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

I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to this bill and to the Customs Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009 and seek leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (4), as circulated, together.

Leave granted.

I move government amendments (1) to (4):

(1)    Clause 2, page 1 (lines 7 and 8), omit the clause, substitute:

2 Commencement

        (1)    Each provision of this Act specified in column 1 of the table commences, or is taken to have commenced, in accordance with column 2 of the table. Any other statement in column 2 has effect according to its terms.

Note:   This table relates only to the provisions of this Act as originally passed by both Houses of the Parliament and assented to. It will not be expanded to deal with provisions inserted in this Act after assent.

        (2)    Column 3 of the table contains additional information that is not part of this Act. Information in this column may be added to or edited in any published version of this Act.

(2)    Schedule 1, heading, page 3 (line 2), omit “Excise Tariff Act 1921”, substitute “Ready-to-drink beverages”.

(3)    Schedule 1, page 3 (before line 4), before item 1, insert:

Excise Tariff Act 1921

(4)    Page 3 (after line 8), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 2—Beer

Excise Tariff Act 1921

1 Schedule (definition of Beer)

Repeal the definition, substitute:

beer means a brewed beverage that:

             (a)    is the product of the yeast fermentation of an aqueous extract, being predominantly an aqueous extract of cereals:

                   (i)    whether the cereals are malted or unmalted; and

                  (ii)    whether or not the aqueous extract contains other sources of carbohydrates; and

             (b)    contains:

                   (i)    hops, or extracts of hops, such that the beverage has international bitterness units of not less than 4.0; or

                  (ii)    other bitters such that the beverage has a bitterness comparable to that of a beverage mentioned in subparagraph (i); and

             (c)    contains not more than 4.0% by weight of sugars; and

             (d)    has not had added to it, at any time, artificial sweetener; and

             (e)    may have had added to it, at any time, other substances, including flavours, but only if, in the case of substances that contain alcohol (other than spirit distilled from beer), the alcohol did not add more than 0.5% to the total volume of the final beverage; and

              (f)    may have had added to it, at any time, spirit distilled from beer, but only if that spirit did not add more than 0.5% to the total volume of the final beverage; and

             (g)    contains more than 1.15% by volume of alcohol.

2 Schedule (the definitions)

Insert:

sugar means:

             (a)    monosaccharide; or

             (b)    disaccharide.

3 Application

The amendments of the Excise Tariff Act 1921 made by this Schedule apply in relation to beverages manufactured or produced on or after the commencement of this item.

These supplementary amendments to the Excise Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009 alter the definition of ‘beer’ for taxation purposes. The amendments are aimed at ensuring that beer products that attempt to mimic spirit based products in relation to their taste are taxed as a spirit based product—that is, at the higher tax rate.

The need for moving these amendments is a sign of how desperate the industry has become to target sugary, colourful drinks at teenagers, which is simply unacceptable. Today we are introducing these amendments to crack down on these ruthless alcopops producers. The tax office has already decided that some products, known as ‘malternatives’, will be treated as alcopops. A recently released tax office interpretive decision clarified that to meet the current definition of ‘beer’ a beverage must have sufficient quantities of hops or extracts or other bitters to satisfy the bitterness requirement. These amendments will formalise this for all ‘malternatives’ and prevent the development of new beer and wine based products that are simply trying to get around the law.

These changes will go further and, by being forward looking, seek to prevent the development of new beer based products that attempt to overcome the current definition. These amendments will achieve this goal by changing the definition of ‘beer’ to set a combination of minimum limits on bitterness and maximum limits on sugar content that must be present in the final beverage. As part of the sugar requirement, artificial sweeteners will not be permitted to be added to beer. The proposed revised definition of ‘beer’ is sufficiently robust to allow innovation in the beer-making process by allowing additional ingredients, including small amounts of alcohol from a non-beer source, to be added during the brewing process. Such changes are expected to allow domestic brewers to better compete with international brewers by providing opportunities to produce new beer flavours within the new requirements concerning bitterness and sugar content.

