Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Hansard source

That’s right—but wait: this is a comprehensive plan. We are also working with state and territory governments through the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy on a range of measures that look more broadly at binge drinking: advertising, liquor licensing and secondary supply amongst them. Last week Minister Roxon announced $872 million of preventative health strategies—Senator Colbeck seems to have missed that happening. That is all aside from the work of the Preventative Health Taskforce, the task force that will be making its report and recommendations to the government in June this year.

The health sector is very pleased with the refocus of the government on that part of the alcohol and other drugs sector that causes the most harm to our community. We do have a comprehensive plan in order to change the culture, as Senator Fielding said and I think Senator Birmingham said. We do need to change the culture around inappropriate use of alcohol in this country, and our government is trying to do something about it. By contrast, the previous government did not engage at all in trying to deal with inappropriate use of alcohol. We are now dealing with the results of that inaction.

The alcopops measure will raise $1.6 billion from 27 April 2008 over the forward estimates—somewhat less than the original estimate at the time of the last budget but a clear indication that the measure is working. There is a lot of debate about which figures mean the most and whether there is a clear indication that the measure is working, but can I say that public health measures do take some time to demonstrate effect. We did not put up the tax on cigarettes and have a 10 per cent decrease in smoking overnight. The health experts have all recognised this fact, a fact somewhat missed by those people during the Senate inquiry. Professor Chikritzhs of the National Drug Research Institute recognised that there was no quantifiable evidence at this stage but said—and this is very important:

… various surveys, such as the secondary schools survey and the National Drugs Strategy health survey, [identify] which part of the population prefers to drink RTDs, or alcopops. We know that in the 14- to 17-year-old age group who drinks at risky, high-risk levels for short-term harm, 70 to 80 per cent of that consumption is done via RTDs, or alcopops … We could make an educated guess—

and can I say this is a very educated woman, saying that young people drinking at risky levels—

would be the most likely to be affected by this RTD tax.

We know that it is young people who are drinking large amounts of them. We also know that young people, but particularly underage drinkers, are extremely price sensitive. Professor Chikritzhs gets it. It is astonishing that those on the other side do not.

The coalition senators are therefore saying that the do-nothing approach is the way to go. For the 15- to 17-year-old girls, of which 62 per cent are now drinking alcopops compared to 14 per cent in 2000, that is not good enough for me. For having twice as many young women presenting at hospitals than eight years ago, doing nothing is not good enough for me. And for Senator Birmingham to say that this is a question of choice is not good enough for me because I do not have a choice as a taxpayer to pick up the bill for the health costs for inappropriate use of alcohol, and neither do I have a choice to pick up the bill for the harm and the effects on policing that all our states and territories are now dealing with.

I am amazed that any senator could not vote for this bill. The government’s action on alcopops is working. It may not be working for the distillers or their representatives in this place, the Liberal and National parties, but it is working. The AMA, the Public Health Association of Australia, the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the Australian National Council on Drugs, as well as the experts commissioned by the Howard government, all backed this measure. And so do the Australian public. The Australian Cancer Council surveyed Australians earlier this year, finding 57 per cent support the tax irrespective of where the money goes, but that moves to 84 per cent if the money is being used on public health measures.

This is a strong piece of legislation, it is backed by research, it is backed by the health experts, it is backed by the evidence and, most importantly, it is backed by the community. It will enable us to make significant investments in prevention and in tackling alcohol abuse and, therefore, should be supported.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Cormann’s) be agreed to.