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

I rise to talk on these cognate bills: the Excise Tariff Validation Bill 2009 and the Customs Tariff Validation Bill 2009. By way of background, we come to this debate today because around the time of the May budget of last year the government announced that it was going to put in place a 70 per cent tax hike on one particular category of alcoholic drinks. The government refers to those drinks as alcopops but they are otherwise known as RTDs, premixed drinks or ready-to-drink drinks that people commonly see in bottle shops and in hotels and clubs around the country.

The vast consumption of these drinks is done by responsible consenting adults. At the margins, of course, there are people who drink to excess and there are people who binge drink. That is a serious issue for this country. We provided the government the opportunity in the last sitting period, some seven or eight weeks ago, to validate the tax which had been collected over the proceeding 12 months. We made that offer because we did not want to see the revenues collected returned to the alcohol industry. We did not do it because we agreed with the government’s tax imposition. We did not do it because we were changing our position; in fact, our position on this issue has been consistent—in stark contrast to that of the government, from day one.

Our position has been consistent in that we have said to the government, from the time that this announcement was made 12 months ago right up until this morning when we were making public comments, that this bill was never about addressing the real issue of binge drinking. This bill has always been about a tax grab by a desperate government. This bill has always been about an agenda from the Treasury as opposed to the agenda of the Department of Health and Ageing. The Department of Health and Ageing realises, of course, that this bill and this measure by the government merely encourage consumers of alcohol—in particular, young people—to move from one product to another.

In actual fact, despite there having been two Senate inquiries on this very issue over the course of the last 12 months, nobody—not the Minister for Health and Ageing, this government or this department—has been able to produce any evidence that this has curbed binge drinking. The minister refers to a drop in sales of some 30 to 35 per cent of these RTD products, but she is very careful not to make the point that this has curbed binge drinking, because all she is saying by suggesting that the drop-off has taken place in the consumption of this particular product that has had a tax spike is that people have moved from that product to another product. I ask parents right around the country: over the course of the last 12 months since the Rudd government made this announcement, has there been less consumption of alcohol by teenagers in your household? Has there been a drop-off in the number of teenagers or people presenting to emergency departments on Friday and Saturday nights with alcohol related injuries or conditions? The answer is no. The government has not been able to provide one shred of evidence that this measure has gone in any way towards curbing the issue of binge drinking.

I have made it very clear as part of this debate—and certainly in all of the public comment that we have made and the private discussions that we have had we have been consistent—that this government, this country, needs to do more in relation to binge drinking. We will support reasonable, sensible measures that go to curbing binge drinking. We will support the government in measures that it puts forward which break the culture in this country of binge drinking. We are like most parents, most responsible Australians, around the country who say that responsible, consenting adults who consume alcohol should do so reasonably and responsibly. We support that, but at the same time we need to make sure that wherever we can we break that culture of binge drinking because it does have serious ramifications.

If this were a measure which went even part of the way to doing that, we would provide bipartisan support to the government. But clearly this has always been about a grab for tax. This is a government so far now into debt that it will take at least a generation to repay the Labor government debt. This is what happens every time a Labor government is elected in this country. We have seen it at a state level right around the country. During the boom times of the last 10 years, Labor governments have been racking up billions of dollars of debt. In my own state of Queensland, the Labor Party has racked up $74 billion of debt over the course of the last 11 years at a time when the previous federal government—the coalition government—was able to repay Labor’s $96 billion worth of debt, put $60 billion into the Future Fund and leave this government with a surplus of $22 billion only 16 months ago. This is a government which has turned that $22 billion in the bank into a $60 billion or $70 billion overdraft fully drawn. Anybody in business would understand thoroughly that this government cannot manage money. In a state of desperation, this government went out with this so-called health measure to try to raise what they described at the time as about $1.6 billion.