These amendments have been designed to ensure that conventional beer products are treated as beer for tax purposes. Complementary changes will be made to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 so that imported beer is subject to the same definition of ‘beer’ for taxation purposes. Additionally, these amendments are part of a package of measures that also include changes to the ‘wine’ definition so that wine based products that attempt to mimic spirit based products in taste are taxed at a higher rate. These changes to the definition of ‘wine’ will be made in amendments to the A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax) Regulations 2000 and the Customs Tariff Act 1995.

In the same way that we are dealing with beer based products, we will ensure that wine based products that attempt to mimic spirit based products in taste are taxed at the higher rate that applies to RTDs. These amendments are designed not to have any significant impact on conventional wine products. While only a very few wine products may be affected, the industry supports these changes.

No-one seriously disputes that alcopops are targeted at young people, who often have limited experience of alcohol and who may not recognise the effect alcohol is having on them, as its taste is disguised. We are serious about the binge-drinking crisis and we believe it is important for us to protect young people from the seemingly endless ingenuity of distillers, who will try to market their product to young people and get around each and every change that is made to the tax system.

We are determined that we will develop a multipronged strategy. Our binge-drinking strategy is already part of that. Our COAG preventive health initiative is another important part of it. Experts ranging from health professionals to police agree that binge drinking is a problem, and this measure is part of our overall comprehensive strategy to deal with this problem. If the opposition is seriously interested in helping address the binge-drinking problem, it should put its interest in this bill and support it ahead of its loyalty to distillers. That would be putting the health of our young people first.

Full details of the amendments are contained in the supplementary explanatory memorandum. It might assist the House to know that, although the government consulted with domestic brewers and winemakers to ensure that these new definitions had no unintended consequences, as a result of a briefing that my office and the Treasurer’s office provided to the shadow minister, I understand that a request has been made that we also seek the views of importers, which we are happy to do. If any unintended consequences are brought to our attention, we will make any further amendments to the legislation that are necessary. I understand that will assist the passage of these amendments through the House and I thank the shadow minister for that constructive contribution. (Time expired)

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

Firstly, can I thank the minister for her undertaking. At about 4.30 this afternoon the Treasury and an officer from the minister’s office were kind enough to provide us with a briefing on these amendments. I understand that with many of these Treasury initiated bills there can be unintended consequences because there is not enough time for consultation, either because legislation has been rushed into the House or because people are not easily identified or contactable. So I appreciate the minister’s undertaking in that regard. It would be unfortunate if, in the government’s rush to introduce these amendments, people were caught up in those arrangements. If importers or domestic producers who have not been consulted had products which were captured by this new definition, that would be unfortunate. As the government has said, and as the minister conveyed in her speech a few moments ago, it will undertake to address those anomalies and exclude those people should there be an unintended capture of those people.

The point that really needs to be made as part of this debate—and it is reflected by these amendments, which are being rushed in at the eleventh hour—is that this is a bill that the health department had no involvement in to start with. This was a bill that was initiated by Treasury and by Finance. It was a revenue-raising measure. It was never a health measure. The fact that the government has been forced to rush in these amendments to amend the definitions of beer and wine reflects the fact that this was never a measure designed to address binge drinking. The coalition, as I have said on a number of occasions and as I say publicly again today, do consider the issue of binge drinking to be a major concern that we want to address but we want to address it properly and not through the stunts that have been conducted by this government over the last 12 months.

It is important to note that when this government initially identified this change, this tax-grab measure, in April last year they identified about $2 billion in extra tax revenues. By the time the bill came before us as part of the TLAB process, it went up to about $3 billion. They have since revised that to about $1.6 billion. Despite the fact that this minister says that this is about a health measure and that a drop-off in consumption has taken place, I would ask the minister: does the drop in consumption in particular reflect a drop in high-risk consumption patterns? Further, since the last National Drug Strategy Household Survey in 2007—in the period between that and today—have there been any studies conducted by the government, by the minister’s department or by any third party that she is aware of into the levels of high-risk alcohol consumption by certain groups of Australians? I ask her to table that advice so as to properly inform the House on this matter.

