Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to make some brief remarks on the Excise Laws Amendment (Fuel Tax Reform and Other Measures) Bill 2006, the Excise Tariff Amendment (Fuel Tax Reform and Other Measures) Bill 2006, the Customs Amendment (Fuel Tax Reform and Other Measures) Bill 2006 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Fuel Tax Reform and Other Measures) Bill 2006. As a member of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee I participated in the committee’s inquiries into the excise bills. I initially place on record my thanks to the committee secretariat for the enormous effort they put into not only organising a public hearing but also producing a report in record time. I also thank the other members of the committee. The Senate Economics Legislation Committee, as is often the case at this time of year, found itself inquiring into these excise bills, the fuel tax bills and some others, which we will deal with this afternoon. The committee was under enormous pressure, having had a series of bills referred to it in one week which were to be reported on in the following week so that they could make their way through this chamber. Given the pressure that the committee found itself under, particular thanks need to made to the committee secretariat and to those whom we borrow from other committees.

When the committee inquired into the excise bills, we looked solely at the sections of those bills that deal with excise on alcohol. Since I have been in this place, the debate about excise on alcohol is something that has occurred every year or so. It is something that I knew very little, if anything, about until I joined the economics committee. I must say that, thanks particularly to the endeavours of Senator Murray, I now find I know a bit more about it. But I still see it as being an incredibly complicated regime. I must admit that I think I am much better at consuming alcohol than at understanding its taxation regime! Having said that, we focused purely on the parts of this regime that deal with alcohol. As is often the case when our committee in particular considers these matters, we agreed on a very important point of public policy and made some recommendations accordingly. They were recommendations that, having listened to Radio National this morning, I think will go down fairly well in the wider community.

There was a debate on the Health Report about funding by industry of public education campaigns and the like, and about different organisations that are formed to combat excessive alcohol consumption in our community. One of the concerns that was raised in that program this morning was that, when those bodies are funded largely by industry, their efforts seem to be focused more around public education than the need, if we are trying to change behaviour within our community, to change public policy and our approach. There was great noise made about the need to look at changing things like taxation regimes because, if we are concerned about the growing consumption, and binge consumption, by young people of things like alcohol, and the health effects that alcohol and tobacco have, there does now seem to be a body of work that says that, rather than solely relying on public education, there is a degree of price sensitivity when it comes to the consumption of those things. Therefore, perhaps we need to look at our models of taxation instead.

When the committee considered that very issue, we talked about the study of alcohol consumption and taxation. It would seem that there is now growing interest, not just amongst community activists but also amongst economists and policy makers. There are taxes on alcoholic beverages that are specific and complex, and they can be a major source of taxation revenue. We also think that such taxes—and we have a greater understanding now—can lead to providing a means of curbing excessive consumption of alcoholic beverages and some associated negative behaviour. Therefore, I think the organisations that appeared before us and those of us on the committee are of the view that there needs to be greater understanding of how price changes can bring about an effective change in behaviour.

It was mentioned on the Health Report this morning and in the evidence that the committee heard that, when you look at the differential taxation regimes between, say, low-alcohol beer and full-strength beer and the effect that that has had on changed behaviour and couple that with state laws about drinking and driving, it would seem that that is one of the things that perhaps leads to changed behaviour rather than public campaigns that tell you not to drink. I think you only have to look at tobacco to see that in fact it is a change of law and a change of price that will lead more effectively to a change of behaviour than just advertising and telling people not to smoke.

I think the committee went through a useful process in examining these things. The committee, in its report, which I am sure has been highlighted by others, has recommended that the bills be passed. But it has also gone out of its way to mention:

In terms of reform of the alcohol taxation regime, the Committee considers that in principle a volumetric tax for all alcohol products should in the long term be adopted. It considers that planning, research and consultation directed towards this goal should start soon. Any review of the taxation regime for alcohol needs to take into account complementary strategies to address alcohol related problems.

So it needs to be complementary rather than stand-alone, as it is at the moment. The report continues:

These strategies include education, treatment and rehabilitation, licensing and sales, enforcement and policing.

The report goes on to say:

In the meantime, the Committee considers that some immediate benefits can be achieved by way of incremental reform to the tax treatment of low and mid strength RTDs.

That is, ready-to-drinks. It continues:

These products should be placed on the same tax footing as comparable strength beers. Realigning the excise regime for lower strength RTDs promises to lower the relative price of these drinks, increase consumption of these products and reduce harmful drinking behaviour and related health and social costs. This would be an incremental low-risk step with minimal revenue implications.

This is step that has been called for by numerous community based bodies and academics who have spent a lifetime studying the linkages between price and altering behaviour. It is, in my mind, a recommendation that the government needs to take seriously if we are serious about intervening in the issues of binge drinking and increased alcohol consumption, particularly amongst young people. It is something I urge the government to consider.