A number of figures have been bandied around by the government. The minister before used the figure of $424 million that had been collected from this tax hike over the last 12 months, so we can agree on that figure for the time being. Nonetheless, these are considerable revenues. What really called the bluff of the minister was when the minister embarrassingly had to front up to a media interview—to a door stop—with the Treasurer. It is funny that the minister should mention the term ‘dancing marionette’ because really that is what she had written all over her when she was standing there in the shadow of the Treasurer at that joint press conference. Humiliating it must have been for this minister, because this minister knew from the start that this was never a health measure. So poorly handled was this measure by the health minister that she was sent out not to front the media by herself, such was the incompetence, but with the guidance of the chief puppeteer, the Treasurer. The Treasurer stood there, took questions, made comments and essentially belled the cat in relation to what this was always about. The health minister had to stand there embarrassingly and listen to the Treasurer’s own words. The Treasurer spoke about this being unfinished business from the last budget:

… Budget measure from last year remains unpassed.

…         …         …

Bear this in mind: we are in the middle of a global recession. It’s vital in these circumstances that the Government has the capacity to pass its program, and we are determined to pass our program.

What he is talking about is this tax grab, the reliance on this revenue, not as a measure to address binge drinking but merely as a measure to try and patch up a black hole. What is important to remember in this debate is that when we came to the last sitting period the government put forward the bill, it went to the Senate and the Independent senator sensibly joined with the coalition to oppose the measure. We did that not lightly but for all the reasons that I have just outlined. In light of the government’s stance, we offered the government the opportunity to validate the tax that had been collected already. The government made the announcement originally that its proposal was to increase the tax and collect it at a higher rate. The government, as many people who have followed this debate would know, then had a 12-month window in which to validate by legislating the collection of that tax. Of course, we are right up against the 12-month mark today and that is why, embarrassingly, this minister has had to come in and interrupt the business of the House on budget day to ram this through. That is the situation that this minister finds herself in. At the time of the last sittings, we offered the government the opportunity to validate the collection of the tax. We were scolded at that time by the minister because she did not believe that the opposition’s position was valid in offering the opportunity to validate the tax which had been collected. It was quite a remarkable stance then, and I thought at the time it really was something that the minister may regret. Here today the minister is offering up the same legislation that we were proposing seven or eight weeks ago—to validate the money which had been collected already, as I said before, not because we were of a mind that this was a good health measure, or indeed that it was good tax policy, but because it was our wish that the money did not go back to the alcohol industry.

Our aim from here—the government now having moved on as part of this debate and having secured this revenue—is that the government as it goes forward allocates some of this money to breaking that culture that we spoke about before. We in this country need to have sensible measures, similar to those we put in place that broke the culture of people failing to wear seatbelts in motor vehicles, that over a generation essentially broke the habit for many of drink driving and that addressed some very serious health threats to this country, such as AIDS, over the last decade or two. These are the sorts of programs that this government needs to put in place to break the drinking culture.

People who go out on a Friday or Saturday night to their local hotel or to a party and parents with teenage children or young adults who go to parties need to be reassured that they can mix in those social environments without being threatened by somebody who is under the influence of alcohol and/or illicit drugs. That is, of course, part of what is at the core of this debate as well, and we have seen next to nothing from this government on that. There is a real threat in this country when teenagers use illicit drugs. Much of the footage the government now relies on and much of the footage that people see on their TV sets on a Friday or Saturday night is of young people in emergency departments, at licensed venues, in the street and in the gutter in some circumstances. They are in a terrible state. To the untrained eye, many people would say that this is solely a consequence of inappropriate consumption of alcohol, but in many cases—indeed, in most cases—this behaviour has arisen because of not just the consumption of alcohol but also the taking of illicit drugs. That also brings about much of the violence that we see.

The minister will refer to an announcement that she made in recent weeks, but this government has dropped the ball on illicit drugs. They have always taken a softer stance on drugs, and that was underscored by the fact that it took this minister almost 16 months to put forward a proposal to address some very real concerns that exist in our community. I make that point because it really is an indication of how this portfolio is being managed under this government.

Health is an issue that was promised priority at the last election. This government promised to fix public hospitals by mid-2009. That was the promise the Prime Minister made. Those words appeared on the Prime Minister’s website because those were the words he spoke in the November 2007 election, but since that time they have changed from ‘fixing public hospitals’ to ‘improving public hospitals’. Since that time in a recent press interview the minister watered down the language even further. I ask Australians listening to this debate today who are worried about the state of health in this country: have public hospitals in your local community improved over the last 16 months? Have outcomes for patients in this country improved since the election of the Rudd government? At the last election the Prime Minister promised that he would fix public hospitals, and there are only six weeks left before that deadline runs out.