A drop in consumption in and of itself does not reflect a drop in dangerous or undesirable drinking patterns or binge drinking, particularly by the target audience—those of teenage years. There has certainly been a displacement effect and there has been an increase in the number of young teenagers, young adults, who have presented to emergency departments around the country since the introduction of this tax bill. That is because this was never designed to address the issue of binge drinking. So there has been a displacement. Young people are not buying as many RTDs and neither are other people in that market segment. Before this tax was introduced, mature-age people—people in their 20s, 30s, 40s or 50s—who went to a party or a nightclub who did not want to have their drinks mixed drank premixed drinks, either in bottles or in cans. They did that for a number of reasons and the majority of them drank responsibly.

My question to the minister is: can the government provide advice to this House that the money has to be repatriated? The advice we have received from the Parliamentary Library is that the government is not obliged to repatriate the money to the industry. The minister must table legal advice on which she relies, because it is in stark contrast to all of the advice we have received. If she does not have the guts to do that then she should put on the record the legal advice she has received and confirm here and now, without misleading the House, that the position that she spoke of before stands. This is bad policy. It is a tax grab, a tax binge, and it is not about addressing binge drinking. (Time expired)

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

I am not going to detain the House by going back and forth over old ground with the shadow minister. I am happy to address some of the new issues that he has raised. Firstly, he seems to suggest that, by introducing amendments today, we are rushing some procedure through—that we have been forced to do this because of our rush to change the laws. The sad truth is we have been forced to do this because of the surprisingly low levels to which the distillers are prepared to stoop to get around legislation that has been introduced and tabled—the proposals have been in effect since April last year—and is now before the House and will be before the Senate in the coming weeks.

We saw a very quick response from the industry, who oppose this measure. I understand why they do: it massively affects their products. We do not apologise for that. We understand why they disagree with us. We do not understand why the opposition necessarily lines up with them, but that is another matter. They have gone to extraordinary levels to get around the measures in this bill, and we are not prepared to stand by and watch laws that we intend to pass be made a mockery of by the industry, who were prepared to distort products, to go to all lengths to remove the taste of beer or wine, to turn the products into sugary, colourful drinks for teenagers and to continue to promote them to the under-age market.

As I said in other comments that I have made today, I welcome the fact that the new shadow minister does at least acknowledge that this is a problem. He does, and that is a change. I welcome that and I think it is a sign for us that we can work on something together. But unfortunately it does not make it easier.

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

You are misrepresenting the position!

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not true!

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

For the benefit of those who are interjecting, you might want to remind yourselves by going back and having a look at the previous shadow minister’s comments and the previous health minister’s comments quite denying that a binge-drinking problem even exists. I know why you guys do not like this—because you voted against it. But unfortunately that is all on the record. It is there.

There is only one of those opposite who has come to see me about this issue and has taken an interest, because he has at a local level been very heavily involved in promoting anti-binge-drinking strategies. I see he is sitting in the House today, but I will not embarrass him by naming him. I am sorry if, when the Liberal Party’s position is clearly described by us, it causes some offence to those opposite who have taken a personal interest in this in their electorate.

The official position of the Liberal Party is what we will happily attack. If the new shadow minister is really interested in binge drinking, then have this measure passed and make sure that investments that the government has now committed to—and more that we want to commit to—are able to be supported by this measure. It is a very easy option to follow.

I do not fully understand the shadow minister’s comments—but I am happy to take it on notice to re-read them—but he seems to be implying that the revisions downward reflect something untoward. What they clearly reflect, which is not in dispute, is that consumption of these products has reduced. What is very difficult to be able to tell—and I agree with this—is who is consuming less, because these products are not legal for teenagers to buy. We know other people must be buying those products for them. It is very difficult for us in a short time frame to be able to identify those trends. The shadow minister would be aware that the household surveys and others have a very long lag time. So I am not standing here pretending to the House that we have a lot of the answers to some of the questions that the shadow minister has raised. What we do have is very clear evidence of a significant reduction in alcopop sales, and that means people who are consuming them are consuming less.

