Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to make a few comments on the amendment put forward by the Greens. I think it needs to be said at the outset that there needs to be a more comprehensive national approach to more effectively addressing the problems of alcohol abuse. There are a wide range of angles that need to be taken on that. I am certainly not in any way suggesting that nothing at all is being done. Indeed, as you would know, Mr Temporary Chairman Murray, a specific fund was set up some years back. From memory, it was funded from resources provided by the government which was recompense, if you like, for what was assessed to be the overcharging of taxation on alcohol in response to various adjustments made following the introduction of the GST. The Democrats played a pivotal role in that. It was four or five years ago, I think—time flies when you are having so much fun! Certainly there are precedents for this type of fund. The fund in this amendment is to make grants to people to promote public health and welfare, including the contracting and staffing of health and welfare facilities.

It is appropriate in the context of this legislation specifically, or in parts at least, because of the need to ensure that any alcohol control measures, whatever they may be—whether it is a pricing barrier or enforced restrictions on how much can be purchased or what type can be purchased or where it can be consumed—are all part of a package and that wider package has to include education measures, support for people who are trying to deal with substance abuse and addiction issues, support for relevant health facilities and support for families, relations and others in the wider community. There are a whole lot of factors. Again, those points have been made already in this debate and, I think, in the previous debates in recent weeks.

The intent here is certainly a positive one and the mechanism of focusing a levy on the sale of cheap liquor is also an understandable one. Again, it is a point that certainly some within the Democrats have made a number of times. We also acknowledge that pricing, particularly for cheap liquor, is a key factor—there is no doubt about that, as Senator Siewert has said—and levies or tax measures are one part of that. I certainly agree with the statements that have been made by some of my colleagues, at least, over the years that one part of the solution on a more comprehensive level is to look at changing the way taxation on alcohol occurs in Australia. It is a very messy and not overly logical set of rules that we have at the moment, and a straight volumetric taxation approach towards alcohol is one that I think is highly justified, firstly in terms of simplicity and, secondly, but much more importantly, particularly in the context of this debate, in terms of public health outcomes. That in itself, I might say, can save money down the track. You can have a taxation measure that not only raises funds but also, by virtue of the way it operates, has flow-on public saving consequences. So you get extra value, if you like, and of course components of the proposed levy can be put into public health and welfare measures relating to alcohol consumption.

So the intent and much of the structure of what is put forward here are something that the Democrats support and are consistent, at least in part, with some of the approaches that the Democrats have taken in the past. I think there are issues—and this is not a criticism of the amendment; it is more of a wider commentary while I am on my feet—with the desirability of taking a national approach rather than a Territory-specific approach. Obviously, because of the context of this bill, a Territory-specific approach is what would be required, and certainly the statistics show that the Northern Territory does have issues with regard to the high percentage of people consuming greater levels of alcohol than are healthy for them.

There goes the Black Rod! I am not sure whether we all turn into pumpkins now. It is like the centrepiece of the TARDIS coming out. All is back in order there, Senator Joyce?