Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The committee is considering the Customs Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009 and a related bill. The question is that the bills be agreed to, subject to requests.

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

Before I move on to the requests by Family First on sheet 5755, senators will recall that last night a request was made to ensure that the money collected through the alcopops tax over the last year is legally able to stay with the government and not go back to the industry. Family First had a position, which was the same position as making sure that the money received for the full year for which it was collected does not go back to the industry, plus an additional six months, as a sunset clause. I would like to test that position in the chamber this afternoon and extend it by moving amendment (1) on sheet 5755, which says that schedule 1A apply for six months after the act receives royal assent. That basically means that the government can legally keep the money from the alcopops tax not just for the last 12 months but also for the next six months. Given that last night the Senate agreed to allow the government to keep the money collected over the last year, I am still honouring my view that I think it should go for another six months to give the government even more time to put in place real measures. I am just testing the will of the chamber here by moving this first request. If this motion fails, there is no use in my moving the rest of the requests for amendments by Family First. I move amendment (1) on sheet 5755 in relation to the Customs Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009:

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:

(1)    Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 2), insert:

Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

These amendments are framed as requests because they are to a bill which imposes taxation within the meaning of section 53 of the Constitution. The Senate may not amend a bill imposing taxation

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

As this is a bill imposing taxation within the meaning of section 53 of the Constitution, any Senate amendment to the bill must be moved as a request. This is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition understand very much where Senator Fielding is coming from because he has identified the same flaws in the government’s legislation that we have identified. We will not be able to support Senator Fielding’s amendment because it goes beyond what the Senate agreed to only last night. In fact, last night the Senate agreed to a request for an amendment that will put in place a sunset clause. We moved to validate the revenue collected by the government as a result of the increased tax on RTDs since 27 April last year until royal assent is given for this bill. Senator Fielding, on behalf of Family First, is proposing to add a further six months to that, but the coalition is very satisfied with the decision made by the Senate last night. Moving forward, the requests for amendments that were passed by the Senate last night will reduce the level of taxation on RTDs that have below 10 per cent alcohol content back to where they would have been if the government had not implemented its 70 per cent tax hike last year.

The reason we are here having this argument is that the government tried to sell a tax grab as a health measure. It was a sham from the start. The reality is that the government wanted to raise $3.1 billion in cash to keep the pretence going that it was able to keep a surplus. Those were the days of the Prime Minister trying to sell himself as a fiscal and economic conservative, so the government looked around for some easy targets. ‘What is the best possible spin? Let’s tell everyone that this is really about fixing binge drinking. Let’s just try and pretend that we are trying to fix a serious problem when really what we are trying to do is raise some more cash.’

The best guide to what a government truly want to do rather than what they are saying they want to do is in the budget papers. If you want to find out what the government are actually trying to achieve with this bill, have a look at the budget papers. There is no public health target attached to this measure in the budget papers. There are no public health outcome performance measures. During the Senate inquiry, I asked questions of the general manager from the Department of the Treasury about whether the Treasury, the Department of Health and Ageing or anybody in government had put in place any performance measures that would help us to assess whether the measure had been effective in reducing binge drinking, in addressing at-risk levels of alcohol consumption or indeed in reducing alcohol abuse related harm in the community. The answer was no.

There is only one target in the budget papers, and that is a fiscal target. There is a target to raise $3.1 billion in new revenue. There is no public health policy target, just a fiscal target. When the government fail to meet that target, guess what happens? The government say: ‘Isn’t it great? We failed to meet our fiscal target. Isn’t it a great success?’ We turn around and we hear the government say: ‘This proves that the measure is working. This is what we wanted all along. We didn’t want to raise $3.1 billion.’ As if! This has been an absolute sham.

Believe it or not, the government actually came along and tried to tell us that the failure to meet their targets in the budget papers was exhibit A. That was their ‘evidence’ that their measure was working and that they were able to achieve an objective—one that was not written up anywhere in the budget papers—by failing to meet the targets that were there. They said, ‘In the budget papers we say we want to raise $3.1 billion—nothing else. The fact that we have not got there proves that that we are achieving our real objective.’ Senator Fielding is quite right: the government are not serious about addressing the binge-drinking problem. This measure does not demonstrate seriousness about addressing the binge-drinking problem. All this measure does is demonstrate a government that is intent on and serious about raising additional revenue.

