Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The Australian Greens have maintained a consistent position on this issue throughout this debate on the Customs Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009 and related bill. We made it clear from the outset that we want a comprehensive approach when dealing with the abuse of alcohol in this country. We have a clear position focused on harm minimisation, reducing the influence of alcohol on our culture, protecting the young and the vulnerable and offering help and support to those in need. Our position is evidence based and, believe me, we have researched the issue very thoroughly. Our position is consistent with that advocated by doctors, public health advocates and drug and alcohol experts, and it has been developed in consultation with these groups.

We support, in principle, taxation measures that increase the costs of ‘bads’, which are the things that incur a cost to society, that cause people harm or do damage to the environment. Such measures send both a clear price signal and the message that these activities are undesirable. It also provides a secure source of revenue that can and should be directed to reducing the harm caused by these things. The impact of alcohol, its cost and the harm it does are very significant in our community. We noted with interest a statement released today by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians entitled ‘Alcohol taxation policy in Australia: public health imperatives for action’. The statement quotes figures in relation to alcohol harm and points out that, yet again, they are at an unacceptable level. It documents the following facts:

An estimated 3494 Australians died in the 2004–05 financial year because of their alcohol consumption.

The estimated cost to Australian society of alcohol-related health harms, lost productivity, and crime in 2004–05 was $15.3 billion.

In 2003, an estimated 3.2% of the total burden of disease and injury in Australia was attributable to alcohol.

In 2007, 37.4% of males and 41.2% of females aged 14–19 years reported consuming alcohol at a level that placed them at risk of short-term harm (eg, being involved in a fight or a car crash, or engaging in risky sexual behaviour) in the past year. Just under one in 10 in this age group (8.8% of males, 9.4% of females) did so every week..

In the 10 years to 2002, an estimated five people aged 15–24 years died and 216 were admitted to hospital every week as a result of drinking alcohol. People of this age account for about 52% of all alcohol-related serious road injuries.

In other words, alcohol places a very high financial cost on our society, but you cannot put a dollar value on the harm that it causes in terms of the misery, grief, assaults et cetera that arise from alcohol abuse.

At the same time that this alcohol related harm costs our community over $15 billion a year, alcohol delivers to the Commonwealth over $7 billion a year in customs and excise revenue—that is a lot of money. And that was before the introduction of the additional excise on RTDs, which is estimated to be $1.6 billion over the next four years. We believe the government needs to be spending much more of this money on preventing harm, reducing impacts and helping those who suffer. We have evidence of what works to reduce the risky consumption of alcohol, in addition to tobacco and junk food. It is not enough to put in place a price mechanism alone. We need a comprehensive strategy that will tackle alcohol in the way that we have tackled tobacco. As I said, the Greens have consistently advocated this position since this tax was introduced. Unfortunately, the government is offering only partial measures and holding back from tackling some of the most substantial issues, such as stopping the advertising of alcohol to children, phasing out alcohol sponsorship of sport, taking a tougher approach to the alcohol-fuelled bad behaviour of some of our high-profile people, mandating warning messages on all alcohol advertising and at points of sale, requiring prominent hard-hitting warning labels and investing in early identification, counselling and rehabilitation.

We do not believe it is acceptable for the government to sit back and rake in the alcohol tax dollars without taking a more comprehensive approach and investing more of the massive revenue from alcohol taxes in addressing alcohol related harm. We believe there is an absolute moral imperative for the government to act on this more comprehensive approach. All the public health experts have told us the same thing over and over again in evidence: we need a comprehensive approach. In the evidence presented to the committee—and I was obviously listening to different experts or to a different committee from that mentioned by Senator Cormann, because I heard the health advocates speak very strongly in favour of this tax.