Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator Ludwig. Last month a paper was published in the medical journal the Lancet by Australia’s National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre which said that the federal government’s alcopops tax is not likely to cut binge drinking. The paper says that, under the tax:

… overall rates of usual or binge consumption in Australia are unlikely to substantially fall, because spirits hold a smaller market share than beer, and young people will more than likely switch their preference.

Isn’t the Rudd government just trying to divert attention from the alcohol toll by making Australia’s binge-drinking problem a tax problem?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Fielding for his question. In respect of ready-to-drink products, or alcopops, as people sometimes refer to them, unlike the Liberals, we actually do understand the importance of considering the evidence. The report released today—commissioned in 2006, I might add—provides economic analysis of interventions which would have an impact on the social costs of alcohol. The report that was released today stated:

The objective of the present study is not to recommend the adoption of a particular set of alcohol policies; it is to consider from an economic perspective a range of policies which have shown to be effective and to indicate, as far as the data allows, the economic benefits likely to flow from the implementation of these policies.

In this context, I am pleased that the report prepared by independent researchers strongly endorsed the government decision to close the tax loophole on ready-to-drink products, because studies have shown that young people are influenced by the price of alcohol and so increasing the tax rate on alcoholic drinks which are specifically targeted at the youth market—for example, alcopops—is likely to be effective.

According to a British Medical Association study in 2008, 45 per cent of all individuals who consumed alcohol frequently were not aware of the number of units of alcohol in their drinks. That was on page 16 of that report. That means that there would appear to be a strong justification for the April 2008 increase in the Australian tax on premixed drinks or alcopops by 70 per cent.

The report examines the effectiveness of a range of interventions on the cost of alcohol abuse. All of this analysis will feed into the work of the prevention task force led by Professor Rob Moodie, which is doing the important work of helping the government to develop a blueprint for tackling the harm caused by excessive consumption of alcohol as well as tobacco and obesity into the future. It is timely that Senator Fielding has asked this question because, in contrast, the Liberals do not believe the evidence and do not believe that alcopops are part of the problem. Way back on 13 May their then leader apparently did not believe the evidence. It would be interesting to know what their current leader believes. I suspect he would believe the same things.

The plain facts are these: according to industry figures sales of premixed drinks in bottle shops have dropped by seven million standard drinks a week, or 26.2 per cent, and total liquor sales have fallen by three million standard drinks a week since the excise was increased. I remind the Senate that the ATO clearance data—that is, the best available data—shows that there were 54 per cent fewer sales of RTDs in June, compared with April, and seven per cent more sales of full-strength spirits for an overall decrease of 23 per cent.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is clear that the measures are working as intended. Let us go back to why this measure was introduced. Binge drinking is a community-wide problem that demands a community-wide response. The Liberals opposite might be interested to hear about this. I hear them interjecting, but Senator Fielding has raised an important question and I think it is important to put the facts on the table. (Time expired)

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. An article in today’s Australian newspaper states that a report by Macquarie University Professor David Collins on the cost of tobacco, alcohol and illicit drug abuse to the Australian community was published yesterday by the federal health department. Professor Collins told the Australian that the alcopops tax would make consumers move straight to spirits, mixing drink themselves, but he said that Australia’s $15.3 billion alcohol toll could be cut in half if the government tried a range of interventions like tackling alcohol advertising. Family First has a plan for alcohol warning labels and a restriction on television advertising until nine o’clock. When will the Rudd government recognise that binge drinking is a cultural problem and work to change that culture using alcohol warning labels coordinated with a television based public health campaign and tougher restrictions on television advertising rather than just raking in tax dollars?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will try to address all of those points in the minute that I have available. The Rudd government does have a national binge drinking strategy. The $53.5 million national binge drinking strategy comprises three measures to address the problems of alcohol misuse amongst young Australians: community-level initiatives, an early intervention program and an advertising campaign targeted at young people. Under the community-level initiatives, $14.4 million has been allocated. In addition, looking at the ability to reach out into the community through early intervention programs, $19.1 million has been allocated to intervene earlier to assist young people. The research tells us that the earlier you can intervene and the earlier you can educate about the problems associated with binge drinking, the better for the community and the better for the people involved. Of course there is an advertising campaign as well— (Time expired)