The shadow minister also asked some questions about hospitalisations, even though he is on the record today and in the media as acknowledging that the data that has been released by Access Economics really does not allow a conclusion to be drawn in either direction. He also said the jury is still out on whether these measures are having an impact on young people. I am happy to assure the minister that the advice that we have received is that, if this measure is not passed, the money must be returned to the distillers.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why don’t you table the advice?

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

I do not intend to table the advice. That was not the habit of the previous government. We have already provided the shadow minister with briefings. We are happy to continue to do that. There is no particular reason that information cannot be made available. (Time expired)

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

I thank the minister for the comments that she has made in response to some of the questions that I posed, but I ask the minister the following questions. Has the reduction of alcopop sales resulted in a lowering of binge drinking? If so, where is the evidence to support that? Does the government suggest that the reduction in sales of alcopops has only been to that part of the market which includes young people—say, under the age of 21—or does the minister accept that a large drop in the sales of alcopops has been to an older demographic? I also re-put to the minister the question in relation to consumption patterns. I ask the minister the following question. Sales levels do not equal consumption patterns and, in particular, high-risk consumption patterns. Since the last National Drug Strategy Household Survey in 2007, have there been any other studies by the government, by the minister’s department or by any third party that she is aware of into the levels of high-risk alcohol consumption by certain groups of Australians? If the government had to return the money that has already been collected—on the advice that the minister has given to the House—how, practically, would that money be returned to consumers? What advice has the minister received about how that money would be distributed otherwise?

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

The shadow minister can repeat the same questions time and time again. I will answer those that I have the information available for today, as I was doing. I will not answer those that I do not have the information available for today. I am quite happy to take those on notice. I do not think that the former Assistant Treasurer, the shadow minister for health, would be able to point to a single example, at least in the time I have been in this parliament, where the previous government ever tabled any legal advice. I do not know for sure, but perhaps the other minister at the table would be able to assure me. I do not even recall them tabling any advice from their departments about anything. I certainly do not recall them being very generous in providing briefings to us, although I see that the member for Berowra is here and he did occasionally provide me some briefings on things, but only very occasionally.

Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don’t drop me in too much!

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

That is right—I do not want to do you any harm of course by suggesting that you provided us with that information. What is clear is that people are hoping to deduce too much from a particular measure. It is not possible when you look at sales data to immediately link that sales data with the age of the purchaser, unless you want us to somehow require every single retailer to record the age of the particular person purchasing the product and to get them to come back and report who drank them. It is just not possible. A number of the questions that the shadow minister is asking cannot be answered. What I think is absolutely clear is that, considering these products are specifically marketed to young people, if you have a significant drop in alcopops sales then a large number of young people will be affected by that. That does not mean that it is a cure for everything.

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

Has it stopped binge drinking?

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

It does not matter how loudly the shadow minister yells. This measure will not achieve every solution to binge drinking or the problems of alcohol abuse in the country, nor did we claim it would. What it does is have an impact on sales. It provides us with a significant amount of money and more than half of that has now been committed to preventative health measures. If the opposition want to vote against those measures, they will stand condemned for that and they will stand condemned if they have hundreds of millions of dollars being returned to distillers, which is what our advice is. I am happy to continue with discussions, and no doubt there will be further discussions when this legislation moves to the other place. But I think those are the only questions that can be answered here today. I am happy to provide further information to the shadow health minister if that becomes available.

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

It is amazing, to say the least, that this health minister has not been able to point to one shred of evidence that this measure has resulted in any reduction in binge drinking at all. This health minister knows that, instead of consuming alcopops, many of these young people have now moved on to harder spirits. They have moved on to mixing their own spirits, so they, particularly young women, face the risk of spiked drinks. In this debate the government have put themselves in a position where they have not offered one shred of evidence that the collection of $1.6 billion will help one young person in reducing binge-drinking behaviour. That is an astounding claim by this minister, who has dodged this question at every turn as part of this debate over the last 12 months.

The department have been asked questions at Senate estimates and, under direction from the minister and her office, they have refused to provide even the most basic of details. It is a sad indictment of the government, because this bill was only ever set up to run a media cycle through the weekend. This measure was announced so that they could get a run in the Sunday papers and so that this minister would have something to talk about on the Sunday program in April last year. This has never been about binge drinking and addressing the very valid concerns that Australians have about binge drinking.

