Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Conroy, the Minister representing the Treasurer. Can the minister confirm that the massive $3.1 billion tax hike from the sale of premixed drinks is built on a substantial increase in consumption of these drinks that exceeds the industry’s own growth projections for ready to drink sales even before the tax was applied?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government announced some weeks back that it would restore the excise on ready to drink alcoholic beverages to the spirits rate that previously existed. This reverses the previous government’s decision in 2000 to tax these drinks like full-strength beer rather than full-strength spirits. The evidence is crystal clear that excise is an effective measure in reducing alcohol consumption. International experience backs this up. The revenue raised through this measure will also assist in funding new prevention activities, which we really need if we are serious about better long-term health outcomes.

This is just one part of a national strategy to tackle the binge drinking epidemic among young Australians. This strategy also includes $14.4 million for community level initiatives to confront the culture of binge drinking, particularly in sporting organisations, and $20 million to fund advertising that confronts young people with the costs and consequences of binge drinking.

Additional excise revenue will be raised because those who drink alcopops will pay a higher level of excise per drink—70 per cent more. That is where the additional revenue comes from. The Treasury costings assume that consumption of alcopops will decrease relative to what it would be if not for this measure. This is a reduction of 42 million 375 ml bottles in 2008-09. That is, the measure is expected to reduce but not reverse the growth in RTD consumption. The inflationary impact is expected to be negligible.

We need to rein in binge drinking amongst young Australians. Those opposite may not take this seriously, but those on this side do. The evidence tells us that alcopops consumption is highly responsive to price, especially for younger people. That is why we were initially pleased to read that this effort would receive support from everyone in both chambers. On the day we announced this measure the Leader of the Opposition said:

The proposed increase in the excise on alcopops is something that will be supported by us ...

Now, just a few days later, the opposition leader has completely reversed his position. He is now describing this measure as ‘the outrageous half a billion dollar tax binge on ready-mixed drinks’. Dr Nelson, as the former president of the AMA, is now at odds with himself and the entire health community in denying this evidence. (Time expired)

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Senator Conroy still has not addressed the question of how the projections in the budget exceed even the industry’s projections in growth of RTDs prior to the tax being applied.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think if the senator had listened to the answer he would have heard that I absolutely addressed that issue. What the opposition, those on the other side, have to address is how one day they can be completely supportive of it but, a few days later, they are completely opposed to it. What sort of health policy are those opposite engaged in when one day, yes, the next day, no? How cheap and opportunistic!

Binge drinking is a serious issue in the community. The government are taking it seriously, and that is why we have introduced this measure. Those opposite are standing there completely humiliated by the actions of their own leader—a flip, a flop; we have seen it before. It is not the first time in the last 24 hours and it will not be the last as those opposite are struggling to find relevance. (Time expired)