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

The Greens agree with the government: this is very important legislation. One of the reasons why this legislation has been going backwards and forwards is that the Senate wanted to be satisfied that we did have a comprehensive approach to tackling binge drinking and alcohol related harm. Another reason it has been going backwards and forwards is that some members of the Senate have been unwilling to look at the evidence that is available. I agree that the evidence is not complete. One of the reasons for that is that we have not got the data available, because we have a very poor data collection process. Due to the current way of reporting binge drinking and alcohol related harm, particularly through our emergency departments in hospitals, it is not possible to get the data to use to effectively measure any alcohol related harm. To get technical, the codes they list admissions with do not properly reflect whether an accident involves alcohol. As was explained to the Senate inquiry just last week, if someone comes in with a broken arm, their injury gets listed as a broken arm; it does not get listed whether that broken arm is alcohol related.

The evidence that the industry tried to put forward that this measure has had no measurable effect on alcohol related harm in terms of admissions to emergency departments was a misuse of the Access Economics report. That report said that you could not use the data to draw conclusions. The industry used that report to say: ‘There has been no impact on the number of admissions related to alcohol. Therefore, this measure isn’t working.’ However, there was plenty of evidence brought to the committee that showed that sales of RTDs had gone down. I understand that the coalition do not dispute that. What they say is that there has been an increase in substitution. The Greens’ concern has always been that, while we accept the argument that price plays a role, substitution would occur at a much greater rate—in fact, unless we had the complementary measures in place, substitution would take over and make up for the reduction in sales of RTDs.

That is why we were so clear about needing to make sure that we address the other elements of a strategy that all the health experts say that we need to deal with alcohol related harm. And that is why we are so strong on the issue of advertising. I have made no secret and nobody in the Greens has made a secret of the fact that our policy says that we should be banning alcohol advertising. That has been in our policy for a significant period of time, but we also believe that we need to take a long-term view of how we deal with it, as we did with tobacco. However, we believe that we should learn from what happened with tobacco and be quicker about this, because it took a long time to get the tobacco issue on the agenda. So we are saying: ‘Yes, we realise that it’s difficult to bring it in overnight. We need a strategy, and the strategy should be a carefully timed, well thought out approach.’

The Greens believe, based on the evidence that we have been presented with, that there has been a reduction in alcohol consumption through this measure. We listened closely to the brewers who presented evidence to the committee inquiry. They challenged the evidence of the distillers and said that, in fact, it would be heroic to draw conclusions from the evidence that the distillers presented that there had been a statistically significant increase in the sales of beer during this period. The distillers were trying to claim that there has been substitution of RTDs with beer. The brewers challenged that. So did the wine makers. They also challenged the claims that there had been a significant increase in wine sales as a substitute for RTDs.

The other point that was made, and the evidence shows this, is that there has been an increase in the sales of straight spirits. Unfortunately, it is very hard to tell whether this tax is increasing the sales of straight spirits, as I highlighted both during the inquiry and in the second reading debate. Senator McLucas referred to this issue in her comments earlier. The industry has been funding a strong campaign undermining this measure—I will reiterate the fact that they refused to say in committee how much they had spent undermining this particular measure; you would have to take it that they have spent a very significant amount of money—as well as spending a lot of money promoting straight spirits and promoting beating the alcopops meanies by promoting cheap sales of straight spirits and throwing in bottles of soft drink to enable the mixing of those drinks.

That is very irresponsible. Here they are claiming that they are taking a responsible approach to the sale of alcohol, yet they are the ones who have been actively undermining this initiative that is designed to address people’s health and abuse of alcohol. Here they are promoting substitutions and encouraging people to buy two bottles of alcohol plus a bottle of mixer. So it is not fair at all for the industry to claim that this has been unsuccessful or that there has been substitution. It would have been nice to see this work without the industry trying to undermine the initiative, but, even with their very, very strong and focused campaign, we have still seen a reduction in the sales of RTDs.

The Greens have also been at pains to point out that we do accept price as a mechanism but we need to ensure that the other measures that we have articulated are also put in place, particularly breaking this link between sport sponsorship and alcohol sales. Research is increasingly showing the link between increased drinking by young people as a result of sponsorship and alcohol branded merchandise. The latest research in America, where they studied 6,000 young people, clearly showed that link and other research has too.

