Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

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

The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The member for North Sydney can take his props back with him.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In recent years, the drinks have come out prior to the opposition leader’s response to the budget. It is not appropriate—

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

The Leader of the House will resume his seat and he is warned!

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer him to his new $3 billion alcopop tax. I note the two drinks here: a Yellowglen Pink, sold for $4.50, which not an alcopop; and a Bacardi Breezer, which is sold for also $4.50, which is an alcopop. I say to you, Prime Minister: isn’t your alcopop tax just a tax grab? It does nothing about binge drinking, given that the major competitor to an alcopop is taxed at half the rate and has twice the amount of alcohol. It just shows this is a tax-grabbing con.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Which makes it more remarkable that the Leader of the Opposition said that he would support this tax measure when it was first announced. But try to find where the Liberal Party stands on any tax measure or any policy measure at the moment; what the three-ringed circus—which equals the leadership of the Liberal Party today—the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Wentworth and the member for Higgins—currently represents on the question of this measure. We have responded to the reports which we have been presented. From the Australian secondary students’ use of alcohol: the proportion of teenage girls aged between 12 and 17 who chose RTDs as their preferred drink rose from 23 per cent to 48 per cent; secondly, between 2000 and 2004, the percentage of female drinkers aged 15 to 17 reporting that they had consumed RTDs at their last drinking occasion increased from 14 per cent to 62 per cent. And, according to a 2007 survey, approximately 20,000 girls aged 12 to 15 reported that they drink daily or weekly. The key challenge here is what government can do about this.

Of course, what is interesting about the figures I have just referred to is they all postdate an important event in the year 2000. What happened in the year 2000? With the introduction of the GST, a certain party in government decided of its own volition, in response to lobbying—we do not know—that this particular group of drinks, RTDs, would in effect have preferential tax treatment. As a consequence of that, we have seen a complete explosion in the use of these RTDs by young people, and in particular by young girls. If you go around the country and if you speak to those who are responsible for accident and emergency wards in the nation’s hospitals, if you speak to the nation’s police commissioners or if you go for a walk through the city at night and see what is happening in the streets of our major metrocentres and elsewhere, you will see this is a huge problem. Because of these factors, the government have decided to act—that is, we have decided to embrace a series of measures to tackle binge drinking.

On the question of binge drinking, we have dealt with a whole range of measures: firstly, $14.4 million in community-level initiatives to confront the culture of binge drinking; secondly, $19.1 million to intervene earlier; thirdly, $20 million in advertising that confronts young people with the costs and consequences of binge drinking; on top of that, closing the alcopop tax loophole, which those opposite introduced in the year 2000; and, on top of that again, ensuring that funds can be—

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All these elements form part of an integrated strategy for dealing with this. This is not an easy measure. We are dealing with a very complex social problem, and we must therefore act at every level. We will have more to say about binge drinking in the months ahead, because we are in close consultation with our colleagues in the police service and in the states and territories who are responsible for this.

I find it interesting, again, that here we are today being attacked not just from the left on economic policy by the Liberal Party but also from the libertarian left on social policy. Let us look at these institutions which have come out in support of the government’s measures. The Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia CEO, David Templeman, said:

… this initiative clearly recognised the problems created by the excessive consumption of RTDs which were attractive to the youth market.

Furthermore, the Australian Drug Foundation CEO, John Rogerson, said:

This tax fixes a problem started with the introduction of the GST and shows that the Government is serious about tackling alcohol problems in our community.

I pause at this moment to ask: what did happen back there in the year 2000 to cause this particular tax loophole to be created? This would be a very productive area for inquiry as to why that happened, because the public health consequences which have flowed from that decision have been acute.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The system was changed so that people could not put low-tax wine into RTDs.

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

Order! That is not a point of order. The member will resume his seat.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you look at the comments on this measure from the respected health authorities of the nation, they make for sobering reading. The Public Health Association of Australia President, Professor Michael Daube, said:

This is a timely response to a growing social problem.

He continued:

There is now dramatic evidence showing that young women are out-drinking their male counterparts—and unfortunately many of them drink to get drunk … This has been helped by the ready availability of cheap spirit-based drinks, which have become the first choice of young women. Alcopops are the first … drink for as many as 60 per cent of girls.

We then go on to the Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation CEO, Daryl Smeaton, who said:

International evidence demonstrates that taxing alcopops at the same rate as bottled spirits will change the consumption patterns amongst young people and lead to less alcohol-related harm.

We have here, from the respected public health authorities of the nation—the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia, the Australian Drug Foundation, the Public Health Association of Australia, and the Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation of Australia—this series of considered remarks in response to the measure which was introduced by the government in the budget.

What stuns me is that the Leader of the Opposition, a former president of the AMA, when he first heard of this measure that we introduced said what I thought was the responsible thing:

The proposed increase in the excise on alcopops is something that will be supported by us …

I find it quite extraordinary that, within a week or so in politics, we have a flip-flop on this, as we have had a flip-flop on the whole question of means testing and on every measure under the sun, on the part of those opposite.

This is a difficult and complex area. What the government seek to do through this measure is to close a tax loophole which has been there, created by those opposite back in 2000, and to act in a responsible way to reduce the growth in RTDs and their consumption across the country. We will add to these measures in the future when it comes to other forms of policy which can help to deal with the binge-drinking crisis in Australia. The government are committed to acting in this area. Those opposite, I am sad to say, now pit themselves against the respected public health authorities of the nation and the repeated calls of police commissioners and others across the country to act in this area of critical need. I believe that working families across the country will know which piece of policy actually deals with this problem, as opposed to those who exhibit no interest in it.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Prime Minister referred to a number of surveys and statistics in his answer. I would ask him to table those for the benefit of the House and, in doing so, I would refer him to the National Drug Strategy household surveys for 2001, 2004 and 2007, which showed that binge drinking—

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

Order! That is not a point of order. The member for Sturt will resume his seat. The request for tabling of documents is in order, but a point of order is not an opportunity to start a debate. Was the Prime Minister quoting from documents? Were the documents confidential? The props, having served their purpose, can be removed somewhere. I could not recommend those products at this stage, but—