Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That—

(1)

The following matters be referred to the Community Affairs Committee for inquiry and report by 24 June 2008:

(a)

the effectiveness of the Government’s proposed changes to the alcohol excise regime in reducing the claims of excessive consumption of ready-to-drink alcohol beverages;

(b)

the consumption patterns of ready-to-drink alcohol beverages by sex and age group;

(c)

the consumption patterns of all alcohol beverages by sex and age group;

(d)

the impact of these changes on patterns of overall full strength spirit consumption, including any increased consumption of standard drinks of alcohol;

(e)

the evidence underpinning the claims of significant public health benefit in the increase of excise on this category of alcohol;

(f)

applicability of incentives to encourage production and consumption of lower alcohol content beverages;

(g)

the modelling underpinning the Government’s revenue estimates of this measure;

(h)

the effectiveness of excise increases as a tool in reducing the levels of alcohol-related harm;

(i)

the empirical evidence on which the Government’s decision to increase the excise on ready-to-drink alcohol beverages was based; and

(j)

the effect of alternative means of limiting excessive alcohol consumption and levels of alcohol-related harm among young people.

(2)

The committee is to include hearing evidence from health experts, representatives of the ready-to-drink alcohol industry, spirits industry, hotels and liquor retailers and government officials familiar with the modelling and health policy data used to underpin this policy decision.

The opposition has I think quite rightly expressed concern about the decision that the government made without notice to anybody in respect of the increase of excise on ready-to-drinks. I believe the evidence that has already started to flow from the community raises questions over the validity of the decision. We have already seen evidence in the media from South Australia and from my home state of Tasmania, where young people are going straight back to full-strength spirits instead of drinking a measured amount of alcohol through the use of ready-to-drinks. We also know from statistics from the industry that about 80 per cent of those who consume RTDs are males in the age group of 24 to 39. So I think there is already very strong evidence to suggest that this measure is ill conceived and it is certainly enough evidence in my view to suggest that this should be considered by a committee of the Senate.

We know that the Treasury forecasts of revenue from this measure exceed even the industry’s own predictions of growth in the RTD market that were made prior to the tax decision being made. We have seen the projected excise grow from $2 billion over four years when the measure was first announced three weeks ago to $3.1 billion over five years in the budget. Again, I think that raises some questions over the process that the government went through in respect of how these decisions were made.

The opposition, like the government, is very concerned with the issue that we have in this country regarding alcohol and alcohol related effects. We believe though that the government has tried to manipulate the use of statistics and figures to create an issue that is demonstrated to be different from what it really is. We know for example—and this has been brought out through the debate that we have had over the last few weeks in respect of another piece of legislation that is before the chamber—that the number of people who are indulging in binge drinking is actually falling or steady. We know that over the last 20-odd years the rate of alcohol consumption in Australia has fallen. Rather than make ad hoc decisions, as the government has done in this particular case, the opposition believes that consideration of all of the facts that surround this issue is the appropriate way that this should be decided.

We have seen evidence that has come through reporting processes even this year that the most effective way to influence consumption of alcohol is through the support of families and through the influence of families. The government, at this point in time, has had meetings with major sporting codes and it has increased tax, but it has put in place no measures to support families and to give families the information that will assist them in influencing the use of alcohol, particularly by young people. I stress: the opposition acknowledges that this is a significant issue. We do not step away from it, but what we do have concerns about is that this measure is being put in place in complete isolation from any other considerations. If it had been put in place as part of a package of measures that we could see provided support for families and support for community organisations involved in the use of alcohol, then we could perhaps see a different way of moving forward. But it has not. It came out of the blue without any consultation with industry, without any consultation with the community and it appears to the opposition to be nothing more than a significant tax grab. In that context we have real and I think legitimate issues with it.

In those terms—without the consultation with industry that may well have provided some better information—I think it is quite disturbing that the Taxation Office projections for this measure exceed even the industry’s projections in growth. We saw yesterday Senator Conroy admitting that there would continue to be growth in the RTD market. Yet Treasurer Swan was at the press gallery saying that there would be a reduction in the use of RTDs. They cannot both be right. So there are even differences within the government in respect of this issue. I think it is more than appropriate that this measure be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs and that it be properly investigated. Hopefully, that committee will then have the opportunity to provide to the government and to the parliament a holistic approach to dealing with this issue, not just a single, ad hoc measure that is plucked out of thin air.

It is of real concern to the opposition that, even though the government has put a number of processes in place to deal with some significant policy matters, those processes are being circumvented by ad hoc policy decisions. It is a real concern. If the government wants to put a process in place to deal with an issue, that is quite legitimate and the opposition would support it. But, when it starts making ad hoc decisions that have no reference to those particular processes, I think we can legitimately ask some questions. This motion will provide the opportunity for a Senate committee to properly consider this matter and provide recommendations back to the Senate and hopefully inform some good decision making and some good policy making on behalf of the government.