After this had subsided and people were not really buying the argument anymore that the government’s failing, by $1.5 billion, to reach the $3.1 billion revenue target was evidence that the government’s measure was working, what was the next piece of evidence? It was exhibit B: sales of RTDs have gone down, so binge drinking must be being addressed effectively. The argument goes like this: that sales are down means consumption is down, which means binge drinking is down. But there is no evidence to make the link between sales down, consumption down and binge drinking down. If you say sales down equals consumption down equals binge drinking down, does that mean, if sales go up and consumption goes up, that binge drinking goes up, because that is exactly what the government are expecting to happen? If you look at the fine print in the MYEFO 2008-09, you will see that as of 1 July 2009 the government expect sales of RTDs to go up by 7.8 per cent every year from here on in—so sales up equals consumption up equals binge drinking up in the government’s logic. This just shows that tax measures, in the absence of a comprehensive strategy and in the absence of a strategic approach to the serious issue of alcohol abuse, are just not a serious way of going about this and the government have been found out.

Let us be very clear about this: from the outset this was a tax measure which the government, for political reasons, sought to dress up as a health measure. They have not been able to present one piece of evidence that it is an effective tax measure to address a health problem. Not even the Labor senators on the committee were prepared to sign up to the proposition that this measure had achieved a reduction in binge drinking or had achieved reduced alcohol consumption or reduced alcohol abuse related harm in the community. Not even the government’s own senators were prepared to sign up to that proposition, yet the minister and her propaganda machine keep saying, with a straight face, ‘We have the evidence. The evidence is there. This measure is working.’ Well, this measure is not working and this is not the way to go about it.

In closing, I refer to Senator Fielding’s amendment. We understand where he is coming from. We understand that he shares the coalition’s view that this is not an effective way of addressing the binge-drinking problem across Australia. We understand that he would like to see the measure in place for another six months. But the coalition are very happy with the decision that was made by the Senate last night to establish, in effect, a sunset clause at the time of royal assent and to reduce the applicable tax back down to the level it would have been at if the government had not implemented their 70 per cent tax hike in the first place.

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

I indicate on behalf of the government that we will not be supporting Senator Fielding’s amendment—and I do not think that you would be surprised by that, Senator Fielding. It is the view of the government that this measure is reducing the drinking of alcopops. According to Professor Tanya Chikritzhs, it is therefore good common sense that it is having an impact on the inappropriate use of alcohol particularly by young people—and our concern here is its use particularly by those who are under age.

I have been concerned about some of the messages that have come out of this chamber in the last 24 hours. I have been told repeatedly by public health sector leaders that the experience of the past 12 months is that finally in this country there has been a focus on the drug which is causing the second-most serious impact on the health and social fabric of our community. So alcohol is finally being talked about. Many of the public health officials have complimented our Prime Minister on, for the first time in a very long time by a leader, having the leadership and the courage to talk about the impact of alcohol broadly and also, most particularly, on our young people.

Many people in this chamber have talked about their observation of increased abuse of alcohol by very young people and teenagers. This measure is part of our comprehensive approach to having, as Senator Fielding has requested, a change in culture in our society. Senator Siewert has repeatedly talked about the need for a comprehensive approach. I put to Senator Siewert, to Senator Fielding and, more importantly, to those who sit on that side that this government has a comprehensive approach to dealing with the inappropriate use of alcohol and this tax measure is but one element of it. Early in the time of the Rudd Labor government, we established the National Preventative Health Taskforce. One of the issues that it was asked to deal with was the use of alcohol that was detrimental to our society. That was the first plank. We have also allocated, as of last year—and I acknowledge that Senator Xenophon has said it is not enough—$53.5 million to a range of measures under the National Binge Drinking Strategy. That cannot be sneezed at. It is a good piece of work that, along with the other measures, will change the culture around the inappropriate use of alcohol.

We have heard in this chamber of the number of people who are appalled at the culture of young people who say they drink to get drunk. We have to turn that around. That is why the focus of the Binge Drinking Strategy is at a personal level, through early interventions; at a community level, through the community level initiatives and the Good Sports program; and at a national level, where the Prime Minister said we needed to make people aware of what was happening out there on the street at 2.30 in the morning—at a time when many of us who sit in this chamber are not out there. I found those ads very confronting, because I am not on the street at 2.30 in the morning and I do not see it. The message that I heard out of that process was focus group responses from young people who said, ‘Where is the hidden camera?’ They know that that is what it is like out there. We have got to turn that around. So we have the Preventative Health Taskforce and we have the work we are doing through the National Binge Drinking Strategy.

Last week Minister Roxon announced $872 million for a comprehensive range of measures—not only in alcohol, but these things are so intertwined that you cannot separate them. That work is in progress, and $872 million cannot be sneezed at. I think the commitment of this government to tackling that fundamental problem—changing the culture around alcohol, particularly amongst young people—is something that we need to mark. It is not an insignificant commitment. We will receive the report of the Preventative Health Taskforce in June of this year.

The cross-party senators are saying we need to do more. We know we have got to do more, but it needs to happen in an organised and planned way. There have been negotiations and discussions with the crossbench senators, because the Liberal and National parties will not acknowledge that we need to do something about binge drinking in this country.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But not the wrong thing

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

We need to do the right thing, and when you know that the intake of alcopops by young people has in fact reduced, you have got to acknowledge we are doing something.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann interjecting—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann!

