Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

It appears that Senator Fielding has decided that gaining two of his three wishes is not enough. We have to remember that last year he supported this legislation. Now, having not got everything he has asked for, he is going to vote it down, with the opposition being his co-negators of the legislation. Senator Fielding is the boy on the burning deck saying, ‘I’m going to throw you a lifeline,’ having set the ship aflame. You cannot see anything here other than this lifeline from Senator Fielding scuttling everybody’s hopes and aspirations while he wants to say, ‘But I offered you a lifeline at the end.’

Senator Fielding is scuttling legislation which has huge advantages for the Australian people, and he will be judged for it. But the problem is: does he have the shoulders to bear the responsibility for what is really happening here today? The senator wanted an end to the self-regulation of alcohol advertising and the government has moved on that. He wanted warning labels on alcohol containers and the government has moved on that. He wants restrictions on the so-called loophole which allows the advertising of alcohol with sporting events on television. The government has not moved on that. Senator Fielding has made that a make or break matter, and break is the decision.

I happen to agree that it would be a good thing. It is Greens policy that that nexus should be broken. But here is where wisdom and sensibility, instead of silliness, in politics come into play. What we will get with the passage of the legislation and the attendant agreements made with the government is an end to damaging alcohol advertising without warnings. There will be warnings on alcohol advertising and on labels. Senator Fielding is throwing that out. There will be a $50 million plan—and Senator Siewert has spoken about this at length—which includes a hotline for people who are having trouble with alcohol. It will start to replace alcohol advertising for sporting groups. They will be given a choice because there will be public funding available. It also includes other measures which are going to help people who have trouble with alcohol. That is a big breakthrough indeed.

There will be an end to the self-regulation of advertising by alcohol producers because there will now be government representation involved—and that means people who have health in mind instead of just selling alcohol—in the regulation of advertisements to do with alcohol. And of course there is the tax itself, which we know from the real statistics has reduced the amount of alcohol being consumed. The flow-on to that is that it has curbed—not sufficiently—binge drinking. That is logical, because if you raise the price of a good then the good will sell less.

I, like everybody else, appeal to Senator Fielding to reconsider the situation here. It is not just saying, ‘I won’t let the legislation through.’ It is dumping a series of real measures, probably unprecedented in the life of this parliament, to curb the problem of drinking. It is a multibillion dollar problem, as well as a lifestyle problem and a problem that damages families. What Senator Fielding is saying is: ‘I won’t go along with this package to help protect families who are being damaged by alcohol abuse in this country. I would rather, to make a political point, dump that multimillion dollar regulatory package, which includes warning signs on advertising, that has been negotiated through the work of a lot of senators in this place.’ That is his right and privilege, but I say it is the wrong thing to do. It is not a sensible, considered, mature and responsible outcome. So be it.

I might say to the government that I would have yielded more on this but we recognise the dynamics of politics. I could have attached to this piece of legislation some very, very big asks and made it impossible for the government to negotiate with the Greens. Senator Siewert, who was doing our negotiation, did not do that, but she got major advances. Senator Xenophon has done the same. But with Senator Fielding the attitude now is: ‘Give me what I want or no deal and I’ll dump all the gains made by the other senators which are going to help really tackle the problem of alcohol abuse in this nation of ours.’ That is what people want us to be doing. I can say that fair-minded Australians out there are going to look at this because it is not a net sum game. They are going to look at the losses incurred here today because of the opposition and its intransigence and because of Senator Fielding, if he does not change his mind on this.

It is not just poor politics. This is a terrible, improperly thought out and irresponsible outcome for the Australian people in the circumstances. That is where it stops: is this responsible or is it not? No, losing the gains that have been made here would not be a responsible move. I appeal to the opposition to think about that again. The opposition has tried very hard to say that the government should not be imposing this tax. But we have all worked very hard and the government has given ground on this. Minister Roxon has given ground on this. We have here in our hands a reasonable outcome and a commitment to tackle the problem of alcohol and, in particular, alcohol advertising in the future. This is not the end of it. We should be voting for it.