I believe that this government will make a major announcement in relation to health in the budget tonight—and all of us have some theories about what the budget will contain. The government has performed poorly on health over the last 16 months not just with public hospitals but on a range of issues. Minister Roxon, who is sitting opposite me, has been involved in a number of bungles. There was one in the last 24 hours which has the potential to cost Australian taxpayers millions of dollars. This portfolio has been handled poorly. They have failed to meet any of the objectives that they put in place. That is why the media machine tonight will be working overtime to announce a big package on health that will try to deflect some of the criticism that they will rightly cop over the coming months in relation to their failings in health policy.

We have engaged with a number of stakeholders in the debate that is currently before the House. It is true to say that there are a number of people who strongly support this measure and a number who strongly oppose this measure. Many people within the health community, in evidence given to the Senate inquiry and in our other contact with them, have indicated that they are supportive of the government’s measure. The minister is happy to trot out those lines on whatever occasion gives her an opportunity to do so. The government fails to acknowledge as part of that debate that many of the same proponents would prefer to see a 70 per cent tax hike across all alcohol products—and, no doubt, increases well beyond that for some of them would be ideal as well. That is not what the government has proposed; that is not what is on the table.

The evidence over the last 12 months shows there has been a displacement effect. People have clearly moved from consuming premixed drinks to mixing their own drinks. For the first time in 15 years, over the last 12 months there has been an increase in the consumption of heavy beer. Young males who previously consumed Bundy and cola or some other premixed bourbon drink, for argument’s sake, have gone to either mixing their own drinks—and the sales of bottled spirits have gone through the roof over the last 12 months—which in many cases means they are consuming more alcohol, or consuming heavy beer. There is no other element to this debate that has been present over the last 12 months which would have driven a change in that behaviour.

If we look at the consumption pattern for young women over the last 12 months, we see that many have moved from consuming premixed drinks to mixing their own spirits or—and this should cause all in this debate some concern—having a third person at a party mix their drinks for them. In many cases that person is unknown to them. It takes away the peace of mind that some parents had in knowing that their young adult was taking premixed bottled drinks that would be opened by them at the time of consumption. That has raised serious concerns about the implications of this poorly thought out policy.

These are all things that we need to take into consideration as part of this debate. If it had not just been a tax spike on one product, if the government had proposed some other reasonable measure, then there would have been occasion for just and reasonable debate. But the reality is that, with the way in which the government has approached this debate—so ill thought out has it been—they have not been able to provide one shred of evidence. Despite all of the resources of the Department of Health and Ageing, the state health bureaucracies, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and Treasury, they have not been able to produce any evidence that this has curbed binge drinking in this country over the last 12 months. That is the reason that they must stand condemned. They must stand condemned for this policy and for their option to put in place a measure which was otherwise going to return over $400 million to the alcohol industry. This government was ideologically prepared to be stuck in a position where they were going to give back $400 million to the industry.

In closing, that is the reason that at the time of this debate in the last parliament we offered up this same opportunity that the government is offering up today—to validate the collection of those taxes. That is an opportunity which the minister scoffed at at the time but now, embarrassingly, has had to agree to and to put on the table to make sure that there was not a loss to revenue. It speaks a lot about the way in which this government handles debates. It really goes to what the core of the Rudd government is all about, and that is all spin. They have teams of people, in this building and outside, working on media lines. Ministers in this government have to run press releases by the Prime Minister’s office. We are in one of the strongest democracies in the world. We have some very intelligent people—not without exception—who sit on the front bench of the Labor Party. Not all of them—I accept that. Nonetheless, these are mature people who have to run their comments through the Prime Minister’s office, such is his management of every word they say.

