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

There has been a calculated misuse of statistics in this argument, particularly from those who sit on the other side. It is time for a little bit of honesty with the Australian community about what is happening out there on the streets. I also think that the effort that has occurred in the last 15 months around the question of alcohol by our government has been overlooked. We are committed to working hard with communities and with individuals to ensure that we change the culture around alcohol use in this country. We have to do it for the health of our children. We have to do it to ensure that the finances of police departments are not continually whittled away by their running around cleaning up our streets, pulling children out of brawls and pulling injured children out of cars as a result of the abuse of alcohol.

We know we have to do something, and part of that measure is to address the tax loophole that was intentionally created by the Liberal Party in 2000. That loophole was intentionally created. It will be interesting some 10, 20 or 30 years down the track when the history of alcohol in this country is actually written if we can peel back how that occurred, because we certainly know that very early in the 2000s warning bells were being rung. The Australian Divisions of General Practice in, I think, around 2002 wrote an article in their journal about the concerns with the increase in growth in alcopops.

Those from the other side and the distilled spirits industry say that it is not only young people who drink alcopops. I can tell you where the growth in the market has been: it has been in the white spirit, pretty coloured alcopops designed particularly for young girls. Why are they so sweet? They are sweet for a good reason. They are sweet so that a child who is used to drinking orange soft drink can then move on to orange and white spirit and she probably will not really know the difference. These products are designed to move girls particularly, but also others, straight from soft drinks into alcohol. It is despicable, but that is what we are dealing with and that is what we have to turn around.

We heard many people on the other side during the second reading debate talking about how they were parents too, and they were worried. I am a parent and I am worried. All parents of teenagers allow their 16- or 17-year-old a certain amount of pocket money, and that is it. If they have to pay for transport and buy their lunch at school, there might be a bit left over. Unfortunately, irrespective of the best parenting in the world, some of that money may be used for inappropriate purchases of alcohol. They might have $6 left over. If a teenager is going to the bottle shop or getting someone older than them to go the bottle shop, that is all they can buy. Price is the strongest lever we can pull on underage drinking.

We know—we are sure—that drinking is having an impact, particularly on those young brains. We had the National Health and Medical Research Council come out last week and tell us with no equivocation that drinking alcohol under the age of 18 will affect the growing development of the brain. There is some evidence that says that drinking alcohol under the age of 25 can have a detrimental effect on the brain. We need to be telling our children that no alcohol is the way to go. This is not an appropriate thing for kids to drink. The old adage about letting your child have a little wine with you over dinner to teach them how to drink has been debunked. They should have no alcohol.

We know from the statistics that one in 10 12- to 17-year-olds are drinking at dangerous and risky levels—binge drinking—once a week. These are 12- to 17-year-olds. Any kid under the age of 18 drinking to binge drinking levels—to falling over levels—is damaging their developing brain. We simply have to make sure that the message is strongly getting to them and their parents. Most importantly, we have to make sure that we have the strategies in place to deliver a change in culture—as Senator Fielding has repeatedly said—in this country, particularly among underage drinkers.

There is a lot of work to do. We have started on the road to changing that culture. Please acknowledge the work that the government have done in a vacuum of activity over the last 10 years. We know that we have to keep working. It has to be a comprehensive approach. That is the language of Senator Siewert and it is the same language that our government are using.

I thank those from the public health advocacy groups who have made commentary on this and expressed their concern about what happened here in the Senate last night. I acknowledge Michael Moore from the Public Health Association, who is in the gallery. I thank you for the work that you have done to try and debunk the myths that have been perpetuated by those who sit on that side and the distillers. Your work is balanced, researched and accurate. Along with the work of many of your colleagues, it has been an important contribution to this debate.

Finally, I indicate to Senator Fielding that we cannot support your amendment. We need to have this measure as it is. It is the right thing to do for the country. It is the right thing to do for our children. It is the right thing to do to change the culture of binge drinking in this country.

Question negatived.