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

For the benefit of the House I want to revisit some of the history of this prolonged debate on the excise tariff and customs tariff amendment legislation. To say the least, this is a debate which has gone on for some time, and people have been very emotive in relation to the stances they have taken and their responses—and understandably so; it is a debate of that nature. When the government initially announced this change, there was huge fanfare in the Sunday papers, and the Prime Minister claimed that this was a measure which was going to fix binge drinking. When we have a look at the evidence that was provided both at the time and since, particularly over the course of the evidence that has been given to two Senate inquiries, there has not been any evidence from the government as to how this measure will address binge drinking. The reality is that the Minister for Health and Ageing was not aware of this measure until she fronted up to an ERC meeting during the budget period of May last year. This was a measure put forward by Finance and Treasury, not by Health, and that was, of course, to become very important and crucial as the debate unfolded. It was crucial because this clearly is a government that is desperate for revenue.

On the initial figures that were projected, the costings around this particular measure put forward by the government suggested that there would be some $3.1 billion over the forward estimates, or over the four years, and that extra revenue would be created as a result of this particular measure. There has been considerable debate since that time and a revision of those figures, not just once but on a number of occasions, by the minister and the Treasurer. Despite the fact that this never was a measure that was championed by the health minister it was one that was landing in her lap, unexpectedly, as I say, as a result of that ERC process. She was ‘handed the baby’, so to speak and had the job of going out and selling the message.

It became obvious, as the debate went along, that this was the case. It became obvious to people who were participating in the public debates, to people who were looking at these matters in Senate inquiries and to stakeholders who had an interest in this particular measure that this was not a health measure at all. In actual fact it was about raising revenue, fairly and squarely—nothing more and nothing less. So the minister was arguing the case because it is this government’s position in contemporary debates to dress these measures up in incredible spin, and their spin on this particular revenue-raising measure was to try and sell it as a health measure. They wanted to try and trick the Australian people into believing that somehow this was going to address the problem of binge drinking.

Throughout all of this debate we have said that we are very concerned about binge drinking. In fact, we said it well before this debate, and I repeat the claim today that the coalition have remained concerned about binge drinking. We are concerned that people—in a minority but, nonetheless, very important—are engaging in drinking behaviours which are unacceptable for a number of reasons. Not all of them are related to health. A number relate to social outcomes because some of the activity is undertaken particularly by teenagers, who are mixing alcohol with illicit drugs. Their social behaviour reported in some cases, in a minority of cases but, nonetheless, on a regular basis, remains completely unacceptable.

And so when the Prime Minister went out to grab a headline in a Sunday paper, it was certainly clothed in spin. It was a situation where this government wanted people to believe that it was doing something that in actual fact it was not doing. I know the minister has raised a number of points during the course of this debate about consumption patterns, and she has tried to pedal the idea that somehow this has led to a change in the consumption patterns of young adults and, therefore, somehow the government has gone some way towards achieving its outcome to curb binge drinking when in actual fact that is not the case. In the latest budget papers, the RTD tax hike is projected to raise $1.7 billion over the forward estimates. Contrast that to the figure that was provided in the initial response by the government at $3.1 billion. But, importantly, what the minister neglects to recognise in this debate, a very important debate, is that revenue from imported spirits is expected to be up by 20 per cent in 2008-09—that is an extra $245 million in excise—and that Treasury attributes that growth to substitution from RTDs into other alcoholic products.

That is indisputable because it shows—this has been recorded in Treasury’s own budget papers, and I direct anybody who has an interest in this matter to look at the budget papers from this year’s budget; Treasury makes that exact claim—that what has taken place here is a substitution from RTDs to other drinks. Incredibly, beer excise will grow by eight per cent this financial year—that is, in the financial year 2008-09. While it is expected to be lower in 2009-10, it does project that it will grow over subsequent years. The reason I make that point is that it is absent from any of the dialogue that the minister is engaging in, trying to inject her own statistics and those that sit favourably with and for the government. She has neglected to mention these particular figures. The reason that has happened is because, for the first time in 15 years, there has been a take-up of heavy beer. That is a concern and one that will occupy a large part of the debate as we go forward in relation to this particular measure.