It is remarkable, but it is not surprising, given the track record of the Minister for Health and Ageing in this portfolio over the last 16 months, that they would want to micromanage every word that came out of that office. It is completely understandable. It is part of the reason that the Treasurer was out there pulling the strings up and down and why the minister was having to cringe at the second microphone. This has been an embarrassing and humiliating defeat for the government. We will continue to prosecute the argument. We will continue to fight for good policy that will affect the difficulties and terrible outcomes of binge drinking. But we will not stand by and be silent whilst this government puts forward a proposal which is deeply flawed and which, by their own admission, they could not provide any evidence has gone in any way to address the outcomes they stated at the start of this debate. We support the bill on that basis and we do not want to see this money go back to the alcohol industry, but we will continue to fight for better health outcomes for all Australians.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of these cognate bills: the Excise Tariff Validation Bill 2009 and the Customs Tariff Validation Bill 2009. It is unfortunate that the member for Dickson felt the need to stoop to the level of personally attacking the Minister for Health and Ageing, but I am not surprised that they would do anything to avoid having a genuine debate on the alcopops legislation. That is why we are here today putting these validation bills through. The member for Dickson has talked about how this government should be embarrassed by the fact that it has had to put this validation legislation up today. The true embarrassment has to come from the opposition and the position that they chose to take in the Senate, opposing these increases on alcopops. They have had to go back and justify their position to the general community, who are very supportive of these particular bills going through both the House and the Senate. They are now in a position of having to validate the revenue collected while at the same time still saying that they stand by the distilling industry and oppose any form of increase in taxes on these alcopops.

These bills will provide for the validation of all duties demanded or collected as a result of the Excise Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2008 and the Customs Tariff Proposal (No.1) 2008, tabled in the House of Representatives on 13 May 2008. This is so they are taken to have been lawfully imposed and lawfully demanded or collected. The bills also provide for the validation of all duties demanded or collected before 14 May 2009, as a result of the Commonwealth Government Special Notices Gazette No. S87 and No. S88, published on 26 April 2008, so that such duties are taken to be have been lawfully imposed and lawfully demanded or collected. The bills cover a period of collection of revenue from 27 April 2008 to 13 May 2009, inclusive.

Since coming into power, this government has asserted from day one its absolute commitment to the health sector and to investing in preventative health measures. That includes closing the tax loophole on alcopops. But we have said since the beginning that the measures in relation to alcopops are only part of the solution, albeit a very important part. The Rudd government is serious about tackling binge drinking. We have already committed $14.4 million in community level initiatives to confront the culture of binge drinking in partnership with sporting and community organisations. We have committed $19.1 million to intervene earlier to assist young people and ensure that they assume personal responsibility. We have committed to a $20 million advertising campaign, ‘Don’t turn a night out into a nightmare’, confronting youth with the consequences of binge drinking. And, as we heard from the minister for health earlier, we committed $872 million funding to preventative health, announced at the Council of Australian Governments in November 2008, which will include new initiatives to tackle binge drinking. That is why it is important that these customs and excise validation bills pass through the parliament and the revenue that has been collected to date does not simply become a windfall gain to the alcopop producers. It is important that we retain this revenue to assist in the implementation of our programs to address binge drinking.

Of course, binge drinking is still a problem and, despite the Senate taking the position it did in March to oppose the increase in taxation on alcopops, the fact is that it is a problem we must all face. We heard the minister for health today citing statistics on alcohol consumption. In any given week approximately one in 10 12- to 17-year-olds are binge drinking or drinking at risky levels. High levels of alcohol consumption are leading to alarming levels of hospitalisation. The number of young women aged 18 to 24 being admitted to hospitals because of alcohol has doubled in the last eight years. Binge drinking leads to violence. Last year, more than three-quarters of a million Australians were physically abused by persons under the influence of alcohol.

Not only does binge drinking hurt Australian society; it hurts the economy as well. According to the most recent estimates of the social cost of alcohol misuse in Australia, the bill is around $15 billion every year. Further, one in five Australians drink at short-term high-risk levels at least once a month. This equates to more than 42 million occasions of binge drinking in Australia each year. A recent survey of Australians showed that 84 per cent of people are concerned about the impact of alcohol on the community and that they consider intoxication to be unacceptable.