Today, for the first time, the health minister has confessed that she cannot give a commitment that even one young adult has benefited as a result of this particular measure. That is a disgraceful position. There are thousands of Australian parents, thousands of grandparents and thousands of people who have a concern about teenage children—about young adults—who are binge drinking and drinking inappropriately, and they thought that this Prime Minister and this government actually had a genuine concern about that problem. In recognising today for the first time in this place that this is all about raising revenue and not about addressing the very genuine concerns of those Australians, we feel this health minister should stand condemned.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Adams interjecting

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

This is the last opportunity for this minister—she has a couple of minutes to do it—to stand at the dispatch box as part of this debate, come up with the evidence and say to Australians, ‘There’s been a drop in the number of RTDs purchased by consumers.’ Stand at the dispatch box, Minister, and have the guts to say to Australians, ‘This is how this measure is turning binge drinking in the right direction’—that is, a downward trend.

There is no evidence that the minister has been able to provide as part of this debate that shows that binge drinking has been addressed through this bill. That is why the coalition will stand against it, and that is why the coalition stands in favour of education, rehabilitation, law enforcement and all those other programs that we will be able to provide with the $300 million plus once this bill is defeated in the Senate. We will ensure that that money is diverted into programs which will help address the binge-drinking problem in this country, instead of running off on some sort of media exercise like this health minister and this Prime Minister have been engaged in. It is a damning indictment of the management of health at a federal level. It underscores what I have said from day one of observing this health minister—that is, her mentor remains Reba Meagher in New South Wales. This is Reba Roxon and she is modelling the health system at a federal level on the Labor New South Wales government, which is a disgrace. It is why we get outcomes like this, which are driven by media results and not by health outcomes. We want to see patient outcomes where people are delivered good health policy. The government are standing in the way of that. The government need to provide right here, right now, at the last opportunity, just one bit of evidence to support the bill before the House. If they do not, they should stand condemned.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the Minister for Health and Ageing I remind all honourable members, including the honourable member for Lyons, that it is disorderly to interject from outside your allocated seat.

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

I will not sit here in the parliament and be verballed by a shadow minister who sat on this side of the House for 11 years and was part of a government that did nothing about this problem—not a single thing. The shadow minister has asked for one piece of evidence, and that piece of evidence is absolutely plain as day; he just does not want to use it. That piece of evidence shows that alcopop sales have decreased by more than a third—34.6 per cent—relative to before this measure was introduced in April last year. You asked for one piece of evidence. That is one clear, incontestable piece of evidence.

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

Mr Dutton interjecting

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

The shadow minister can rant and rave as much as he likes. He can yell out. He can try to yell over the top of me. It will not disprove the evidence that shows that sales have decreased by a third. That is the evidence that is important. It is clear. It is much more successful than it was ever predicted to be by the government. We are happy about that, but we are going to make sure that we pursue this measure.

What I have to say to the shadow minister, who was part of a government which did absolutely nothing about this issue, is that the money is not his to allocate. He is not the government. He is also, as it turns out, not even a participant in this debate. He does not want to support this measure and talk with us about how the money might be spent. The opposition have refused from day one to be part of this solution. They cannot pretend otherwise, and the words that the shadow minister used reveal it all: ‘We will be able to provide $300 million for education and rehabilitation programs,’ because, somehow or other, the distillers—which I admit the opposition have been close to in this debate—are going to hand it over to the shadow minister to distribute to whichever health and education fund he thinks is worthwhile. Shadow Minister, that is not what is going to happen. What is going to happen if this bill is defeated is that $300-odd million will go back into the pockets of distillers, who will no doubt use it to advertise their products to more young people. The Liberal Party will be responsible for that happening, and that is what will be on their head.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not enter this debate with any spirit of vindictiveness, but it would not be a surprise to honourable members that this is a matter of seminal interest to me and my electorate. Probably the longest standing distilling company in this country is situated in Bundaberg and has been there for 120 years. It is an adjunct to the sugar industry. It employs a lot of people. It has a magnificent tourist centre that attracts 80,000 tourists a year. It has a quality product. It is one of the best corporate supporters of sport in this country and, on top of that, it has a responsible drinking policy.