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cormann interjecting—

The Temporary Chairman:

Senator Cormann, cease interjecting, please!

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

The opposition talk about evidence, but the selective quoting of evidence that I heard during speeches in the second reading debate last night was appalling. Let us be honest and frank with our community. We know that there is one sector of the alcohol industry that is suffering—the distillers. They have spent a lot of time, money that we will never find out about, Senator Siewert, and energy working very hard against this measure. Why? Because it is working. Because alcopop sales have gone down by more than 35 per cent—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This year.

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

Alcopop sales have gone down 35 per cent.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This year.

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

There has been an increase in straight spirits—oft quoted by those on the other side, of 17 per cent. But the most important fact about distilled spirits sales that so many of the people on that side refuse to include in their commentary is that the overall consumption of spirits has fallen.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about next year and the year after?

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Chair, I cannot hear!

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

Senator Cormann interjects repeatedly, ‘Will it go up next year?’ I will tell you what: if this does not get passed it will go up a long way, and if this does not get passed the number of people who will be drinking these spirits will increase again, those people under the age of 18—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you have evidence on that?

The Temporary Chairman:

Order! Senator Cormann, please! You have had your opportunity to contribute to the debate.

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

There has been a calculated misuse of statistics in this argument, particularly from those who sit on the other side. It is time for a little bit of honesty with the Australian community about what is happening out there on the streets. I also think that the effort that has occurred in the last 15 months around the question of alcohol by our government has been overlooked. We are committed to working hard with communities and with individuals to ensure that we change the culture around alcohol use in this country. We have to do it for the health of our children. We have to do it to ensure that the finances of police departments are not continually whittled away by their running around cleaning up our streets, pulling children out of brawls and pulling injured children out of cars as a result of the abuse of alcohol.

We know we have to do something, and part of that measure is to address the tax loophole that was intentionally created by the Liberal Party in 2000. That loophole was intentionally created. It will be interesting some 10, 20 or 30 years down the track when the history of alcohol in this country is actually written if we can peel back how that occurred, because we certainly know that very early in the 2000s warning bells were being rung. The Australian Divisions of General Practice in, I think, around 2002 wrote an article in their journal about the concerns with the increase in growth in alcopops.

Those from the other side and the distilled spirits industry say that it is not only young people who drink alcopops. I can tell you where the growth in the market has been: it has been in the white spirit, pretty coloured alcopops designed particularly for young girls. Why are they so sweet? They are sweet for a good reason. They are sweet so that a child who is used to drinking orange soft drink can then move on to orange and white spirit and she probably will not really know the difference. These products are designed to move girls particularly, but also others, straight from soft drinks into alcohol. It is despicable, but that is what we are dealing with and that is what we have to turn around.

We heard many people on the other side during the second reading debate talking about how they were parents too, and they were worried. I am a parent and I am worried. All parents of teenagers allow their 16- or 17-year-old a certain amount of pocket money, and that is it. If they have to pay for transport and buy their lunch at school, there might be a bit left over. Unfortunately, irrespective of the best parenting in the world, some of that money may be used for inappropriate purchases of alcohol. They might have $6 left over. If a teenager is going to the bottle shop or getting someone older than them to go the bottle shop, that is all they can buy. Price is the strongest lever we can pull on underage drinking.

We know—we are sure—that drinking is having an impact, particularly on those young brains. We had the National Health and Medical Research Council come out last week and tell us with no equivocation that drinking alcohol under the age of 18 will affect the growing development of the brain. There is some evidence that says that drinking alcohol under the age of 25 can have a detrimental effect on the brain. We need to be telling our children that no alcohol is the way to go. This is not an appropriate thing for kids to drink. The old adage about letting your child have a little wine with you over dinner to teach them how to drink has been debunked. They should have no alcohol.

We know from the statistics that one in 10 12- to 17-year-olds are drinking at dangerous and risky levels—binge drinking—once a week. These are 12- to 17-year-olds. Any kid under the age of 18 drinking to binge drinking levels—to falling over levels—is damaging their developing brain. We simply have to make sure that the message is strongly getting to them and their parents. Most importantly, we have to make sure that we have the strategies in place to deliver a change in culture—as Senator Fielding has repeatedly said—in this country, particularly among underage drinkers.

There is a lot of work to do. We have started on the road to changing that culture. Please acknowledge the work that the government have done in a vacuum of activity over the last 10 years. We know that we have to keep working. It has to be a comprehensive approach. That is the language of Senator Siewert and it is the same language that our government are using.