Alcohol consumption accounts for 3.2 per cent of the total burden of disease and injury in Australia, affecting 4.9 per cent of males and 1.6 per cent of females. The annual tangible net cost to the Australian community from harmful drinking is estimated to be almost $11 billion. Much of this cost is borne outside the health system. One of the major tangible costs is lost productivity in the workplace, which is $3.5 billion. An estimated 689,000 Australians attend work under the influence of alcohol each year. Costs outside the health system include the costs of road accidents, $2.2 billion; the costs of crime, $1.6 billion; and lost productivity in the home, $1.5 billion. It is also estimated that alcohol is responsible for insurance costs totalling $14 million a year.

The negative impacts of harmful consumption of alcohol by individuals on those around them are felt regularly by many Australians. Thirteen per cent of Australians report being put in fear by a person under the influence of alcohol, and 25.4 per cent report being subjected to alcohol related verbal abuse. Unfortunately, in my state of Queensland in the past couple of weeks we saw another young man losing his life because of alcohol and a crime allegedly committed by a young person, who has been charged. These are the sorts of incidents we have to face up to and start dealing with. Thirteen per cent of Australian children aged two years or below are exposed to an adult who is a regular binge drinker. It has been estimated that 31 per cent of parents involved in substantiated cases of child abuse or neglect experience significant problems with alcohol abuse.

We heard today from the member for Dickson that, as a consequence of the increase in alcopops taxation, there was an increase in consumption of full spirits. An example given was that the sale of bourbon has gone through the roof. But I did not hear any statistics or figures; we just have these broad, sweeping statements that consumption of full spirits such as bourbon has gone through the roof. The figures put forward by this government are real figures that we cannot ignore any longer.

Why are alcopops a problem? The ready-to-drink spirits industry itself reports that sales have increased by over 250 per cent since the loophole was created by the Howard government. That is why this initiative was taken by the Rudd Labor government over 12 months ago—because this loophole needed to be closed. Between 2000 and 2004, the percentage of female drinkers aged 15 to 17 reporting that they had consumed ready-to-drink spirits at their last drinking occasion increased from 14 per cent to 62 per cent. These are the issues we have to address.

I know that the member for Mayo will be speaking shortly on these bills, and both of us spoke recently on the proposed legislation rejected by the Senate. I believe the member for Mayo said, ‘Drinking has been going on for a long time,’ and certainly since he was young. That is correct: binge drinking is not a new problem, but the reality is that the statistics show that, since this loophole was created around RTDs, the problem has been exacerbated. We have a responsibility as a government to address that loophole. That is exactly what this government sought to do over 12 months ago.

In addition, as the minister for health stated, alcopops do disguise the taste of alcohol with sweet flavours. This is not merely a case of trying to target one area specifically. We have heard the member for Dickson argue, not just on this occasion but on many occasions in this debate, that we are trying to target one part of an industry as opposed to dealing with the whole issue. But it is an industry that has chosen to deliberately go out and create a product that is attractive to young people, that disguises the taste of alcohol with sweet flavours. It exposes young and inexperienced drinkers to a higher than normal risk because those young drinkers are more likely to make false judgements about the product that they are consuming.

I have already stated the increase between 2000 and 2004 for female drinkers. 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. So, despite the legislation that was introduced by the Rudd government last year, and despite the ongoing opposition by those who sit opposite, the fact is that these statistics show that the alcopops measure has achieved significant results.

The Sydney Morning Herald has reported that, between April 2008 and January 2009, Australians drank 124 million fewer standard drinks for all alcohol types, according to ACNielsen. Industry figures show alcopop sales have fallen by 310 million standard drinks. A recent study in the Medical Journal of Australia also argued that the measure was working effectively. ATO figures show that, for the period May 2008 to March 2009, total spirits clearances decreased by eight per cent compared to the same period in 2007 to 2008—compared to solid growth in the previous three years—and that alcopop clearances declined by 35 per cent.

These are real figures. These are clear evidence that the action the government took over 12 months ago is action that is getting results. We have stated time and time again that this is only one measure, but an important measure. We are yet to hear any of those on the other side make reference to these particular statistics. They talk about the surveys conducted by the distilling industry which we all see but which I believe are yet to actually ask people, especially young people: are they drinking less alcohol? Are they drinking fewer alcopops? They are yet to ask that direct question. There are many questions that they ask people, but they are yet to ask that direct question.

