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

As Senator Brown has articulated, the Greens are hugely disappointed with the government’s response to our very reasonable, very well thought out proposals to provide a much more comprehensive approach to dealing with alcohol related harm than, in fact, the government were taking. The government came to the Australian people and to this place with a proposal to increase the excise on ready-to-drink alcoholic drinks, commonly known as alcopops, and were very clear in saying that this was about dealing with alcohol related harm. They very clearly articulated the harm that is occurring in the Australian community caused by alcohol in general and ready-to-drink alcopops in particular. Unlike the coalition, we actually do believe some of the evidence that has been presented—that, in fact, there has been an increase in young people, and particularly young women, drinking alcopops, which increases alcohol related harm. Also, very importantly, it sets up early drinking patterns, and that is why, as I mentioned in my speech in the second reading debate, producers particularly go for the sweet taste: to mask the taste of alcohol for young drinkers.

The government went to the Australian people saying that this was about dealing with alcohol related harm, yet they will not spend part of that revenue on these proposals. We were not even asking for all of the revenue, though you would have thought that, if this were about alcohol related harm, they would actually commit that revenue to addressing that harm, which is a $15.3 billion problem in Australia. That is how much it costs. As I have said several times over the last couple of weeks, that does not put a cost on the grief that is caused by that harm. However, the government have said no. They will not commit all of it. They will not even commit a significant part of it. They will come back and run the argument that we are all being spoilers and that they have committed over half of the revenue raised to dealing with alcohol. In fact, it is not true. They have committed a lot of money—I will give them that—to preventative measures. They have, but that is not just about alcohol. When you consider that $800 million in the overall scheme of things—the fact that they are getting over $7 billion worth of revenue from alcohol taxation—it puts a bit of a different perspective on it. You have to wonder whether they can break their addiction to revenue from alcohol.

We were being very sensible. I have spent a lot of time over the last year thoroughly researching, as have other Greens senators, the impact of alcohol on our community and how we should be addressing alcohol related harm. The overwhelming evidence is that things like this need to be part of a comprehensive strategy. Price is a very important factor; in fact, it is top of the list in terms of dealing with alcohol. But it should always be part of a comprehensive approach.

Senator Brown wrote on behalf of the Greens to the Prime Minister, saying, ‘If you want our support for this measure, you have to show us how it is part of a comprehensive approach.’ That was not quite 12 months ago—it was just after this tax was introduced, and we know that it has not been in place for 12 months yet. We never had a response to that letter. I also sent a copy of that letter to the health minister. We never had a formal response to that letter. We are still waiting for that formal response.

We not only wrote but followed that up with proposals that were framed in the context of (a) being a comprehensive approach and (b) being evidence based. The government also talk about evidence based approaches to a lot of their policies but in particular this policy. We have looked at the evidence; we have looked at what works; we have looked at the overseas examples. Guess what one of the other No. 1 issues is? Advertising. You have to address advertising. That is where the government do not want to go. It is No. 2 on the list, but the government do not want to go there. They do not want to close the loophole which allows alcohol advertising to be shown during children’s viewing times if you sponsor sport. If big alcohol sponsors sport, they get to show that ad during children’s television viewing times.

But that is not the only major issue with advertising and sponsorship; there is all the other sponsorship across sports, from what is termed big alcohol to taverns sponsoring the local sports group. I do not know about other states, but in my home state of Western Australia this is a really big issue. I know that it is a big issue because, when I raised this link between sports sponsorship and alcohol through the media, I got lots of phone calls from community sporting organisations saying, ‘You want to take away our funding.’ I said: ‘No, I don’t want to take away your funding. But I want to make sure that the funding that you get is not from taverns and from alcohol manufacturers so that you do not have to have their logo on your shirts.’ You know what? The international evidence shows that there is a direct link between alcohol abuse, sponsorship and the use of logos. Alcohol abuse goes up proportionally to the amount of sponsorship there is. There is a direct link there. Why doesn’t the government want to go there?

Do you know what? Although the Greens would prefer to ban advertising tomorrow, we are realistic and we know that that is not going to happen. We know that cutting off sponsorship is not going to happen tomorrow. We came up with a very sensible plan to phase out sponsorship. We came up with a very sensible plan to put a toe in the water in dealing with sponsorship. But did the government go there? No, they will not even consider it. They dismiss it. They will not fund any extra measures related to alcohol related harm. They will not take a comprehensive approach. The Greens have said all along that the government needed to fund a comprehensive approach, and they have not.

