Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the opposition, I indicate that we will not support any moves to report progress. We think it is time that the government got on with it. It has now been nearly a year that the government has collected revenue without the support of the parliament. The government left it until the last minute before introducing this legislation. We thought perhaps it was because the government was intent on proving its case that this measure works from a public health point of view. Perhaps, just perhaps, the government wants to spend the 11 months proving its case that a 70 per cent increase in tax on a comparatively lower alcohol content product will help reduce risky levels of alcohol consumption and alcohol abuse related harm.

We already knew that they had not put any performance measures in place. We knew that there were no public health targets. We knew that this was just a tax grab, but after the event, given that the Minister for Health and Ageing had been out there claiming that this was aimed at reducing binge drinking and addressing alcohol abuse related harm, perhaps somebody out there in a department or in a university or a health lobby group was going to do some academic work, some proper research and some proper surveying to prove the case that this measure has actually helped reduce risky levels of drinking and binge drinking. But when we asked the government to provide us with any information they had, any evidence at all that this measure had reduced risky levels of consumption, this is the answer I got from Treasury as a result of an order of the Senate passed on 4 February: ‘Since the 2007 National Drug Strategy Household Survey’—which was before this measure came into effect—‘the Australian government has not collected any additional national consumption data on the reduction of risky or high-risk and/or at-risk behaviour since the introduction of the RTD excise increase in April 2008.’

The government has not collected any additional national consumption data on the reduction of risky, high-risk and/or at risk behaviour. Senator McLucas is in this chamber and she keeps saying, ‘Sales have gone down.’ Well, they will go up next year, and do not take my word for it—that is a Treasury assumption. Sales will go up the year after that and the year after that. Do not take my word for it—that is a Treasury assumption. Unless you are telling us in this chamber here today that that assumption is wrong, that your revenue estimate is wrong and that your revenue is going to collapse further, your government expects sales of alcopops to go up next year, the year after and the year after that.

That in itself is not a bad thing. I do not subscribe to the theory that Senator McLucas is putting forward that growth is necessarily a bad thing. Growth is only a bad thing if it is growth in consumption by the wrong people. If it is growth in consumption by problem drinkers, if it is growth in consumption by underage drinkers, then it is a very bad thing. But growth in consumption by responsible drinkers in a responsible fashion is not in itself a bad thing. The problem we have with this debate is that the government keeps running this line that increased sales equals increased consumption equals increased harm. This is the argument that the government is running: a reduction in sales proves that there is a reduction in consumption, which proves that there is a reduction in binge drinking and a reduction in alcohol abuse related harm. That is not true, because you have not been able to provide any data, any evidence, as to who is drinking less.

I see you shake your head, Senator McLucas. You point me to the government’s evidence of who is drinking less as a result of the drop in sales of RTDs. There is no evidence, and not even your own senators on the Standing Committee on Community Affairs were prepared to say that there was. If you can point me to some evidence, please table it here today. During two days of the community affairs inquiry no-one was able to provide any evidence that demonstrated that the reduced sales of alcohol were to binge drinkers or to people drinking at problem levels and that that had resulted in a reduction in alcohol abuse related harm.

This debate has gone on for long enough. This debate has been going for nearly the last 12 months. We have had two Senate inquiries. We have had estimates hearing after estimates hearing. The government knows very well what everybody’s criticisms are of this legislation. Whether those criticisms are from the opposition or the crossbenches, the government is very well aware of the criticisms of this legislation, one of which is that it does not address the actual problem of binge drinking that the government has identified. The government should have done its homework earlier. It is time that this matter was brought to a vote in the chamber. It is time that the chamber was given the opportunity to express its view, and then the government can go back to the drawing board and see whether it can do better next time.