sold. They will squander that if they do not bring in these other measures. They will squander this opportunity if they do not put in place a comprehensive approach to dealing with alcohol.

The community supports this sort of measure. We have a lot of sympathy for this sort of measure, which is what we said all along. We put the government on notice 12 months ago. We said: ‘Show us how you’re going to be investing this money in a comprehensive approach. Where are the complementary programs? They’re not there.’ We said that to the government when we wrote to them. We paid the government the courtesy of writing to them 12 months ago and we are still waiting for their response. They will not start addressing the issue of sponsorship, which is one of the key issues when you are dealing with alcohol related harm. What the government want to do is deal with some bits of it but not the others. But the evidence shows that if you do not deal with all the bits of it you are not going to have the outcomes you want in the long term.

If this is not about money, invest the money in dealing with alcohol related harm and make the hard decisions about sponsorship. That is what we have to do. We did it for tobacco and we have now got to do it with alcohol. But of course the alcohol industry is very powerful, isn’t it? They have been roaming this place for a whole year, haunting people’s offices. They have been in and out all the time delivering free alcopops to politicians around here. They have been in and out of everybody’s office lobbying hard. It is hard, I know, but as I said this morning the jig is up for the industry and they have got to start taking some responsibility—more than they have been taking. We need a more independent approach to the way we deal with advertising and we need the industry’s hands off advertising. They are still self-regulating their advertising, for crying out loud. How can you put an industry that makes billions of dollars out of the sale of alcohol in charge of regulating itself?

The industry wants to see that sort of thing continue. We know what other industries have been doing overseas in order to affect public policy. It is the same for the alcohol industry. They are very clearly affecting public policy. That is what they have been doing for the 12 months in which they have been actively lobbying around here, developing their bad alternatives to alcopops—and nobody will own up to who was doing it; they certainly did not at the committee hearings. They have been running specials—two bottles of spirits and you get a bottle of Coke, or one bottle of spirits and you get two bottles of Coke. They are misinterpreting the evidence and doing their own surveys.

I listened to it when I sat through two days of the inquiry and I sat through days of it at the other inquiries. I have heard all the evidence. I heard what they said about how they had surveyed their members and, guess what, there has been a lot of substitution and we did not get to see the data. The industry will not tell us how much they have paid for promoting their products. I have heard all of that. I have had them knocking on my door repeatedly.

We have put a lot of effort into understanding this issue, which is why we are so frustrated that the government is not prepared to move on it. We have thoroughly researched this. We have spoken to all the health bodies and we have read all the submissions. We know what the issues are, we know the damage it causes and we know how to fix it. ‘Go the full distance’ is what we are saying to government. Wake up and realise that we are prepared to support it if you will address it with a comprehensive approach. But you are not prepared to because you are not prepared to go the extra yards to put in place a full, comprehensive program. That is what we are asking for.

We came up with very sensible proposals but, instead of doing what is required, you would rather have a barney in the Senate. Well, now you have got a barney in the Senate because you would not go the extra yards to fund the programs.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We won’t give in to every demand you make.

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

Is that what it is about? It is not about funding sensible programs to address alcohol related harm; it is about your not being seen to be forced to do the right thing when you have not been doing it. As I said, you have got a barney now. It is about small amounts of money. We were prepared to go with trial programs to get them off the ground but you would not even go that far. We are here at 10.25 pm arguing about it because you will not go the distance by putting proper programs in place that actually start addressing the issues around sponsorship. (Time expired)

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It may be out of order to refer to interjections, but I think Senator Evans was right when he earlier interjected that it is, in a sense, a matter of price with respect to the various programs, because this measure raises revenue and is intended to deal with the whole issue of binge drinking.

One of the first issues the media asked me about when I came to the Senate was what I thought of the measures. I consistently said nine months ago that I thought that $53.5 million—out of what back then was $3.1 billion—for tackling binge drinking seemed to be quite inadequate. I also said that I was sympathetic to the intent of the measure as it had been portrayed to me by the government—and I accepted the government’s position at face value—which was to tackle the issue of binge drinking, which the government identified, quite rightly I believe, as being a very real social problem. The uptake of drinking by young people, especially young women, was emerging as a very significant social issue. This particular measure was intended to tackle that by increasing the price of the beverages and also by putting money aside for programs that could actually make a difference. That is something that I have not resiled from.