I thank those from the public health advocacy groups who have made commentary on this and expressed their concern about what happened here in the Senate last night. I acknowledge Michael Moore from the Public Health Association, who is in the gallery. I thank you for the work that you have done to try and debunk the myths that have been perpetuated by those who sit on that side and the distillers. Your work is balanced, researched and accurate. Along with the work of many of your colleagues, it has been an important contribution to this debate.

Finally, I indicate to Senator Fielding that we cannot support your amendment. We need to have this measure as it is. It is the right thing to do for the country. It is the right thing to do for our children. It is the right thing to do to change the culture of binge drinking in this country.

Question negatived.

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

I should inform the Senate that the Greens are talking with the government about a resolution of the disagreements that we have had over this legislation, the $1.6 billion over four years that the tax measure raises and the expenditure of some of that, through hypothecation, on the problem of alcohol abuse. That process is not yet concluded, but we are hopefully moving towards an agreement on our part. I cannot speak for the other senators. But I should inform the committee that we are moving in that direction.

It would be good if we could clarify that progress before the committee reports back to the full Senate. In the absence of the negotiators, who are working on that at the moment, I would like to point to some of the matters that are currently being negotiated with the government. Yesterday, we spoke about the need for alcohol advertising and alcohol containers to have warning signs on them. Senator Fielding has been talking to the government, as have we, on both those matters. The government is moving on both those matters.

It is important that advertising—especially that aimed at young folk—has warning signs on it so that people are able to recognise from the outset that drinking alcohol is not a carefree matter, that there are penalties if it is abused and that it needs to be done in a reasoned and sensible way where those who partake in it are aware of the health risks. This is especially so for young people. We have heard in this debate that at the worst end of that is destruction of one’s mental and physical health and a tendency to move to crime. There is also an increase in road accidents and the death toll from them. And there is a massive economic penalty on society.

We have also been calling for the government to consider the matter of a so-called hotline. These days that is much more than a telephone number but it allows people who are in trouble and recognise they are in trouble to very effectively and easily reach out and get help. The more motivated they are, the more likely they are to get help, to respond to that help and to get themselves out of a round of alcohol abuse. That is what binge drinking, for example, is about, but alcoholism is much more than binge drinking. A hotline seems to be a sensible direction to be going in and one that the Greens are keen on, but it does have costs attached to it.

Senator Siewert has been putting strongly to the government—and I think my fellow crossbenchers would all be in agreement—that we ought to be looking at how to substitute sports sponsorship which is currently coming from alcohol based industries, whether they be distillers or other producers of alcohol. This has been debated in this committee as well. It is very clear, not least with young people, that the advertisers pick on sports because it is effective. The purveyors of alcohol are not spending their money on advertising for the community good; they are spending it to increase their sales, and effectively so, and they are targeting sports.

Everybody knows that alcohol damages your sporting ability. Everybody knows you are going to run slower, swim slower and perform with less alacrity on the tennis court, the football field or in any other sport, including motor vehicle racing, if you take alcohol. Yet we have alcohol sponsorship of these very sports, as if it were going to improve excellence. It is a lie. It is just a straight-out l-i-e lie. However, the advertisers recognise that they are on to a deceptive but profitable path through promoting sport as part of their sales pitch. The proposals that the Greens and, I think, fellow crossbenchers have been coming up with and putting to the health minister have been a first step along the road to substituting alcohol advertising for public funding when it comes to sporting organisations. That will no doubt be an excellent thing.

So I am hopeful, at least on the part of the Greens—and we have had very good talks with Senator Xenophon, but I will let him speak for himself—that we are moving towards an end to the impasse which arose last night. The details of that we will put to this committee as soon as they become available, but the prospects of a resolution to that impasse, to allow the government’s legislation to prevail while at the same time ensuring that there is increased hypothecation against the scourge of alcohol abuse, have become brighter this morning and as we go into the early part of the afternoon. We will report on that to the committee as soon as possible.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the opposition, I indicate that we will not support any moves to report progress. We think it is time that the government got on with it. It has now been nearly a year that the government has collected revenue without the support of the parliament. The government left it until the last minute before introducing this legislation. We thought perhaps it was because the government was intent on proving its case that this measure works from a public health point of view. Perhaps, just perhaps, the government wants to spend the 11 months proving its case that a 70 per cent increase in tax on a comparatively lower alcohol content product will help reduce risky levels of alcohol consumption and alcohol abuse related harm.

We already knew that they had not put any performance measures in place. We knew that there were no public health targets. We knew that this was just a tax grab, but after the event, given that the Minister for Health and Ageing had been out there claiming that this was aimed at reducing binge drinking and addressing alcohol abuse related harm, perhaps somebody out there in a department or in a university or a health lobby group was going to do some academic work, some proper research and some proper surveying to prove the case that this measure has actually helped reduce risky levels of drinking and binge drinking. But when we asked the government to provide us with any information they had, any evidence at all that this measure had reduced risky levels of consumption, this is the answer I got from Treasury as a result of an order of the Senate passed on 4 February: ‘Since the 2007 National Drug Strategy Household Survey’—which was before this measure came into effect—‘the Australian government has not collected any additional national consumption data on the reduction of risky or high-risk and/or at-risk behaviour since the introduction of the RTD excise increase in April 2008.’