We keep hearing that the alcopops increase has not resulted in any significant change but, as I argued last time I spoke on this bill, the reality is: why is this industry complaining so loudly if, in fact, the increase is not having any effect? They are still selling as much alcohol as they ever have. In fact, they are selling more, because they are selling full spirits now—large bottles of full spirits are being sold instead of alcopops. So why is this industry so concerned? Why is this industry fighting so hard to ensure that these initiatives of the Rudd Labor government do not go through if they are not having any effect? Their argument just does not stand up. Neither does the argument put by the opposition.

I continue to support the Rudd Labor government’s initiatives to see an increase in the alcopops tax. I fully support not only the validation bills that are now before this House but the tariff proposals that were proposed by the Minister for Health and Ageing today—the Excise Tariff Proposal (No.1) 2009 and the Customs Tariff Proposal (No.3) 2009.

I know that the youth workers, the community organisations, the church groups and individuals across my electorate are supportive of this initiative of the Rudd Labor government. They have continued to talk to me about the commitment of this government since I spoke on the previous bills back in February of this year. My youth workers continue to tell me of the struggles that they face—going out and trying to educate young people about binge drinking and about the risks of alcopops.

We did hear the member for Dickson talk about illicit drugs and say that this government is not doing anything about illicit drugs. Once again, we are hearing from those opposite the proposition that seems to be that we can only focus on one thing at a time, so, if we are dealing with alcopops, we cannot be dealing with illicit drugs. The reality is that this government is committed to a range of measures. We are not just dealing with alcopops. We are not just dealing with binge drinking. We are dealing with illicit drugs and dealing with a whole lot of problems that our young people and our community as a whole are facing out there. These are commitments that this government has shown from day one—that it has shown with its previous budget last year including its commitment to the states for funding not just in health but especially preventative health.

I will continue to work with my local youth organisations to get that education message out. But it is not just up to them. It is not just up to the young people. It is not just up to the parents. It is not just up to the government—or the opposition for that matter. The distillery industry has got to take responsibility for its actions, the way it promotes these products and the products it keeps creating to try to get around these laws. It is quite an appalling state that this industry goes out of its way to create ‘malternatives’, as they are called, to try to get around the law.

I will end on this note. Last time, in February, when I spoke on the bill, I spoke about the comment from those on the other side about the distillery industry wanting to have genuine debate with members of the government on this issue. I was quite appalled that, in fact, what they were doing, instead of having genuine debate with members of the government, was having stunts and gimmicks such as dropping alcohol around to various members’ offices. I can report that the day after I spoke on that bill in February, those bottles were collected from my office. So I will say thank you to the industry and their representative for that, because those four bottles have finally been collected.

But this industry needs to take responsibility. This government certainly takes seriously its responsibility by making sure that we are doing everything possible to tackle binge drinking. One of those important initiatives is to ensure that alcopops are not an attractive drinking product for our young people. That is why I fully support these cognate bills before the House.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on the Excise Tariff Validation Bill 2009 and the Customs Tariff Validation Bill 2009, which has been rushed into this parliament today—on budget day. And that is what this bill is about, of course. It is a revenue raiser to fill the black hole created by the reckless spending of the Rudd government.

The member for Petrie has just mounted a long argument for prohibition. She has just gone through step after step about why alcohol is causing so many social ills. She is right about some of those social ills. There are issues that some people have with alcohol. It does cause violence. It is responsible for domestic disputes on occasion. It is responsible for criminal behaviour on occasion. But the member for Petrie has argued in her speech that prohibition could prevent those issues occurring. She has not argued about a tax increase on one alcohol product. That is what this bill is about. This bill is about the seemingly unrelenting attack on the distillers industry by the minister, the member for Petrie and those on the other side.

Most of the speech from the member for Petrie was dedicated to the distillers industry, when this is actually about a tax on a certain product. So I find the speech from the member for Petrie slightly misleading. She says that we do not address the statistics she talked about; the statistics she has talked about are related to alcohol use in general. The impact of violent behaviour is about alcohol use in general; it is not about alcopops particularly. The problem with this tax increase is its displacement effect. It is as simple as that.