The issue now is the extent to which the government has made commitments to deal with binge drinking. That $53.5 million hardly seems to be adequate. I refer you to the media release made jointly by the Minister for Health and Ageing and Senator McLucas in relation to the National Binge Drinking Strategy. Reference was made to measures, to community groups and to programs, and I referred to some of those in the context of my second reading contribution. As I understand it, over 300 applications were received for these community based programs and only 19 were funded because of the constraints of the revenue available in the context of the government’s National Binge Drinking Strategy. In my quick back-of-the-envelope calculation, that works out to about $3.5 million for the 19 programs.

These programs, let us make it clear, were national programs throughout the country. They included, for instance: the Nambucca Valley Youth Services Centre for the Mid North Coast Street Team—$250,000 to engage young people in developing and implementing preventative strategies to reduce the incidence of risky alcohol use; the King Island Council, for the Youth Access Program—$60,800 to provide alcohol-free venues for youth related activities; the Lutheran Church of Australia—$248,954 for the ‘On Friday Night in Kilburn’ project; the Australian Red Cross Society Queensland, for the Binge Drinking Harm Minimisation Project—$150,000 to respond to binge drinking, specifically towards the needs of vulnerable target groups in the greater Brisbane and Toowoomba areas; Anglicare North Queensland Ltd, for their Youth Substance Misuse Service’s binge drinking initiative—$150,000 to provide school leavers with awareness of laws, penalties, standard drinks, drink spiking and many similar activities; and the Russian Ethnic Representative Council of Victoria for their Reducing Binge Drinking in Russian/Slavic Communities project—$150,000 to conduct a broad community education campaign. These were just some of the many worthy projects that were approved. But, given that there were 319 projects, and even if a third of those would have been eligible and would have had a great degree of efficacy about them, that still shows that there is a lack of adequate funding.

I think it is important to reflect on what both the health minister and Senator McLucas said in that media release:

It is important to empower local communities to deliver local solutions to local problems. They know best the specific circumstances and details of what goes on in their own regions, towns and cities.

They have a solid understanding of what activities will and won’t work. They also have the commitment and energy to succeed.

The media release goes on to say:

The grants will enable community groups and organisations to combine in strong, effective partnerships to combat binge-drinking alongside community members and organisations such as police, health and youth workers, cultural groups and local government authorities.

It went on to say:

The Rudd government is determined to fight binge-drinking. These grants will enable the battle to be taken directly into local communities, by local communities for local communities.

I could not agree more with what the government is doing, and the government is to be commended for these projects. They are diverse projects from a combination of community groups, NGOs such as the Red Cross, ethnic community groups and church groups. They are a good mix of projects, but there simply are not enough of them. We need to have many, many more of these projects in order to make a significant difference, and that is why I believe it is important to provide additional funding for that. That is my concern.

On the issue of sponsorship that Senator Siewert has spoken about, I think it is very important that we put that in context as well, because the effect of sponsorship by alcohol companies on young people should not be underestimated. There is also the issue of advertising, which Senator Fielding has been outspoken on for some considerable time. I commend him for the bill that he introduced last year to deal with alcohol related harm which I believe had very many good elements in it. This is not simply about money; it is about making a difference with the significant revenue that the Commonwealth is getting from this measure—$1.6 billion over four years—on top of about $6.7 billion in revenue that it gets each year from alcohol excise. When you consider how little goes into preventative measures to directly combat binge drinking and alcohol abuse, I think it is quite reasonable to consider that this measure targeted towards binge drinking actually addresses the issue of binge drinking in a much more substantive way.