There is some substitution away from RTDs. We know that. In the period May 2008 to March 2009, ATO and Customs clearance data showed the consumption of full strength spirits rose 18 per cent. The same data showed that beer consumption rose five per cent. There have been a number of reports which put a lie to the figures that this government has included as part of this debate.

The important thing to remember in this debate is that what has changed over the last 12 months, over the last period that this government has been in power, is the fact that it has completely trashed the economic situation, the budgetary outlook of this country. Whereas we started with a cash-in-the-bank position when this government came into power in November 2007, $22 billion in the bank, this government is now projecting, over the forward years to have a debt of some $300-plus billion. That is a remarkable turnaround in only 12 or 18 months, quite remarkable. The reality is that that has made it difficult for the opposition, for anybody who is making a contribution to this public debate, to recognise what has shifted in this public debate. The ingredient that has shifted is the fact that this government is desperate for revenue. We have said that we will go to the next election with a position which is more economically responsible than that which this government will put. We have said that because we have a history of balancing the books in this country.

We had a position in government, and of course when we were in opposition before that and in opposition now, that we will be responsible, that we will restore the economic validity of this country, that we will pay off Labor’s debt, as has always been the case, that we will put back to work the millions of Australian people who have lost their jobs directly as a result of the decisions of this government. This government wants to blame everything on the global financial crisis, but the reality is the rate at which this government is spending money makes it very difficult not just for the government, but for the opposition in relation to decisions about policy as we go forward. There is a significant revenue impact in relation to this particular measure, and we do not intend to make the economic budgetary position any worse than this government is proposing. We want to make sure that we have a position which is more economically responsible. That is our track record. That will be our record when we get back into government, and that is the reason that has led us to make the decision not to oppose this particular bill.

It is remarkable that the health minister, over the course of the last 12 or 18 months, has not engaged in a forward-looking program of health measures at all. This is a health minister who hides behind two reports which claim to be reporting back to the government by 30 June. The government is even of a mind to say that it would, remarkably, not have anything to say in relation to its claim that it would fix public hospitals by mid-2009 until it received these reports back from Christine Bennett and from Professor Moodie; that it could have nothing to say about whether or not it had fulfilled its claim to fix public hospitals by mid-2009 until it receives these reports, which might talk about some options in the health space over the coming years. A remarkable position; unsustainable though it is, it is quite remarkable for this government.

This is a health minister who has squarely lost the debate at every turn, at every opportunity that she has engaged in and health policies that she has talked about. It is interesting the alliances that form in this place, but we need to make sure that people understand the facts in this debate. We need to recognise that this is a minister who never projected this policy; this is a minister who stood beside the Treasurer at the time because there was difficulty in her being able to carry the press conference by herself. And that gave great credit obviously to our claim that this was all about revenue. That is why our position is as it is in relation to this debate.

We say to the government: today is the opportunity to go forward and seriously engage in a debate about how they are going to curb binge drinking. This debate has to be conducted by both sides of parliament because it is a serious issue. If we are going to proceed in a bipartisan way, let the government signal that that is their intention. We will happily sit down with them to talk about how we are going to change a culture that has built up over a long period of time. Just like the campaigns around drink driving or the wearing of seatbelts, we, and the government, need to make sure that we engage constructively on ways we can change that behaviour—which occurs amongst a minority of people, particularly in the younger demographic—and provide better health outcomes into the future.

As I say, the reality is that most people do drink responsibly. That is important to remember when having this debate. We will not be pushed off this very important debate because the government’s health policy is at sea. The spin that they consistently carry on with has been found out in recent days. This was one of the first examples. History will record that this was one of the first instances of true Rudd government spin. History will record when it was first announced by the Prime Minister in the Sunday newspapers. He suggested that this was some genuine attempt to address the problem of binge drinking, but history will record that it certainly was not.