The government has not collected any additional national consumption data on the reduction of risky, high-risk and/or at risk behaviour. Senator McLucas is in this chamber and she keeps saying, ‘Sales have gone down.’ Well, they will go up next year, and do not take my word for it—that is a Treasury assumption. Sales will go up the year after that and the year after that. Do not take my word for it—that is a Treasury assumption. Unless you are telling us in this chamber here today that that assumption is wrong, that your revenue estimate is wrong and that your revenue is going to collapse further, your government expects sales of alcopops to go up next year, the year after and the year after that.

That in itself is not a bad thing. I do not subscribe to the theory that Senator McLucas is putting forward that growth is necessarily a bad thing. Growth is only a bad thing if it is growth in consumption by the wrong people. If it is growth in consumption by problem drinkers, if it is growth in consumption by underage drinkers, then it is a very bad thing. But growth in consumption by responsible drinkers in a responsible fashion is not in itself a bad thing. The problem we have with this debate is that the government keeps running this line that increased sales equals increased consumption equals increased harm. This is the argument that the government is running: a reduction in sales proves that there is a reduction in consumption, which proves that there is a reduction in binge drinking and a reduction in alcohol abuse related harm. That is not true, because you have not been able to provide any data, any evidence, as to who is drinking less.

I see you shake your head, Senator McLucas. You point me to the government’s evidence of who is drinking less as a result of the drop in sales of RTDs. There is no evidence, and not even your own senators on the Standing Committee on Community Affairs were prepared to say that there was. If you can point me to some evidence, please table it here today. During two days of the community affairs inquiry no-one was able to provide any evidence that demonstrated that the reduced sales of alcohol were to binge drinkers or to people drinking at problem levels and that that had resulted in a reduction in alcohol abuse related harm.

This debate has gone on for long enough. This debate has been going for nearly the last 12 months. We have had two Senate inquiries. We have had estimates hearing after estimates hearing. The government knows very well what everybody’s criticisms are of this legislation. Whether those criticisms are from the opposition or the crossbenches, the government is very well aware of the criticisms of this legislation, one of which is that it does not address the actual problem of binge drinking that the government has identified. The government should have done its homework earlier. It is time that this matter was brought to a vote in the chamber. It is time that the chamber was given the opportunity to express its view, and then the government can go back to the drawing board and see whether it can do better next time.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Following on from the statement made by Senator Brown a short while ago that we were in discussions with the government, I am able to report to the chamber that I have received a letter from the Minister for Health and Ageing, Minister Roxon, outlining the basis of an agreement with the Greens and Senator Xenophon and also addressing the issues that we have raised with her and that we have put on the agenda. I can confirm that the minister has agreed to spend an additional $50 million on a range of measures designed to tackle binge drinking. These measures include establishing a fund to provide sponsorship to local community organisations that provide sporting and cultural activities as an alternative to other forms of sponsorship. I am aware that Senator Xenophon will address these community level initiatives in a moment, such as enhancing telephone counselling services and alcohol referrals and addressing social marketing campaigns. We have been advocating these measures since this debate began.

It is very clear that we need to tackle alcohol sponsorship of sport. A study released in America a week ago has again highlighted the association between risky drinking by teens and alcohol branded merchandise and sponsorship. We are very pleased that the government has agreed to this additional funding, because it is essential to have a comprehensive approach. We have maintained this position all along; we have never wavered. We have indicated throughout this debate that price was a mechanism to address alcohol related harm. As I said, we indicated that this was our position but that it needed to be part of a comprehensive approach because the research shows that that is what is required. So we are very pleased that the government is supporting these measures and has committed to an additional $50 million in funding to tackle binge drinking.

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

Let us just be reminded here that alcohol is a significant problem in Australia. Minister McLucas said before that alcohol has the second most serious impact on the fabric of our society. The cost of mopping up after excessive alcohol consumption is $15.3 billion. That is what it costs this nation; it is huge. Forty per cent of police work is alcohol related. One in five road deaths is alcohol related. Alcohol is a significant problem, and we should not treat it trivially with a blatant tax grab and then hide behind it, saying that we are really getting on with the job.

It is the eleventh hour, and the government has had over 11 months to deal with this issue. Back in September 2007, Family First put forward three significant proposals: (1) to restrict alcohol advertising and not to link it with sports in the way that we do; (2) to put health warning labels on all alcohol products; and (3) to get the ads out of the hands of the industry and into those of a regulatory body.