On the issue of advertising—which, as I said, Senator Fielding has been outspoken on for some considerable time and deserves credit for—let us look at the research. Research by a team from the University of Connecticut and published in the journal Archives of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine provides some support for the WHO recommendation in relation to alcohol advertising. This research found that for each extra alcohol advertisement experienced per month, young people consumed one per cent more drinks. The researchers also analysed young people’s drinking in relation to the money spent on advertising based on industry figures and found investment in marketing also increased consumption. The finding that alcohol advertising was a contributing factor to young people’s drinking quantities over time is a significant one. I think it is important that that causal link is considered. And that is not a measure that involves spending any extra money; it is a measure that involves regulation.

I am concerned that the government has not been prepared to take on to a greater degree the alcohol industry in relation to this. Senator Siewert has said that the industry has been lurking around the corridors. I always enjoy talking to Gordon Broderick, one of the lobbyists for the industry—and I say that genuinely; we may agree to disagree, but he is a very affable chap to talk to. I think the industry did drop off some Passion Pop and some other alcopops, which are on a shelf unopened, I want to assure Senator Evans—although one of my staffers did say that the bottle of Passion Pop did bring back some fond, or maybe not so fond, memories from his youth which I will not go into in any more detail! But I think it is important to put that in the context that there is an opportunity to do a lot more on this. I can understand that the government says, ‘We are spending this $53½ million and we are also spending $872 million under the COAG initiatives on various health issues.’ But let us put that in perspective. The healthy children initiative—again, a worthy initiative—provides for interventions for children from zero to 16 years of age to increase physical activity and improve nutrition through childcare centres, preschools and families. The government’s document in relation to that says that states and territories will be able to address prevention of excessive alcohol consumption as part of these programs. Well, of course they will. But the fundamental question I have asked in relation to that $872 million for programs is: how much of that—which the government says is new money and I accept its word that it is new money—is in fact for new programs?

One of the key issues that needs to be determined here is: are these programs that would have been implemented in any event genuinely new projects? Given the government’s quite laudable commitments to dealing with issues of childhood obesity or increasing physical activity or measures to do with tobacco, which is one of the other matters that will be dealt with in this $872 million, to what extent are these genuinely new projects an advance as a direct result of the $1.6 billion that has been raised? That is an issue that my office has not been able to get a fixed or firm answer on. I do not want to be critical of Minister Roxon’s office because I believe that they have been absolutely helpful and genuine in terms of information we have requested, but there seems to be a lack of appropriate research, a lack of material in relation to this, and I think that is a real problem.

For instance, the healthy communities program relates to healthy living programs supporting physical activity, improved nutrition, smoking cessation and reduced alcohol consumption to be rolled out nationally through local government organisations in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas. Alcohol consumption is part of that, but in terms of this specific measure—dealing with alcopops and binge drinking, particularly by young people—the sorts of programs that have actually made a real difference have been the $3.6 million in the round of grants for grassroots community work targeted at combating the impact of binge drinking. To me, the real problem is that not enough has been spent.

I can understand the frustration of the government, but, given what the government’s intentions have been to deal with this, I think that this is about the binge drinking. It is about tackling this serious social issue. The principal difficulty I have had is that the funding that has been set aside—and this cannot be categorised as pork-barrelling of one particular state; it is about money being spent nationally—has been insufficient. I am not suggesting that the criteria be changed for the funding or that it be allocated to one particular community or state or region; it is about ensuring that there are enough of these programs rolling out to make that big difference in terms of binge drinking.

One of the issues that has been raised—and I am grateful to the Parliamentary Library for the research that they have done on binge drinking programs elsewhere around the world—is that the conclusion has been reached that it is not surprising that comprehensive community level interventions should prove most successful in reducing binge drinking amongst young people, given the multifaceted nature of alcohol related problems. The World Medical Association notes that alcohol related problems are the ‘result of complex interplay between individual use of alcoholic beverages and the surrounding cultural, economic, and physical environment, political and social context and, as such, broad based approaches that employ different but synergistic strategies are required to effectively tackle binge drinking’.

I could not agree more. That is the sort of thing that needs to be done in tackling this and I believe that the government has shown the way forward with the first lot of grants, totalling $3.6 million, to deal with it. But that is simply not enough to get to that tipping point of making a significant difference to appreciably reduce the level of binge drinking in the community. That is why I think that, if there is a way for the government to ensure that there are additional funds to make this difference, this could be a worthwhile measure. But, on the basis of the evidence before me and on the basis of the commitments already made, I cannot support this measure.