That is our position in relation to this debate. We look forward very much to a serious debate about binge drinking and the ways we can address that problem in the years ahead.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Excise Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009 [No. 2] and the Customs Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009 [No. 2]. Alcohol related harm is dreadful. It is a major cause of mortality and morbidity in this country. According to the figures in the mid-2000s, social related problems cost the Australian economy an average $15.3 billion per annum. Approximately 3,000 people die every year from alcohol related harm, illness or injury. Sixty-five thousand people are hospitalised annually in this country because of alcohol related harm. It is a dreadful affliction for our young people as well as our middle-aged and older people. It is a tragedy that on average four Australians aged under 25 die each week due to alcohol related injuries. On average, one in four hospitalisations of people aged 15 to 24 happens because of alcohol. An average of 70 Australians under 25 years of age are hospitalised due to alcohol related assault each week.

That is why it is so tragic that the opposition has played politics with respect to our health system. Since the Howard government opened up the alcopops loophole, we have seen a 250 per cent increase in the sales of alcopops. Alcopops are brazenly targeted to young people, particularly young women. They are sweet, lolly flavoured drinks with great colours. They are cool, they think, to drink, but the taste of the alcohol is disguised. The sad thing about this is that the member for Dickson has come in here and told us all that the reason for the opposition’s road to Damascus conversion experience with respect to this legislation is that they are concerned that we are not managing the economy properly. The reality is that they are concerned about a constitutional trigger for a double dissolution election. That is the reality—it is about politics yet again—and the member for Dickson is not being completely genuine about the situation.

Australian Taxation Office data shows that alcopops clearances fell by 35 per cent in the 11 months after the measure was introduced. In fact, total spirits clearances decreased by around eight per cent over the same period. The budget papers, released a couple of months ago, show that, on average, weekly beer and spirit clearances dropped by 0.5 per cent. As the Minister for Health and Ageing said, that is equivalent to 720,000 fewer standard drinks being consumed each week on average. It really is a tragedy that those opposite have outsourced their policy on alcopops to the distillers. It is an absolute disgrace. The truth is that our measure was effective. In fact, we had to bring in validation legislation to protect $424 million in revenue collected between 27 April 2008 and 13 May 2009. That legislation should have had bipartisan support.

This measure closes a loophole whereby alcopops are taxed at a lower rate than other spirits. Alcopops will now be taxed at the same rate as other spirits, not more or less but the same. It is a question of equity. The truth is that the alcopops measure never represented a whole policy; the alcopops measure was part of the matrix of a national binge-drinking strategy that we undertook. This is a $53.5 million strategy to address binge drinking amongst young people. There is $14.4 million in community level initiatives to confront the culture of binge drinking. My electorate of Blair received $40,000 for Bremer State High School and Ipswich State High School for their post-formal mystery tour for drug- and alcohol-free alternatives for young people to celebrate the end of their senior year. I spoke to many of those young people and to Tanya McKenna, who initiated this program. The then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator Jan McLucas, came to Ipswich State High School to see this program in action. She viewed the DVD and talked to the young people, teachers and parents.

So the truth is that this initiative was part of a whole. The funding of $20 million for advertising to confront people with the risks, costs and consequences of binge drinking was important; the commitment of $19.1 million to intervene earlier to assist young people to ensure they assume personal responsibility for their binge drinking is also an important measure. It is all part of a matrix—a framework—that we are undertaking. We are acting in a comprehensive way; it is not an isolated policy. It is not simply part of a policy that is all about raising revenue; there is a health component to this, and the figures clearly show it.

The truth is that the coalition for a long time in this policy area simply listened to one section of the community—the distillers. They were too close to them, and that is the hallmark of their position. They should have agreed to this legislation a long time ago. The young people in my electorate should be cherished, encouraged, educated and nurtured to achieve everything they want in life. Their skills, their talents, their productivity and their ability should be encouraged. Excessive consumption of alcohol diminishes that capacity and skill and impinges on a responsible lifestyle.

This legislation is part of a multipronged prolonged strategy that the Rudd government is undertaking. There is really no valid argument against this legislation, but for months and months those opposite have argued that somehow this was solely about raising tax. The truth is that this was about ensuring our revenue position was better but also about ensuring that there was responsible consumption of alcohol and a degree of equity and consistency in our tax system. We are closing a tax loophole that was perpetrated and perpetuated by the Howard government to assist distillers. It had the consequences of harming our young people. In the circumstances, this legislation should be supported.

