House debates
Wednesday, 14 May 2008
Questions without Notice
Alcohol Abuse
3:08 pm
Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Will the minister provide information to the House on the government’s efforts to tackle binge drinking in our community? Are there any alternative public views on this issue?
Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I thank the member for Chisholm for her question. I know that it is an area that she has been concerned with, being particularly interested in the health of young women in a range of different areas. We believe that binge drinking is a community-wide problem and deserves a community-wide response. We think that young people are particularly at risk and we know that alcopops are used to hook them on drinking when they are young. In fact, research shows that many young people cannot detect the taste of alcohol when it is combined with either sweet mixers or milk, which we know is exactly how these products are used to get young people interested in drinking and hooked for a long time. We are not prepared, as a government, to stand by and just let the increase in alcohol consumption in the community continue.
The Rudd government is taking a range of steps to tackle this problem through the implementation of our $53 million National Binge Drinking Strategy. This is going to involve parents, community organisations, sporting clubs and an advertising and education campaign, which we know and hope will make a significant difference in slowing the growth of alcohol consumption amongst young people.
We have also, as the House is aware, moved to close the previous tax loophole on ready-to-drink products. This was a loophole that was opened up in 2000 by the previous government. It is a loophole that makes no sense because it treats alcopops differently to other spirits and it has led to an explosion in young women in particular drinking these products. I was initially pleased to hear, when we announced this measure, that the Leader of the Opposition was going to support it. On the first day that the measure was announced, the Leader of the Opposition—we welcomed it; he was out of the blocks—said:
The proposed increase in the excise on alcopops is something that will be supported by us …
Only days later the Leader of the Opposition changed his mind and called this an outrageous tax binge on ready mixed drinks. Last night, the Leader of the Opposition confirmed, his U-turn obviously complete, that the Liberals will be opposing this measure in the Senate. Even though he knows 20,000 young women under 15 every week are now drinking to risky levels, the Liberal Party want to stand by and not do anything about it. There has been a lot of discussion in the parliament and elsewhere about this measure over recent days. I think there is an important bit of information that this House should have.
Brendan Nelson (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Dr Nelson interjecting
Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The Leader of the Opposition would like some facts. I will give him a fact. Our modelling and the modelling from Treasury show that our measure will reduce consumption by 43 million 375-mil bottles every year. If the Leader of the Opposition thinks that it is not a good thing for us to have 43 million fewer bottles being drunk—mostly by young people—every year, then he should stand up and say that. It means that the Leader of the Opposition, who is actually a former AMA president and who was a well-respected health professional, now stands totally alone, not just in his party but amongst the health community, in not recognising that this is an important health measure. He will stand condemned for that. This is going to have a positive impact on reducing consumption and, of course, with money that is raised from this measure, as we have already made clear, we will be able to contribute to the biggest commitment to prevention that a Commonwealth government has ever made.
Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Robert interjecting
Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
If the Leader of the Opposition is no longer interested in reducing consumption by 43 million bottles per year then he should stand up and tell the Australian public.
Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Speaker, I ask that the minister table the modelling from her own department from which she was reading.
Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Was the minister reading from a document?
Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Yes, and it is marked confidential.
3:13 pm
Brendan Nelson (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to last night’s high-taxing budget and note that $3.1 billion is projected in extra alcohol taxes on ready-to-drink mixes. Given that this tax increase was meant to tackle binge drinking of ready-to-drink alcohol, particularly amongst young people, why is alcohol consumption actually going to increase over the next four years? Why is only $53 million budgeted to tackle binge drinking? Prime Minister, why is the government on a tax binge instead of taking decisive action to deal with binge drinking itself?
Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I thank the honourable member for his question. On the question of binge drinking, we in the government are responding to the evidence that we have been presented with. If you go to the study Alcohol consumption patterns among Australian 15-17 year olds from 2000 to 2004, a research report commissioned by the Department of Health and Ageing in 2005, it says that between 2000 and 2004 the percentage of female drinkers aged 15 to 17 reported that they had consumed RTDs on their last drinking occasion, an increase from 14 per cent to 62 per cent. That is the first point. The second point is this: in addition, between 1999 and 2005 the proportion of teenage girls aged 12 to 17 who chose RTDs as their preferred drink rose from 23 per cent to 48 per cent. That is in the Australian secondary school students’ use of alcohol in 2005 report. What is extraordinary about these two pieces of data is that those opposite actually choose not to act on them. We have looked at this data and said that we have a responsibility to act. It is very difficult not to go around Australia today without being confronted by the nation’s police commissioners in the various states to be told that binge drinking is a huge problem in inner metro Australia, particularly with girls, and that RTDs are part of the challenge. Therefore, we need to act in this way in order to reduce the growth at which they are consuming.
On the question of the overall integrity of budget measures on how these funds are used, the challenge of preventative health care is going to require a large injection of funds on the part of the Commonwealth. Preventative health care under the previous regime represented some 1.7 per cent of the nation’s total health budget. If we are serious about dealing with the problems of alcoholism and the problems of other chronic diseases emerging in the community, we are going to have to invest hugely in this area. That is why this government is committed to a significant new partnership with the states and territories to ensure that we have a proper funding and policy response to the emerging health needs of the community. Our overall strategy on the budget is to make sure that we properly invest these funds in the future while at the same time producing responsible economic outcomes for the country.
