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

I thank those who have contributed to the debate. Like Senator Xenophon, I do not know if it is a good thing or a bad thing that Senator Fielding is not here, but I do hope he takes the opportunity to listen to this contribution in which I will try to talk through the issues that he has raised.

Various senators have talked about the progress that we have made over the last 12 months in terms of changing the culture around binge drinking. We talked yesterday about the extra $50 million that will go on top of the $53.5 million committed last year, the $872 million in a broad preventative health strategy and the commitment from this government—the huge shift in government thinking that has occurred with the change of government—to curbing the inappropriate use of alcohol. What might happen today is that that culture shift that Senator Fielding so desperately wants, I think it is fair to say, will be severely undermined. The gains that we have made around alcohol advertising and alcohol labelling that the crossbench senators have negotiated will be undermined. The $50 million extra in services—through the community-level initiatives, through increased social marketing and advertising and through the telephone hotline—that everyone agrees is an improvement and a way forward will be undermined. I think that the cultural shift that Senator Fielding is so concerned about will, if he does not support this legislation, be undermined.

Senator Fielding appealed to me to listen to my conscience. I appeal to him for the same reason. If this legislation is not supported, we will revert to the days when alcopops were cheap, and alcopops designed for and marketed particularly to young people and under-age people will be back. The level of alcohol abuse happening in young children will be back to the levels that it was. I do not think this is what Senator Fielding wants but, unless he supports this legislation, that is what he will get. And, I am sorry, but the advances that we have made on the requests that Senator Fielding has legitimately put on the table are significant.

Changing the sport and alcohol relationship is not something you can do with one decision. It is a longstanding relationship that, as Senator Bob Brown has said, will take time to change. There is a reliance—something that Senator Fielding clearly finds abhorrent, and others do as well—of sports on sponsorship by alcohol companies. Senator Fielding thinks that should change and change now. I say to him that, practically, that will take a long time to turn around. That is not to say that there is no desire for something to happen in the future, but Senator Fielding’s demands of government are impossible to deliver. One might wonder why he would ask for something that I think he knows, in his heart of hearts, is impossible.

Senator Fielding talked about leadership needing to be applied. From day one, this tax has been called a controversial tax. I heard it again on the radio this morning: ‘the controversial alcopops tax’. If that is not showing leadership, Senator Fielding, then I am not sure what is. We have had leadership from the top on the question of inappropriate use of alcohol, and I really think that Senator Fielding’s dismissal of this practical measure that is changing the way that our young people will drink is dismissive of the comprehensive approach that our government has had. It is simplistic to say, ‘If you don’t change the relationship between sport and sponsorship by alcohol companies, then you won’t get anything.’

Senator Fielding showed a misunderstanding, I think, of the differences between public health treatment and the changes to the way we deal with alcohol and tobacco. Senator Fielding does not understand—and I think Senator Siewert said it perfectly before—that, when it comes to tobacco, there is one answer: don’t do it. When it comes to alcohol, the answer is different: do it carefully.

Senator Fielding asked why we did not tax one brand of tobacco at a different level from another, as we are doing with the alcopops tax. It is because they are all equally as bad. We increased the tax on all of them progressively over time because no tobacco is acceptable. That is the difference between tobacco and alcohol. As Professor Tanya Chikritzhs said to the Senate inquiry last week as to why you treat alcoholic products differently:

… not all beverages are equal in the amount of harm that they are likely to be associated with.

So when you have a product that is designed and marketed to a group of very vulnerable people—that is, young children—we have to treat it differently. Since 2000, there has been a 254 per cent growth in the alcopops market. Alcopops are designed to be marketed to our young children and it is appropriate that we treat them in a different way.

I am disappointed that Senator Fielding did not understand the differences and made a flippant remark about why we did not tax one brand differently from another. Senator Fielding talked about the $15.3 billion impact of alcohol on our society. He talked about the one in five road deaths attributed to alcohol. He talked about the 40 per cent of police work related to alcohol. I say to Senator Fielding that, if this legislation is not passed, it will be back to those ‘good old days’. That is what we will get. To describe the way negotiations have occurred over the last few days as ‘throwing a lifeline’ I think misrepresents the good faith bargaining, the honest and open way we have tried to negotiate with Senator Fielding in the knowledge that he has a desire to achieve a change in the culture in inappropriate use of alcohol.

But let us leave it to the public health experts. One after another they have been in the media in the last 24 hours urging all of us—not just those on the crossbenches but those who sit in the large block opposite—to follow our consciences and do the right thing for our kids. One after another they have been urging us to vote for the health of our children. In fact, one public health expert said that not supporting this legislation is like flushing the vaccine down the toilet. We have an opportunity to do something, to vaccinate the nation to assist us on the way. It is not a silver bullet but it is something that will assist. One public health expert said, ‘Not voting for this is flushing it down the toilet.’ I am very disappointed. We have come a long way in the last 15 months. If this legislation is not carried, it will put us back.

Question put:

That the committee does not press its requests for amendments not made by the House of Representatives.