As a son of an alcoholic I am always concerned about responsible consumption of alcohol. What we can do in this society and our community to ensure responsible drinking should be applauded and supported. Those opposite should realise the consequences for young people of addiction, of lifestyle and of habit—that is what happens when young people take up drinking and become alcoholics. Approximately one in 10 people really acknowledge they are alcoholics. Approximately three in 10 people in our society are alcoholics but they simply do not acknowledge it. The capacity of these young people to work and enjoy their entertainment, family life and friendship is harmed by excessive consumption of alcopops. This legislation is important not just for finance but for families, individuals and communities.

It is a great shame that those opposite have opposed this legislation for so long. I am pleased that somehow, as I said before, on the road to Damascus they have seen the light. It is about time they took up the challenge and joined with us in supporting what we believe is important—that is, adopting a national strategy to attack binge drinking to ensure that our young people can achieve everything they want in life and to make sure that families are supported. Senator Fielding has for a long time claimed that he supports families first, but he should have a good hard look at the votes he has cast in this regard to see whether he has in fact put families first.

It is important that we support the AMA. It is important that we support the Royal Australasian College of Physicians. It is important we support all forms of community ventures like those in the schools in my electorate that I mentioned. It is important we support the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia. It is important we do everything we possibly can to reduce the consumption of alcohol amongst our young people.

I support the legislation. I commend the minister for her announcements today, which I think are good in terms of the three states and territories that have signed up to ensure that there is prevention and early intervention with young people to ensure they are not prone to addiction and to ensure they can deal with the challenges and responsibly drink alcohol and enjoy the lifestyle we all hope they will. I commend the legislation to the House.

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

History tells us some very interesting stories about taxation and excise on alcohol. In fact, right back to the 17th century there has always been a great ability to raise taxes on alcohol. The publicans and the innkeepers were easy targets. Over the years, governments of all political colours have exploited that and they have raised taxation doing just that. In fact, in our early history in Australia at the time of the Rum Corps rum and whisky were a form of currency. That was a regrettable part of our history but it was because alcohol and the taxation of alcohol were exploited. Now we have moved into the 21st century you would think we would have a more mature way of taxing alcohol. In the reforms of 2000-01 the then Treasurer, Peter Costello, introduced a measure to tax RTDs according to their alcoholic content.

What is an RTD? An RTD is a premixed bottle or a premixed can of a mixer, sometimes a soft drink, and a form of alcohol. What Peter Costello said was that if you are drinking a 4.8 per cent VB or you are drinking a 4.8 per cent Bundy and cola you should pay the same tax. If you are drinking a 3.5 per cent—what is called the gold strength or the mid strength—XXXX Gold or a Carlton mid-strength, you pay the same tax as if you were having a light Bundy, Bundy gold as it is called. And it applied to other full strength and mid strength alcohol drinks as well. The great beauty of those drinks is that when people drink them they know exactly the quantity of alcohol that they are drinking.

The government, I must admit, were very clever when introducing the Excise Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009. They changed the nomenclature and used the emotive word ‘alcopop’. Even the last speaker, for whom I might say I have a fair amount of respect, was conned by that. ‘These dreadful alcopops.’ ‘These excessively sweet, fruit injected drinks.’ ‘These fizzy and coloured drinks that are dressed up to grab young people, particularly young girls, are alcopops.’

What the minister and the Labor Party did not say at the time was that they represent a very small proportion of the total amount of RTDs. Minister, I do not know if you know this but the regular drinks of dark rum, whiskey and bourbon—all well-known products; all accepted on the shelves of liquor stores, supermarkets and pubs—represent in mixed form 76 per cent of so-called alcopops. These are regular drinks, such as Bundy and cola and Johnnie Walker and dry—whatever it might be. The next level is the white spirits of gin and vodka. They represent nine per cent. If you take the dark spirits and the white spirits, 85 per cent of the RTDs are quite regular, decent products. So-called alcopops that get their alcohol from wine or brewing or even sometimes vodka represent 15 per cent of the market.

