Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I take issue with Senator Siewert. She says it might be like Groundhog Day next year; I think it already feels like Groundhog Day. The question is: who is Bill Murray, who is Andie MacDowell and, above all, who is Punxsutawney Phil, the groundhog? I share Senator Siewert’s concerns. Let us get a bit of perspective here. When the government announced this measure in April last year, it was all about tackling binge drinking—the social scourge that the government referred to. Something needed to be done about shifting the culture of binge drinking. This excise measure was a significant feature of that, and there was going to be a specific $53 million fund for tackling binge drinking over four years. The government’s revenue estimates back then were $3.1 billion, I believe. That has now been revised downwards to $1.6 billion. In that context, at that time, I said that $53 million did not seem enough to tackle this issue, that it was not enough to get to the tipping point of a change in attitudes in terms of the whole range of measures that needed to be undertaken to tackle this. That was my position.

As a result of quite intense negotiations with me and my colleague Senator Siewert, on behalf of the Australian Greens, an additional $50 million was agreed by the government to be spent on measures. Let us go to those measures. There was a $25 million fund to provide sponsorship to local community organisations, something that the Greens had been campaigning for long and hard, which would provide sporting and cultural clubs and activities with an alternative to other forms of sponsorship, namely alcohol sponsorship. There was $20 million for community initiatives in those local grassroots organisations to tackle binge drinking. We already saw some of those rolled out at the end of last year. Various groups—community groups, church groups—are involved in being part of that cultural shift, giving alternatives to young people or providing support to tackle the problem of binge drinking. We needed that extra money, I think, to get to that critical mass, to reach out in more places in the community. And then also there would be $5 million to enhance telephone counselling services and alcohol referrals with an expansion of existing social marketing campaigns.

Senator Siewert is right: it is not just about the money. There are other measures that the government agreed to—namely, that there would be prevetting of alcohol advertising for the first time and that we would see labelling for the first time. I acknowledge Senator Fielding in his campaigning on the whole issue of alcohol labelling as a measure that would provide additional information so that consumers could make an informed choice and so that those warnings would be apparent. Licensing laws were not part of the deal, but I think we need to talk about the role of the Commonwealth in putting pressure on the states, because I think the administration of licensing laws and the way they have been expanded with almost a laissez-faire attitude in a number of states has led to an increase in alcohol related harm, and I think the Commonwealth has a key role. But, in terms of what was agreed, I thought the $50 million and the additional spending of $50 million—the community initiatives, the alternatives to sponsorship from alcohol firms, $5 million for telephone counselling, the prevetting of alcohol ads and the labelling—were a pretty good raft of measures.

That legislation did not go through, but the intention of it was clear: the government acknowledged that you needed to do these things in order to make a difference, to get to that tipping point, to get to that shift, in tackling binge drinking. I acknowledge the opposition and Senator Cormann in their concerns about tackling binge drinking. The issue is: what is the best way of doing it? I would like to think that Senator Cormann and the coalition are at least sympathetic to these measures. I think he is nodding; I am not verballing Senator Cormann. These are incremental measures that would make a difference in tackling binge drinking.

We have a situation now—as Senator Siewert has quite rightly pointed out—where the government has collected almost $400 million, and we are seeking to validate that. I support the validation because the alternative would be to give the industry a slush fund of $400 million. It would give them an undeserved windfall. It would be the worst possible result. I cannot understand this. If the government two months ago on 17 March said that these additional measures were the right thing to do—and it will not cost anything to have prevetting and alcohol labelling—why have they now been forgotten? They have been put to one side. All the government is interested in is the revenue.

Fifteen months ago this government said this was a social scourge that needed to be tackled and that it needed the revenue to tackle these things. I would like to hear from the minister why the government are not prepared to make a commitment at least on a pro rata basis for that additional $50 million to be spent on those projects. To me that would be the right thing to do. It is about good faith, as Senator Siewert has said. The crossbenchers who negotiated with the government in support of the original bill did so in good faith. I do not think the government are showing that same level of good faith. The government are not willing to say, ‘That’s it; we won’t seek to collect this revenue anymore,’ so we will have the groundhog day scenario that Senator Siewert talked about. The government will reimpose this. The excise will continue to be collected and in 12 months time we will be back to square one—when almost $1 billion would have been collected. That to me is not equitable. That to me does not show the same level of good faith that the Greens and I showed to the government in negotiating this. I would like to hear from the government about those measures.

I have been supportive of what the minister has been trying to do, and I want to acknowledge the very constructive working relationship my office has with the minister’s office and the good working relationship I have with the minister. I appreciate the flow of information. But on this I believe the government could have, at the very least, done the right thing and agreed to these expenditures on a pro rata basis. Also, could the government clarify whether the prevetting of alcohol ads will continue and whether we will see labelling of alcoholic beverages? That is something that Senator Fielding has long campaigned for. Those are my questions. I support Senator Siewert in that this ought to go to the Committee of the Whole so that we can get some answers to these very fundamental questions. If there is not pro rata spending at the very least for these important projects—and the government acknowledged two months ago that these things ought to be done—then I do not think the government is showing the good faith that was shown by the Greens and me in negotiations with the government in March this year.