In terms of responsible economic outcomes, I would just say this to the Leader of the Opposition: it is important that those opposite decide where they stand. Within a week the Leader of the Opposition said that he fully supported the extra taxes on RTDs, a measure that we are going to introduce, and then he backflipped completely. This is part of a pattern. The Leader of the Opposition one day says that there is no inflation problem—it is a complete charade—and then we are told, of course, that there is a problem because it is now not sufficiently an anti-inflationary budget. We see the same conflicting position emerging between the Leader of the Opposition and the alternative Leader of the Opposition, the member for Wentworth, on the whole question of cuts. Remember that the member for Wentworth says, ‘No, we do not think that there is any economic need to cut it,’ meaning overall—
Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Deputy Leader of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The question related to binge drinking.
Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The answer goes to the overall question raised by the Leader of the Opposition about the integrity of budget finance and how it is deployed and it goes to the consistency of the Leader of the Opposition’s position on binge drinking, on inflation and on the need for expenditure cuts. Then, of course, we go to this extraordinary debate that we have had in the last 24 hours between the Leader of the Opposition and the alternative Leader of the Opposition on whether the baby bonus should be means-tested. On and on it goes. Should there be a $150,000 means test? We have a question that goes—
Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The question was why the tax increase is based on an increase of alcohol consumption, not about the baby bonus. I ask you to draw the Prime Minister back to the question of why the budget takes into account an increase of alcohol consumption, not a decrease.
Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order goes to the standing orders relating to frivolous points of order. During 2007 there were 178 points of order moved at an average of 12.7 per week or 15.3 per cent of total questions interrupted. We are just into the fifth week of sittings and already there have been more points of order taken this year than the entire sittings last year.
Chris Pearce (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Pearce interjecting
Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The member for Aston will resume his seat. I will give him the call when the Leader of the House has completed his point of order.
Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Over 180 points of order have been moved by those opposite with 40 per cent of questions asked being interrupted by those opposite, as a deliberate tactic to hide from the fact that they have got nothing to say. Mr Speaker, I ask that the standing orders with regard to frivolous points of order be enforced.
Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The member for Aston has the call, because I promised it to him.
Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Would the member for North Sydney like the call?
Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I would, Mr Speaker. Further to the point of order of the Leader of the House, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House made commitments that they would improve question time by shortening answers and making them more relevant. Clearly, when the Prime Minister is asked a question about binge drinking and the baby bonus starts to weasel its way into his answer, then you ask yourself: is he being relevant? I just make the point that the Prime Minister is very good at asking himself questions and answering them. He can ask himself one on the baby bonus, but answer the question about binge drinking.
Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The first observation that I would make is that I hope that those members of the Procedure Committee who have listened to this exchange of points of order might address it in any future inquiry on matters surrounding question time.
Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Or poor quality answers.
Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
If the member for Dunkley has a comment, he could seek the call. Perhaps he does not have a comment, so he will sit there quietly. Successive Speakers have been in great difficulty over these matters for time immemorial. The point is that one would hope that there could be an understanding from both sides of the chamber of the need to have a question time that is more of what the people observing the proceedings of the House think is relevant.
Whilst I have not used this ruling before in this parliament, it has been understood that both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have been given longer lengths of rope than other members of the House. So this particular occasion probably was not the greatest example to bring into this debate about points of order. In that context and given that this is the question time after a budget, when people are perhaps a little testy, that is where we are really at.
With regard to other matters, it would be helpful if answers were shorter. It would be helpful if they were not interrupted as much with points of order that are fairly obvious but are not points of order that I can agree with and rule on. In relation to the way in which relevance has been conducted in this parliament for quite some time and answers, since the election, which I think have been consistent with previous rulings, there has been a slight improvement in the way in which questions have been couched, to make sure that they do not give us an opportunity to have debates when we should not be having debates during question time.
Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Thank you, Mr Speaker. To recap where we were on the question of alcopops, I ran through before the evidence upon which the government is acting. These are sober reports indeed about the impact of these particular ready-to-mix drinks on young girls. I think all responsible members of this House would wish to act in an appropriate way to deal with this challenge, which families are concerned about right across the country and which the police forces are concerned about right across the country. As the Minister for Health and Ageing said in terms of the impact of the quantitative consumption of alcohol overall in this category, it is a measure worth backing. My concluding point is this: this debate would be much more focused if we had a consistent position on the part of the opposition. As the Leader of the Opposition said on 27 April:
The proposed increase in the excise on alcopops is something that will be supported by us …
Then he went on to say on 13 May that, ‘There are a number of measures,’ referring to tax measures, ‘that we are now particularly concerned about,’ referring to the action which has now been referred to by the minister for health: that they intend to use their numbers in the Senate to obstruct this measure. It is important for the Leader of the Opposition to have a consistent position when it comes to this important public health policy matter, a consistent position on inflation, a consistent position on whether there is an economic case for cuts in government spending and a consistent position on whether in fact we should have a means test at about the $150,000 point. He says there should not be; the member for Wentworth says there should be. It is very difficult to work out these days where the opposition stands on any core question of economic policy or social policy.
Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
On a point of order, Mr Speaker: the Prime Minister quoted extensively from the evidence he talked about in the modelling. I ask that he table those documents and that evidence and make it public.
Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Was the Prime Minister quoting documents?
Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Yes.
Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Yes.