Now let us have a look at the total liquor market—the whole liquor market. Of that, 8.5 per cent is RTDs. Let us apply this little measure: if you take 15 per cent of 8.5 per cent, this debate in this parliament—this so-called health measure; this so-called protection of young girls; this so-called anti binge drinking measure—is about 1.3 per cent of alcohol consumed in this country.

What did the government do? With a tax, you expect there to be equity. The government has levied this tax—roughly $450 million a year; $1.7 billion or $1.8 billion over the four-year term—on 8.5 per cent of the market. When you think about it, that is inequity on a grand scale. First we had the nomenclature to get us to believe that all of those drinks were alcopops. When we got to that point, if you look at the total amount of alcohol and look at for equity you find that the whole tax is being levied on 8.5 per cent of the liquor market. The liquor market is quite big. Thirty-three per cent of it is wine, 45.5 per cent of it is the three strengths of beer and roughly 12.5 per cent of it is spirits. RTDs make up 8.5 per cent and they take the full tax burden. And it is done in the name of young people at risk.

Has it had an effect in reducing drinking? Not markedly. If you put taxes on anything—such as cigarettes or alcohol—and you put it on heavily enough, you can certainly lower in that particular category the amount of it being used. RTD use has dropped by 35 per cent since the introduction of this measure. But the use of bottled spirits has risen 19 per cent and the use of beer has risen five per cent. Bear in mind that when you talk about five per cent of beer you are talking about five per cent of 45.5 per cent of the total market. It is quite considerable. There has been a shift not so much away from alcohol but to other forms of alcohol.

The other reasons that the government gave were to do with health and public safety—great considerations. We were told about these young people who were trying to protect, particularly young women. If you have a look at the figures for young females from 14 to 19 years, 6.7 per cent of that group are categorised as ‘at risk’, with 3.7 per cent drinking at heavy risk. If you take the two together, to make it easy that is just less than 11 per cent. But what percentage of the total female population does this group represent? In other words, 14- to 19-year olds represent only 10 per cent of all women over 14. So, if you take 11 per cent of 10 per cent you find that the number that are at risk is 1.1 per cent.

So let us review those two figures. First, what proportion of the whole liquor market do the real alcopops—the heavily fruited and heavily sweetened fizzy coloured drinks—represent? They represent 1.3 per cent. What portion of the population do the young people purportedly at risk represent? Of all females capable of drinking they represent 1.1 per cent. There is no equity there either.

Minister, if you go around the bottle shops and talk to the people there they will tell you about one of the shifts that have occurred. Someone who is aged over 18 in a group will go to a bottle shop and buy a bottle of soft drink. They will tip half of it out and fill it up with vodka. There they have a potent brew in the bottle of soft drink, with the equivalent of 12 nips of alcohol. We are talking about binge drinking. Can you imagine young people sucking on that cocktail for the night and what condition they are in at the end of the night?

When you go in and buy an RTD or a pre-mix you know from the bottle how many drinks are in that bottle. As I said before, if you take a can of Bundy gold you can drink two of those and be quite safe to drive. You ask yourself, after that: is this really a health measure that we have engaged in? No, it is not. All we have done is shift the emphasis to another area. Those young girls that the bill purports to protect are still as vulnerable. And some might argue they are even more vulnerable. Why do I say that? I will quote from David Kalisch, who was the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing—a deputy secretary of the minister’s own department. He said:

The other aspect that I would also draw to your attention is that anecdotal evidence we have received from ED—

That is, emergency departments—

… suggests that there has been no change to ED presentations since the change in the excise.

He later went on:

… it is difficult to draw a conclusion about whether there has been a reduction or no change in harmful drinking.

That was the Deputy Secretary of the minister’s own department. That is what he had to say about it. There is another thing that has been purported under the guise or smokescreen of the change of nomenclature. That is that these dreadful super-sweet drinks are being drunk by all these young kids. Well, they are not. The liquor industry’s analysis of this is that most of the people drinking RTDs are males above 24 years of age. Why would they do that? I suspect that they are young guys who want to go out and have a good night but want to keep control of how much alcohol they are drinking. Of course, if they are just having a drink before they go home on a Friday night then they really want to drink something after which they can feel fairly safe about driving. I explained that earlier.