A fistful of dollars is not going to solve this problem. It is a genuine issue that we need to change the culture of binge drinking to one of responsible drinking. I drink and most Australians drink, but we have a problem with alcohol in Australia. We need to address this problem rather than hide behind a blatant tax grab. This proposal has come at the eleventh hour and we are squabbling over a few dollars—a fistful of dollars. We have to get serious.

One of the ways of standing up and getting serious about this issue is to de-hook alcohol advertising from sport. I will be very clear about this: there is already an agreed position that alcohol advertising in Australia should be on late at night. Whether you agree or disagree with that, it has already been agreed to. Yet an exemption allows alcohol ads to appear at any time of the day because of sports programming. Wake up! Isn’t that linking alcohol advertising with sport? There is no use in your spending a fistful of dollars on replacing sponsorship of sport when you are going to allow alcohol ads on television any time of the day because of sports. That is a clear link between the two. You would be wasting your money by taking alcohol sponsorship from sport when you are going to keep your foot flat to the floor on the accelerator by allowing alcohol ads to be tied to sports through a special exemption. It is a loophole that should be closed.

The government talks about a loophole—well, there is one. You cannot justify why you would not break the link between alcohol advertising and sport. You cannot justify it publicly. You skirt around the issue. You are not fronting up to the Australian public. You cannot justify it. To say you need more time is an absolute insult to Australian families. Do not treat Australian families so stupidly. They are smarter than you think. At the eleventh hour you are trying to pull a few things together here to sway people. This is about creating a culture of responsible drinking, not some cocktail that you are dreaming up to put together to pass this legislation with a few dollars. Do not pay lip-service to the Australian public. Stand up to the alcohol giants in the industry and de-hook alcohol advertising from sport. Do it now!

Do not hide behind a blatant tax grab and a fistful of dollars—a few dollars to please some of the crossbenchers. Get serious with the Australian public. Do not muck around. You have taken this long to even consider a few things. What a joke; what a basket case. This is just a joke. Before the last election, in September 2007, Family First genuinely went to the Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, with these issues. He has known about this for a heck of a long time.

Then you wake up after a few sleeps and say: ‘Ah, revenue. Let’s pull the pokie handle on alcopops tax and see how much more money can come in.’ Do not hide behind it. Do not treat the Australian public with such contempt. They are smarter than this. They see through it and you are turning them off. Work with the Australian people. We are smart. We know we have a problem but we are looking for leadership, not cheap shots and pulling tax revenue in the door on one product. Come on, be serious! Be open and frank. Explain now why you will not de-hook alcohol advertising from sport. Explain it. Stand up here and explain it to the Australian public. Today is a broadcast day. Do it now!

Explain why you will not close that crazy loophole that allows alcohol ads to appear at any time of day because of sports programming when you are proposing to say: ‘We understand the problem with alcohol and sports. We’re going to give a few dollars to replace sponsorship.’ It is a good idea but why leave the foot on the accelerator with advertising alcohol at any time of day? You try to apply the brake to alcohol sport sponsorship with your left foot and then you put your right foot on the accelerator flat to the floor with alcohol advertising. Stand up to them. Come on, be serious! Immediately look at implementing a restriction on alcohol advertising so that it is not linked with sport and you can close the loophole now.

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

In a similar vein to Senator Siewert and Senator Bob Brown, I have had discussions with the Minister for Health and Ageing and I am pleased to say that the health minister has made a number of undertakings. In due course, I will seek to table a letter which I and Senators Bob Brown and Siewert have received from the health minister in relation to this matter. I confirm that I am prepared to support this measure on this basis over a four-year period. Firstly, there will be an additional $50 million invested in a range of measures designed to tackle binge drinking, including a $25 million fund to provide sponsorship to local community organisations which provide sporting and cultural activities as an alternative to other forms of sponsorship. Secondly, there will be $20 million for community initiatives designed to tackle binge drinking, and we already have the structure in place in respect of that—I refer to a media release by the Minister for Health and Ageing and Senator McLucas of 17 November 2008 in relation to those local community campaigns. That would enhance significantly the level of direct campaigns which make a difference in local communities with respect to tackling binge drinking specifically. That amount is in addition to the $7 million already committed as a part of the $53.5 million National Binge Drinking Strategy. It is a significant improvement. Further, there would be $5 million to enhance telephone counselling services and alcohol referrals with an expansion of existing social marketing campaigns. I am grateful for the discussions I have had with Senator Siewert in relation to that. These are targeted awareness campaigns. Given the way the media operates online nowadays, I think there is real scope to target young people in a way that would be very cost-effective and also socially effective. I believe that is a quantum leap of improvement on what we have had to date.