Today the Australian reported comments from some Sydney university students—a young lady in Sydney, Shona Curvers, and her friends. The article said:

Nineteen-year-old arts-science student Clare Barnes said the alcopops tax was ineffective and tended to steer young people towards bottled spirits.

“The tax on alcopops is encouraging teens to buy bottles of vodka and so on,” …

That is the very point the member for Dickson, the shadow minister for health, and the opposition have been making now for months: that this is not a health measure. This is not a genuine health measure about addressing what is a genuine problem in our community. And it is not just a problem with younger people; it is a problem that is throughout all demographics and all age groups in our community—and I think the Minister for Health and Ageing would agree with that.

The excessive use of alcohol causes many issues throughout age groups in our community. In fact, the ABS National Health Survey, which gained coverage today, found that risky drinking was at its highest level amongst middle-aged women—those aged between 45 and 64. That is from the ABS National Health Survey, which is a very credible survey. And, of course, it is true. Of course there are issues with the excessive consumption of alcohol by some people and the effects it has on them. Binge drinking is a very genuine issue, and we should be moving measures in this place which address people’s attitudes to that. We are fully supportive of that on this side of the House. What we are not supportive of is using this as a cover for revenue raising. If the government were serious about it, the money they would raise would go into education programs. It would go into assistance for people who are at risk from alcohol abuse—whether that is from binge drinking once a week or from regular alcohol abuse.

We know this is a revenue raiser to fill the black hole created by the reckless spending of the Rudd government, because, when they announced the re-introduction of this bill, it was the Treasurer, not the minister for health, who did so. They stumped up here in Canberra as part of the budget preparation—which we have all seen before—and the Treasurer came out of ERC with the minister and went into the blue room. He stood there and announced a health policy. Now, why would a Treasurer announce a health policy? Because it is a tax policy. It is a revenue raiser to fill the black hole created by the reckless spending of the Rudd government. We will see that black hole tonight, when they deliver the biggest deficit in the country’s history and, in doing so, put the biggest debt in this country’s history onto our children—the ones we are apparently trying to protect with this legislation.

So it is a tax raiser to fill a black hole because of their reckless spending, but it does not address the serious issues of alcohol abuse by young people. It does not actually address the biggest issue that faces young people, which is illicit drugs. That is clearly the biggest issue that faces young people. The Courier Mail did a very interesting series of articles—and I am sure the minister saw those pieces—I think it was five days in a row, about a month ago, on illicit drugs and their availability, particularly party drugs, at night spots in Brisbane. It was very telling. It was extraordinarily concerning. The average price, as I understand it, of ecstasy in Australia is now $15 per tablet. Four or five years ago it was $55 per tablet. As most members, most people in the galleries and those listening would know, $15 would get you probably two beers at a nightclub. To buy something for $15—when you do not know where it has been made, how it has been manufactured, what is in it or what its effect is likely to be—is an extraordinarily concerning thing. We do not see any policies from this government addressing the illicit drug trade or issues that are affecting young people. The member for Petrie said they can do more than one thing at a time. Of course they can—we understand that; there are a lot of bureaucrats in the department of health. But we are not seeing that. We are not seeing what that tough-on-drugs approach is from this government.

Of course, the previous government had an approach that was very tough on drugs, which was about addressing the No. 1 health issue for young people in our community. This tax approach to the alcohol industry is about filling a black hole. We do not see much of an approach to the illicit drugs issue because you cannot tax an illicit drug. You cannot find a revenue stream from illicit drug taking. So we see a serious addressing of this binge-drinking crisis, this war on binge drinking, whatever superlative you would like to use to describe it, but you do not see any serious attempt to address the illicit drug industry in Australia.

I congratulate the Courier Mail on what they did with their survey. It brought to public attention a huge issue facing young Australians. I go back to what the young lady said in the Australian this morning—that what this policy has actually done in putting on this 70 per cent tax increase, this $351 million tax hike, to fill a black hole because of the reckless spending by those on the other side is to push people back to vodka, to bourbon, to serious spirits, which are much more dangerous. Miss Barnes said in the Australian this morning, ‘A litre bottle of vodka is more likely to kill you than a four-pack of alcopops.’ I think that would be right. So we see an extraordinarily concerning policy position from this government—that they are using a health policy dressed up as a concern about binge drinking to raise significant revenues to fill a black hole.