The minister has devoted $50 million, in round figures—and she announced another $7 million tonight—to various binge drinking and alcohol abuse matters. When you are picking up $450 million a year, that is really a bit on the low side. If we were really fair dinkum about looking at binge drinking we would be doing a lot better than $50 million or $57 million or whatever it might be. It will be in that range.

Yet another thing has bemused me in this debate. I would like to quote Martin Ferguson, the Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism. In July 2004, when this matter came up in the parliament he said:

RTDs currently attract an excise at the same rate as full-strength beer, which appropriately reflects alcohol content, and taxing RTDs at a higher rate would be unfair …

That is Labor policy I presume. It was recognised that emergency departments have said that they have seen no increase. Labor people, over the years, have agreed with the fact that RTDs should not be selectively taxed.

I come from Bundaberg. It would be of no surprise to anyone here that I would want to defend the local industry. But I defend it first because of the faulty nomenclature that the Australian public was conned into and then because of the lack of equity, the excessiveness of the tax and the way it was levied, and the fact that the health aspects of it have not been proven. In my own town we have had Bundaberg rum since 1988. Bundaberg rum has been part of the Australian romance in many fields, including the outback. People have often wondered about the little square bottle of Bundaberg rum you buy, for example. They ask, ‘Why did they make a bottle like that?’ The reason for that was that it could go into the drover’s saddle pack when he was going out, because there were no refrigerators out on the edge of the desert. All the drovers had was the rum so they would drink the rum with the water.

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

Bore water.

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

Yes, probably bore water, as the honourable member for Lyons says. He is quite right.

Bundaberg rum was used by the Australian and British navies during the Second World War. It has been a major sponsor of Australian sport. It is part of the industry profile of my city and my electorate. It is a well-made product. It is now being exported extensively overseas. Do you think, honourable members and minister, that the Champagne region of France would sit idly by if some minister in the French government started attacking champagne? Do you seriously think that Scottish members of parliament would sit idly by while Scotch whisky was being attacked in the UK or Scottish parliaments? Of course not. And nor will I—nor will I put at risk the jobs that are involved in that. Rum is made from molasses, which is a tertiary product of the Australian sugar industry. It is quite central to the economic profile of my district and one of the two cities in my electorate of Hinkler. I make no apologies for doing that.

Let me make one thing clear to the minister and all here: no-one has put me under pressure. I have done this under my own volition. I have largely prepared my own material that I put to my party room—I did seek some help on research. This is really a bodgie matter. It is applying a big tax, a $1.7 billion or $1.8 billion tax, to 8½ per cent of the market. It is dressed up in the nomenclature of alcopops, emotively. They use it as nothing more than a smokescreen to mask that tax. It has not met its health objectives, it is mean in its anti-drinking campaign and quite frankly it is damaging to the people of my electorate. I will oppose the bill in whichever way possible.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will speak briefly to the legislation. I have spoken on this issue before. I just wanted to reinforce my opposition to the Excise Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009 [No. 2] and the related bill. It is not that I am not opposed to alcopops. I think I made the point in a previous contribution that, when the so-called alcopops legislation was introduced, the government was under some pressure in other areas—and I will not elaborate on what they were—and my view was that it was essentially a stunt, a diversionary tactic, using quite a significant issue, excess alcohol consumption by young people et cetera. I opposed it on those grounds at that time, and I have seen nothing to dissuade me of that view to this day.

As a father and a member of the community, I think that bringing these drinks out originally was the problem. They should never have been allowed because they were very sweet and easy to drink alcohol which was just setting up a market of young people that may well not have been used to the consumption of alcohol. So I have always been opposed to these lolly water, high-octane ‘alcopops’, as they are called now. Rather than using taxation policy to try and do something about the issue—everybody recognises the issue; there are just different ways of dealing with it—I would ban them. If they are an issue in terms of health, in terms of leading to addiction and all of the other things that we have heard debated in this parliament on both sides of this issue, ban them. The government has the power to do that.