The Minister for Health and Ageing has made the claim in this debate that her measures have reduced the consumption of alcopops by about a third. Of course, that is true. If you put 2½ times the excise on a certain product, you will achieve a result of lower consumption of that product. But what you have not demonstrated for us in this debate is what those young people who you claim were drinking alcopops have substituted for them. You have not established that. You have not been able to refute that people are putting full-strength spirits into bottles of Coke and cans of ginger ale, or whatever it might be, and drinking probably a much more dangerous cocktail. That is another aspect of it that is quite important.

The other thing that I find appalling is that we have a mentality in this country that pretty much goes back to the days of the Rum Rebellion and the British Navy, in that there has been a totally illogical prejudice that somehow people who drink spirits—who drink rum or whisky—are toffs and therefore they can be taxed at a higher level. I suppose it gained a lot of traction in the days of the Rum Rebellion and in the British Navy, where whisky and rum became a commodity that was almost a currency. But we live in an enlightened time. No-one should be able to tell any citizen of this country, young or old, vulnerable or otherwise, that they cannot drink alcohol of a particular strength.

How is it that alcohol derived from spirits should be taxed at a different rate to beer or wine? What logic drives that? Why is it that if I have a half-strength can of XXXX Gold, which has 3.5 per cent alcohol by volume, I am a better citizen than I would be if I had the Bundaberg Gold grey label mixture of Bundy and Coke, which is also 3.5 per cent? Am I any more vulnerable? Is a young person drinking beer at the same rate as that any less vulnerable? You have to be logical about this thing, and what this bill does is take us back to the old ways. Let people pay their excise according to the alcohol they consume.

Having said that, I am not in any way attacking the wine industry. I recognise that there will always need to be certain incentives for the wine industry. I have wineries in my electorate, and I was a supporter of the cellar door amendments. But, please, on these basic matters, let us get back to a bit of fairness and equity. If you have evidence, Minister—and we have all asked you this today—tell us where the people who have been abusing alcopops have gone, because I can tell you, from my experience, that they have not stopped drinking. They have moved from one mode of alcohol to another. If you look at the bare figures for the last quarter in the case of Lion Nathan and in the last half-year in the case of Fosters, you will find that beer consumption is rising rapidly. So you would want to be quite sure that you are not replacing one form of alcohol abuse in young people with another. (Time expired)

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

I will be brief. I know members are keen for this debate to finish and there is one more set of amendments that need to be moved for the complementary bill, but I want to briefly comment on the issues raised by the member for Hinkler, who I know had a particular interest in this issue and who has the privilege to represent a company that has a significant history in Australia and a particular place in the heart of the member for Hinkler and probably many other members in this House.

I say to the member for Hinkler that the company whose issues he is raising here today is perfectly placed to answer a number of the questions that he has raised about substitution, because Bundaberg Rum is one of the companies that produce both premixed products and straight products. If, as he and many of those opposite are suggesting, this measure has simply moved people from drinking premixed products to drinking the straight products, I do not think Bundaberg Rum would be complaining about it, because their profits would be exactly the same. The reason that they are upset and the reason they quite rightly go to see their local member of parliament is that this has reduced the overall consumption of spirits. The decrease in alcopop sales is 34.6 per cent and the increase in full strength spirits is 17 per cent. The combined impact—remembering that they are working from a different base—is a reduction of 7.9 per cent in spirit sales. That is a big impact on any producer, and I am sure that Bundaberg Rum and others are feeling that. But if what some of the members opposite are saying is right—that this measure has just moved people from a premixed product to a straight product—Bundaberg Rum would be as happy as Larry. So I think that we really can put that issue to rest, and no doubt the business in your electorate can satisfy you on that.