With respect to advertising, on which I know Senator Fielding has been outspoken, I have been very supportive of his moves to push this issue to ensure that there is reform. The government has also indicated—and I would appreciate confirmation from Senator McLucas—that there will be a new regime of alcohol advertising, but it will be a move from self-regulation to the government playing a formal role for the first time. That will significantly strengthen government and public health representation in the oversight of advertising so that no longer will it simply be a form of self-regulation by the industry. Most importantly, there will be a vetting of ads through this new structure. That to me is a significant improvement. Of course we should go further. Of course there is more to be done, but I believe we are seeing a real shift here from the business as usual approach to alcohol advertising, sponsorship and local community campaigns. I believe these important measures are the shape of things to come in tackling alcohol abuse in this country, particularly binge drinking. I am satisfied that this is a significant step forward which will have very appreciable social benefits. For those reasons I support this legislation.

I also would like to pay tribute to Senator Fielding for his work on his bills and for his advocacy on the issue of advertising. I believe that we will see those changes with respect to advertising. Having a system of pre-vetting of ads and having health and government representation in the pre-vetting process of alcohol advertising is quite significant.

On the issue of advertising, I note from information I have received from my office that today the spirits industry has volunteered to have a year-long ban on all television advertising of alcohol products if the alcopops bill does not go through. If they were fair dinkum about it, you would think they would have said, ‘This is the sort of thing we need to do,’ and not make it conditional upon this legislation. I would say to the industry: if you are fair dinkum about it, do it anyway; do it because it is the right thing to do. I think it is interesting that there has been a shift on the part of the industry. This is a last-ditch, desperate measure to try to block this legislation. If the industry is willing to have a one-year ban, why not just stretch it indefinitely? The fact that they are willing to have a ban for one year indicates the lack of integrity in their current position, where there is open-slather television advertising. These are matters that need to be considered down the track.

If I could urge honourable senators: I believe this is a significant step forward. I am grateful for the discussions I have had with my crossbench colleagues in relation to this and for the undertakings given by the minister. I am looking forward to confirmation from the government that we will see a significant shift, a quantum leap, in alcohol advertising away from self-regulation to what many would see as coregulation. I seek leave of the Senate to table the letter from the Minister for Health and Ageing, dated 17 March, addressed to Senators Brown and Siewert and me.

Leave granted.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To place it on the record, the opposition agrees with Senator Fielding: this government is not serious about addressing the challenge of alcohol abuse in the community. It is not serious about addressing binge drinking through effective measures. This government is only serious about one thing—that is, tax. It is tax, tax, tax. Why is it that, whenever there is a challenge, whenever there is a problem, the only thing the Labor government can come up with is a new tax or a tax hike? I note the comments made by Senators Siewert and Xenophon on having been able to extract a further $50 million out of the government. I guess from the government’s point of view $50 million for $1.6 billion is not a bad return. I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that what Senator Xenophon describes as a significant step forward is a step well short of what the Senate agreed to only last night. The Senate last night passed a motion calling on the government:

… to appropriate all revenue collected as a result of the increased tax on ready-to-drink alcoholic beverages between 27 April 2008 and the date of commencement of these bills towards genuine measures to address binge drinking, including an alcohol abuse prevention, research, education, treatment and other measures package.

By 28 February 2009, that was $290 million. By the time this measure comes into effect, it will be in excess of $300 million—not $50 million. I remind the Senate that only last night we called on the government to appropriate all of the revenue it has collected so far and to demonstrate that this is not about tax, that this is not about increasing consolidated revenue and that this is not about propping up the pretence of a surplus that Labor was never going to be able to preserve. Labor has a history of what it describes as ‘temporary’ deficits. All Labor has got is a plan to get into deficit; it never has a plan to get out of deficit, which is why it pursues measures like this one. It pursues a tax grab on people it thinks it can target because politically it is going to get away with it, as long as the rhetoric, the propaganda and the spin are aggressive enough to pretend there is a case.

I place on record those comments on behalf of the opposition. Our position, you would not be surprised, remains unchanged. We think that this is a tax. It is a tax grab. It is not an effective way of addressing the issues the government says it wants to address. The government has never made any attempt to try and prove that it is an effective way to address the problem it has said it wants to address. In the absence of any evidence that a 70 per cent increase in the tax on RTDs is an effective measure to help reduce at-risk levels of consumption and alcohol abuse in the community, we will not support it.

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

The measures that have been gained in the crossbench discussions with the government include $50 million in added spending. That is on top of some half a billion dollars being spent on the problem of alcohol by the government—and by governments generally—over the next four years. It is a further $50 million which will enable a start on substituting for alcohol based sports advertising. It will enable data collection so that we can much better understand and therefore effectively address the problem of alcohol abuse. It will also include the enhanced telephone counselling services with alcohol referrals that have been pursued by the Greens—and Senator Siewert in particular—and community level initiatives designed to tackle binge drinking. These are very considerable efforts which will translate into a reduction in not just binge drinking but alcohol abuse in the community.