If we reflect back on the time of the former government, when petrol sniffing—and I, and I know other members in this chamber, have seen the results in communities where petrol sniffing is rife—was finally recognised as an issue, we did not put the tax up. We actually recognised it as a health issue and we banned it in areas where it was of major concern. In fact, we designed a fuel that was not sniffable, in a sense. But we did not use taxation policy. When we realised that high sulfur levels in diesel, for instance, or in our fuels, were potentially a health problem, we did not use taxation policy to try and drive that initiative; we banned it, and passed the cost on to the consumers.

I want it placed firmly on record that I will not be supporting this legislation and I am very much opposed to alcopops. I know there have been various arguments in support of alcopops and opposition to the legislation. I am opposed to both. I still believe that the way in which the government has put this together is nothing but a stunt. It will not cure any problems in terms of the issue. If we are serious about this, and the health minister has said on numerous occasions that this is a health issue, and I agree with her, as a parliament we should be banning alcopops, we have sniffable petrol in communities where there has been a health problem.

I know I was not on the speaking list; I thank the minister and the House for listening to my small contribution.

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

in reply—I thank all the members who made a contribution to this debate and note that both the member for Hinkler and the member for New England were happy to accommodate the interests of the House to be able to have a chance to debate—and, of course, the member for Blair and the member for Dickson. I do have to say that I am particularly pleased that the member for Blair actually took the time to talk through some of the additional health measures that are being taken in this area, because we believe strongly that this measure in itself has a health impact. We think it is not tenable for people to stand up in this chamber and say it has had no impact when 720,000 standard drinks per week is the difference from when this measure was introduced to now. That reduction in consumption is a good thing.

This measure has been widely back by health experts, by police, by the community and it is now being, belatedly—and, I have to say, grudgingly—supported by the Liberal Party, although I understand not by the entire coalition, given the contribution from the member for Hinkler. The member for Dickson was forced into this backdown, and we believe he has made the right decision and the Liberal Party has made the right decision. But, although he might have got 10 out of 10 for the execution of a triple somersault backflip, I think he would get zero out of 10 for the dignity or grace with which he has done it. He is still denying the health impact of this measure, still pretending that other action can be taken and that this does not need to be part of it. He even had the cheek to say in his contributions that he was ‘concerned’ about binge drinking well before this debate—but, it appears, not sufficiently before this debate, for the entire 11 years that he was part of the previous government, to do anything about it.

I think a lot of people in the House—I know the member for Hinkler and the member for New England, along with many on this side of the House and some on the other side of the House—are genuinely concerned about what we do in response to abuse of alcohol in the community. We know it is a problem. We know we have to have a multipronged approach—and this is part of it. This bill being able to pass through this House, hopefully later tonight, and through the Senate hopefully later in the week, will be only part of what needs to be done to tackle this problem. And we are dead serious about making sure that we can pursue other initiatives like those I have already highlighted. But it does not make it easier for the House to have a serious debate about this when we can spend 12 months absolutely arguing against something and then have the shadow minister come in here with his tail between his legs pretending that it is the changed economic circumstances that changes the Liberal Party’s position. I might remind the House that we voted on this first in February. If my sums and grasp of dates are correct we were well and truly already in difficult financial circumstances by that time. It was not as if the Liberal Party suddenly realised between February and now, in June, that there were difficult financial circumstances. So, to come in here and pretend that they are now going to support this measure as an economic measure but deny the health impact that this measure can have, I think is really taking it a little bit too far.

I commented to the parliamentary secretary speaking here that the member for Dickson’s speech was very much like the Fonz in Happy Daysabsolutely unable to say that he was wrong and that it was now the right thing to come in and support this measure. But, honestly, for whatever reason he wants to support it, I think it is going to be a much better outcome for the community. I hope that he will be able to carry his coalition members in the Senate, because we do believe that this debate now can be out of the way. The treatment of spirits in a consistent way will have been achieved into the future. The money that is going to be provided will help fund our preventative health measures and will open up the opportunity to take further measures into the future, which we very much look forward to considering when the prevention task force provides its final report to us by the end of this month and we consider it in the coming months. I commend this bill to the House and I thank members who have spoken on the date.

Mal Washer (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that this bill be now read a second time. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred, until after 8 pm.

Debate adjourned.