We believe that this measure is having an impact. We have said to government: ‘Show us the colour of your money. Show us how you’re investing this money in addressing the issue that you say this is about.’ It is about tackling binge drinking and reducing alcohol related harm. We wanted to see the other measures because we needed to be assured that they were taking this seriously, that this was not just about revenue raising but also about delivering outcomes for alcohol abuse. We have had a lot of contact with the health community—health professionals and public health advocates—and they have supported this measure, but they have also supported calls from the community, from the Greens and from many others saying we need a comprehensive approach. We believe their evidence to the committee—that price is a very important mechanism, a tool to use to address alcohol abuse—and we also believe their calls, backed up by evidence, that it needs to be part of a comprehensive approach.

They are the experts; they have experience in dealing with alcohol abuse. But also, importantly, they have strong involvement and experience in working with phasing out tobacco and dealing with smoking. They are taking the experience gained in that area and translating it into experience with alcohol. And there is evidence there. Tobacco and alcohol are slightly different, we acknowledge that, in that no smoking is good for you. None of us are saying that no alcohol is good for you—although I note the guidelines released last week by the NHMRC, which has reduced the number of drinks recommended for safe drinking. However, they are not saying no alcohol is good for you. In fact, many people would argue the reverse, in moderation. But the point is that there are many lessons to be learned from how we dealt with tobacco and, quite frankly, it is going to be a tragedy if we have to spend a number of years similar to the number that the health activists spent in getting people to pay attention and address issues about smoking. It will be a tragedy if we have to spend the same amount of time doing that with alcohol and getting widespread acknowledgement of the fact that we need to tackle alcohol and, in particular, measures besides price.

Advertising is one of these measures and sponsorship is another, which is why we are so pleased that the government has agreed to a sponsorship fund to enable community organisations and sporting groups to apply for substitute funding to replace alcohol funding and sponsorship of sporting activities. We believe this is the first time that we have seen an acknowledgement that there is a link there. We think that is particularly important. We will be strongly encouraging sporting organisations and community groups to apply for funding so that they can break that link with alcohol advertising.

I have had contact from a number of organisations saying that they would appreciate such an opportunity because, in fact, they do not want to take funding from big alcohol companies or from taverns and pubs whereby they have to use logos and advertise the particular sponsorship. They do not believe it is appropriate that bodies that are about sport and about trying to promote health, activities and exercise among our young people should then water down the message by taking money from alcohol companies, taverns and pubs. Not only does it undermine that message but it has a direct impact in encouraging young people to take up drinking.

We strongly encourage support for this measure now that the government has agreed to the additional measures that are addressing sports sponsorship and the fund and now that the government has agreed to establishing a hotline. All this is, in fact, building on measures that they have already had in place, but this will enable better coordination and more easily accessible help and advice. The funding for the community initiatives is a very significant step forward. The extension of funding for social marketing is a very important step forward. Again, it is about a comprehensive approach. What all of the health experts talk about shows that properly targeted social marketing campaigns are particularly important. They have to be properly marketed and properly targeted and done carefully, but they play a very important role. On top of that the government has also agreed to mandated warnings on all advertising, which is another very significant step forward.

We think the initiatives around phasing out self-regulation of advertising by the industry is another particularly important step, because the evidence that we have seen, presented to the three community affairs committee inquiries that we have now had in the last 12 months, has indicated that there are problems. Certainly I have been very alarmed by evidence presented to the committee around the industry’s self-regulation. They claim it is very effective. But if you look at the ads that the self-regulation body has allowed through, you would be very concerned. They have allowed through ads that I think break the guidelines. Not only has that occurred but, in fact, where ads—the few of them—have been rejected they have mysteriously ended up on the internet, advertising alcohol on the internet. That is why we are also supportive of the fact that the government is changing the approach to self-regulation and also extending the purview into new media, which we think is particularly important because obviously the internet carries a lot of advertising and is a particularly accessible forum and medium for young people. So we are pleased that we are seeing those sorts of steps being taken by the government. (Time expired)