I take the point that has been raised—and of course there is a much broader debate about it—about the history of how alcohol taxation is different across so many different products. But remember this is closing a loophole to ensure that spirits are all taxed consistently, and that is why the government is determined to press ahead with this measure.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Excise Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009 at this time because of the matters raised by the Minister for Health and Ageing in this closing part of the debate and her assertions that those on this side of the House in some way do not think that this is a serious problem. I think that is a terrible slur to put on those on this side of the House. I do not have any distilleries in my electorate but I do have a lot of parents. I do have a lot of teenage kids, and we do have a very serious problem with this in my electorate of Cook. If we go down to Cronulla Mall on a Friday or Saturday night, we see this problem and we see the wreckage of it on Saturday and Sunday mornings. But what the minister and the government do not seem to understand is this: you cannot parade around in this place and pretend there are silver-bullet solutions to this problem, as they have portrayed with this tax. They have come out with a tax and said, ‘If we tax alcopops, we’re going to solve binge drinking.’ One of the things that will actually come from this bill—which is a dud bill—being defeated in this place and in the Senate is that somehow, at the end of the day, some serious funds might go back into education, because, contrary to what the minister says, it was made very clear by the industry that they had no interest in these funds coming back to them, no interest at all. These funds, they have pledged—and they said this back in August—will go back into education programs. They have no interest in taking these funds.

What the minister is trying to do here is to wedge the Senate and the coalition. She wants to stand here and say to those in the other chamber and in this chamber, ‘If you don’t do this, if you do not support this measure, then the sun will not come up tomorrow on efforts to solve binge drinking, and all will be lost.’ But the truth is that she will not come into this place and table the advice upon which she is basing her claim that the money cannot go back to other measures. She cannot do that. She will not come in and stump up and back up the claim that she is threatening members and senators with—that if we do not pass this tax then somehow the money is going to go out there to promote drinking to young kids, as opposed to going to education programs. I challenge the minister and call her bluff: put this advice on the table so members in this House and senators in the other house can be absolutely crystal clear on the furphy she is putting out there in this debate. It is a furphy, it is a bluff and it is a very poor attempt at a wedge. My message, particularly to senators—but I am sure that members in this place will agree—is that we will not be bluffed. We will not be bluffed by the government on this issue. This is a very significant problem and it requires some very significant responses.

In our shire we have a thing called the fridge-to-fridge party and it is a very disturbing thing to see. Those fridge-to-fridge parties have been happening ever since this measure started. They have not changed. There has been no evidence of any change in the binge-drinking behaviour in my electorate since this ‘silver bullet’ was brought into this place. I will tell you what this fridge-to-fridge thing is, because this is what we have to address. Kids get together and go from house to house and from fridge to fridge, and they ride around on bikes with no helmets and carry on like clowns. One of these days one of these kids is going to get killed. The government is pretending that this measure is going to solve that problem, but it is not. You are pretending that you are addressing this problem and you are not addressing the problem.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Adams interjecting

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I warn the honourable member for Lyons.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why don’t you put your taxes back in your pocket and come up with some serious measures to deal with binge drinking, rather than lecturing those on this side of the House about your great moral intentions. You cannot put a plan together that will seriously address this problem.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Adams interjecting

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dr Emerson interjecting

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member for Lyons will stop interjecting, as will the minister for small business.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What the people in my electorate want to know is: how are you going to encourage and equip parents to deal with the problems of binge drinking in their own homes? You want to pretend that the government can solve this problem with taxes. The government have to work with communities, with families, with sporting organisations—with people right across this country—and your answer is to bring in a tax. Your answer with the tax was to see virtually all the money raised in that tax sit in consolidated revenue to pay for the debt binge of this government. That is what the government are committed to—debt. They are on a debt binge that we are unlikely to ever see the end of. We need to see measures come into this House which actually address the problems the government are pretending they will address. This tax is not a silver bullet. The money, if it is rejected, will get to places where it should get to and in much greater quantities than the government’s bill was ever going to deliver.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Adams interjecting

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Would the honourable member for Lyons please sit down. I am putting the question.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am seeking the call.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have not given you the call. The honourable member for Lyons will remove himself from the chamber under standing order 94.

The member for Lyons then left the chamber.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.