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

The government got themselves in a bit of a mess because, if you look at these figures, the cost of mopping up after alcohol is $15.3 billion a year. That is what it is costed at. You look at the statistics and see that there are 4,300 alcohol related deaths a year. Forty per cent of police work is alcohol related. One in five road deaths is alcohol related. And the best that you mob can do is a tax grab. That is insulting. It is a con.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Chris Evans interjecting—

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

Settle down! Back in September 2007 Family First put forward three real measures to start to address the culture of binge drinking and reinforce a responsible drinking culture through the Alcohol Toll Reduction Bill. Frankly, you have been stalling ever since we introduced the bill. To be absolutely clear, I spoke to the current Prime Minister before he was Prime Minister—and I will not divulge what he said, but I did I raise the issue well before the last election—and I was absolutely gobsmacked to think that the best that you folks could do was pull the tax lever on one product.

The measures that Family First put forward were, firstly, health warning labels on alcohol products. It makes sense; you cannot defend not putting those labels in place. The second measure was to address the crazy exemption given to sports programming which allows alcohol ads to appear any time of the day, and the third one was to get alcohol advertising out of the industry’s hands into the hands of a regulatory body independent of the industry. We have a situation in Australia, through inaction by the Rudd government, that has allowed alcohol and sports to continue to be tied so closely together, and we have seen only in the last few weeks some of the issues that sports have with alcohol. You try to apply a brake, but you have your foot down on the accelerator, allowing alcohol advertising to continue any time of the day because it is during a sports program. Why would you allow that tight link between sport and alcohol when you have clearly got a problem?

You are doing Australian families a disservice and hiding behind a tax grab. You should come clean and say it is a tax measure and maybe get the Treasurer to come and do the negotiations on the tax measure rather than Minister Roxon. In good faith, we have been in discussions with them. We are hoping to see some real action rather than hiding behind a tax grab. I was still hoping that you folks would move on all three measures in that area.

We are left with the situation that money has been collected. The last thing that Family First wants to see is for that money to go back to the industry. I do not think there is anyone in this chamber here who would like that money to go back to the alcohol industry. What we have got before us is a request for an amendment to basically authorise that money to be kept by the government for the year. We do not want any furphies getting out there tomorrow that we want to see the money go back to the industry. I am making it quite clear that this is a request for an amendment so that the money collected up until this measure receives royal assent actually stays with the government. We do not want to camouflage, again, the issues about where the money would go.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not what this does. It also reduces the tax rate.

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

I am hoping that the Leader of the Government in the Senate does know what is in front of the chamber.

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Fielding has the call. If you wish to make a statement in the committee stage, you can seek the call and have the discussion in that way.

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

It is not my request for an amendment, by the way, but I am happy to talk to it. It is quite clearly to make sure that the revenue that has been collected by the government stays with the government. I will say that Family First will be moving a further request, beyond this one, that will allow the revenue for the last year to be kept by the government and to be collected for the next six months with a sunset clause. That allows the government another six months.

Some people have come to me saying, ‘Why would you allow the government another six months when they have already had a year to put real action in place? Why would you give them another six months?’ You sit there and you think, ‘Well, gee, you are right. Why would you give them another six months?’ In good faith, though, you want to see whether the government really does want to move on these Family First issues and so we will still be moving our request, but we do want to make sure that the money does stay with the government. The last thing we would want is to see this money go back to the industry.

I think that anyone who votes against this amendment is basically saying that they do not want the government to keep it. That is what this request does. It authorises and legitimises the revenue that has been captured to stay with the government. Others may want the money to be spent on certain areas. The main purpose of this requested amendment is to make sure that the money that has been collected does not go back to the industry and that it stays with the government. I think that I will also talk to the Family First request following the subsequent one to this. I will make it quite clear that this is about making sure that the revenue collected does not go back to the industry and I urge all senators in the chamber to support this request.

Question put:

That the requests (Senator Cormann’s) be agreed to.