We stand here again on an issue that could have been sorted out three months ago. As I understand it, Senator Cormann offered this minister three opportunities in the Senate to validate the excise that had been collected and she refused. But then the Treasurer stepped in, took it to the blue room and announced the reintroduction of this policy. That is why we know it is a tax policy and not a health policy. We on this side of the House are extraordinarily concerned about binge drinking. We think there should be a serious policy approach and that the money raised should be directed to education and to assistance for young people who are abusing alcohol. In fact, there should be a serious approach to binge drinking—or excessive alcohol abuse—throughout the community. That is our concern. We are concerned about this minister not being able to manage her portfolio. I do not want to get into personal attacks. The member for Petrie seems to be concerned that any suggestion that the minister may not be managing her portfolio properly would be a personal attack, so I would not dare to do so, but we are very concerned about the management of this portfolio. We think the Prime Minister might be, too, and we suspect that in the upcoming reshuffle there might be some action in this portfolio, but we will wait and see after tonight’s budget.

In summing up, the opposition stands deeply opposed to a tax grab in the guise of a health policy. It is not designed to assist in solving excessive abuse of alcohol, which is a major issue in our community. It does not address the biggest issue facing young Australians, which is the illicit drug trade. Australia is the biggest consumer of ecstasy in the world, according to recent studies, and that is an extraordinarily concerning statistic. We should do something about it. We should be putting resources into this very major issue facing young Australians. I am sure the minister would agree with that, but this policy does not do so, because it is a tax grab. I think it is high time that the minister admitted that is what this is about, and then we would have more agreement on this side of the House. If she were able to recognise that this was a revenue raiser and not a health policy, I think we would see a bit more truthful debate.

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

in reply—I thank the members who contributed to this debate on the Excise Tariff Validation Bill 2009 and cognate bill: the member for Dickson, the member for Petrie and the member for Mayo. We do welcome assurances from the member for Dickson that these two validation bills will be supported. I am not entirely sure, on the basis of the contribution from the member for Mayo, whether he is supporting that position or not. It seems that the main thing he would like us to do is to legalise ecstasy so we could tax it. It seemed a strange sort of contribution to the debate, but I do acknowledge that both he and the member for Dickson are raising a legitimate concern about illicit drug use. This bill does not deal with those issues—

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order—

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

The point of order must be on relevance to the bill. If he is seeking to address something else, there are other forms of the House.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Health and Ageing knows I did not say that.

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

The member for Mayo may resume his seat. There is no point of order.

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

I point out, although it is not relevant to the debate before us—it is relevant to the very lengthy contributions from previous members—that the government has in recent weeks relaunched a very targeted advertising campaign which was initially run by the previous government. It has been updated because of some changed circumstances. The campaign cost $17.4 million and, of course, there are many hundreds of millions of dollars more for drug treatment programs and a range of interventions in this area. We stand ready and prepared to talk about these issues and to take action on these issues. We remain just as committed as the previous government was to tackling this very real problem. But let us not pretend that this bill will be able to deal with illegal substances. It is a bill that deals with the tax and excise rates for products which are legal but which nevertheless can cause enormous harm in this country.

It seems that those opposite simply cannot accept that a tax measure can have a health impact. That is the fundamental difference between us. We are using the tax system to deliver a health impact which we believe benefits the community. I am very pleased that, as a result of the Liberal Party’s position today in the House and we hope in the Senate, $424 million will not be returned to the pockets of the distillers. It will mean that the money will be available to be used in funding important health initiatives. Of course, there is still a key difference between the government and the Liberal Party on the ongoing issue of this tax rate into the future. That will be a debate for another time. However, I would emphasise that the government remains as committed as it always has to pursuing this into the future. We understand that it will be dealt with by the House and by the other place separately, but I commend this legislation to the House and thank members again for their contribution to the debate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.