The problem with the price measure is that the impact will not last long. Yes, it has had an impact in reducing the number of standard drinks sold in Australia—we agree; it has. But, as I pointed out earlier, it will last a short time if we do not take a broader approach. That is what the evidence has shown overseas. The overseas evidence that the government quoted at the numerous inquiries that we have had in alcohol—and I have participated in three in the last 12 months—shows that price has an impact, but where it has been successful is where it has been linked to other measures in a comprehensive approach. It needs to be linked to addressing advertising, sponsorship and reducing licensing hours, and linked to social marketing programs, rehabilitation programs and support programs. All the evidence shows that. We know that it works: this is how we dealt with tobacco. We are not asking for anything different to what we asked for regarding tobacco in the past.

The community is behind these sorts of measures. They are sick of the damage that alcohol causes, whether it is when they are at a local sporting event or in their own family or domestic situation. They are sick of seeing alcohol abuse associated with sport splashed across the front pages. They do not want to see that anymore. There is strong support for these sorts of measures, and it is about time that the government woke up to it.

As I have said repeatedly, if this is genuinely about dealing with alcohol related harm, why aren’t the government prepared to spend a relatively small amount? The Greens asked for less than two per cent of this funding to be allocated to start dealing with the issues around sponsorship. The government decided that they could not go there. We do not think that this measure will be effective if it is not part of a comprehensive approach. The government are squandering the window of opportunity that this tax has generated. They have managed to reduce the amount of alcohol sold. They will squander that if they do not bring in these other measures. They will squander this opportunity if they do not put in place a comprehensive approach to dealing with alcohol.

The community supports this sort of measure. We have a lot of sympathy for this sort of measure, which is what we said all along. We put the government on notice 12 months ago. We said: ‘Show us how you’re going to be investing this money in a comprehensive approach. Where are the complementary programs? They’re not there.’ We said that to the government when we wrote to them. We paid the government the courtesy of writing to them 12 months ago and we are still waiting for their response. They will not start addressing the issue of sponsorship, which is one of the key issues when you are dealing with alcohol related harm. What the government want to do is deal with some bits of it but not the others. But the evidence shows that if you do not deal with all the bits of it you are not going to have the outcomes you want in the long term.

If this is not about money, invest the money in dealing with alcohol related harm and make the hard decisions about sponsorship. That is what we have to do. We did it for tobacco and we have now got to do it with alcohol. But of course the alcohol industry is very powerful, isn’t it? They have been roaming this place for a whole year, haunting people’s offices. They have been in and out all the time delivering free alcopops to politicians around here. They have been in and out of everybody’s office lobbying hard. It is hard, I know, but as I said this morning the jig is up for the industry and they have got to start taking some responsibility—more than they have been taking. We need a more independent approach to the way we deal with advertising and we need the industry’s hands off advertising. They are still self-regulating their advertising, for crying out loud. How can you put an industry that makes billions of dollars out of the sale of alcohol in charge of regulating itself?

The industry wants to see that sort of thing continue. We know what other industries have been doing overseas in order to affect public policy. It is the same for the alcohol industry. They are very clearly affecting public policy. That is what they have been doing for the 12 months in which they have been actively lobbying around here, developing their bad alternatives to alcopops—and nobody will own up to who was doing it; they certainly did not at the committee hearings. They have been running specials—two bottles of spirits and you get a bottle of Coke, or one bottle of spirits and you get two bottles of Coke. They are misinterpreting the evidence and doing their own surveys.

I listened to it when I sat through two days of the inquiry and I sat through days of it at the other inquiries. I have heard all the evidence. I heard what they said about how they had surveyed their members and, guess what, there has been a lot of substitution and we did not get to see the data. The industry will not tell us how much they have paid for promoting their products. I have heard all of that. I have had them knocking on my door repeatedly.

We have put a lot of effort into understanding this issue, which is why we are so frustrated that the government is not prepared to move on it. We have thoroughly researched this. We have spoken to all the health bodies and we have read all the submissions. We know what the issues are, we know the damage it causes and we know how to fix it. ‘Go the full distance’ is what we are saying to government. Wake up and realise that we are prepared to support it if you will address it with a comprehensive approach. But you are not prepared to because you are not prepared to go the extra yards to put in place a full, comprehensive program. That is what we are asking for.

We came up with very sensible proposals but, instead of doing what is required, you would rather have a barney in the Senate. Well, now you have got a barney in the Senate because you would not go the extra yards to fund the programs.