But let us not forget—and I think it is a really major breakthrough in the impasse there has been with governments in this country for many decades on even touching the problem of alcohol drinking and abuse—that under this agreement there will be mandatory safe-drinking warnings on the bottles, cans and whatever other containers alcohol comes in and also in alcohol advertising. This is a massive industry with massive advertising clout that has been able to present itself clear and free of any of the encumbrances of the damage done by alcohol abuse. For the first time, the government and the crossbenches have achieved a breakthrough which will put warning signs on all advertising for alcohol in this country as well as on the alcohol containers that people are drinking from. The impact of that is going to be huge.

Let me come back to the government’s other point, which is the fact that the tax itself has reduced binge drinking; it has reduced alcohol abuse. We now have the figures in and they are not coming from the industry. The industry had figures in quite the opposite direction, and I would have expected it from this industry, but we now have the facts, which are that this tax itself has reduced the abuse of alcohol through a reduction in the consumption of alcohol in the country. I notice that Senator Cormann said that, for responsible drinkers, there should be room for growth in the industry of alcohol consumption. I would remind him that all growth is exponential. At the end of the day, you simply cannot keep growing an industry because advertisers are making money out of it without there being added health consequences across the community. For the first time, we are going to have mandatory warnings on all advertising, whether it is on the container or in the magazine that you pick up. The question is whether we are going to have that endorsed by the Senate, have this legislation progress and have, for the first time, warnings on advertising right across Australia and think about the impact that will have on reducing the huge, untoward effects of alcohol consumption. Are we or are we not going to have increased spending on community campaigning and substitution, for the first time ever, through public funding of sporting organisations? Are we or are we not going to have the potential for telephone, internet and other forms of hotline counselling for people who are in trouble and motivated to get out of trouble with alcohol?

I have been in here long enough to know that progress in these areas does take years—sometimes decades. We have seen that with the abuse of tobacco and the abuse of gambling. This package is a major breakthrough in confronting the abuse of alcohol in this country, and we ought to be endorsing it. Our alternative is to say no to it. Sure, we might be able to come back and argue in the budget that the budget should not pass unless we get an end to alcohol advertising. I am totally in agreement with Senator Fielding on this. Why should we have alcohol advertising? If the product is good, let people buy it. We all know that this is a massive profit-making industry which has huge suasion on governments. But today we have here a package that is a very big breakthrough and a big advance. It is not getting us where we want to go, but it is a big step in that direction. We have to decide whether or not we are going to endorse that. The Greens are endorsing it.

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

First of all, I thank crossbench senators for the way that discussions have occurred over the last few days. Senator Fielding, you were concerned that those discussions were not occurring earlier. The work of the government, which I have enunciated in this chamber, has been ongoing since day one of the government. I will not repeat the work that we have been doing over the last 14 months, but you can read it, if you want to, in my previous contributions. We have been working on changing the culture of binge drinking in this country through a range of measures. The letter, of which the Senate has a copy, between Senators Brown, Siewert and Xenophon confirms the agreement between those senators. I thank them, first of all, for their understanding of the necessity for this measure to proceed and, secondly, for understanding the need for a comprehensive approach to tackling binge drinking.

I remind senators that this is only part of a range of measures that our government is undertaking. We have established the Preventative Health Taskforce. The Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy has a range of measures that it is investigating and addressing, including some of the concerns that have appeared in this document today. Some $872 million over six years will be spent on a comprehensive and broad-ranging preventative health agenda for not only alcohol but also tobacco, obesity, healthy lifestyles—a whole range of measures. Alcohol and the National Binge Drinking Strategy will be a part of that.

The agreement today between senators and the government goes to another investment of $50 million. I suggest Senator Fielding could have a very good look at that because it does address some of the questions that he is concerned about. Senator Brown has covered that already. Some $50 million will be invested in a range of measures designed to tackle binge drinking, including a fund to provide sponsorship to local community organisations who provide sporting and cultural activities as an alternative to other forms of sponsorship. Senator Brown is right: changing the public health space is incremental. This is a step along the road that Senator Fielding would like to travel. I do not think he can sneeze at what has been achieved in that agreement. There will now be a fund that sporting organisations can apply to that will provide sponsorship for probably junior football, junior cricket, junior soccer and junior netball as a start. But Senator Brown is right: changing public health policy is incremental. Just look at what happened over time with tobacco.

The second agreement is the community level initiatives designed to tackle binge drinking. We have already undertaken that. The infrastructure is in place and the community is very keen to be part of this process. That will be partially funded. Enhancing the telephone counselling services and alcohol referrals is part of the agreement, as is a possible expansion of the existing social marketing campaigns. We are now in a situation where the government can indicate that we agree with those proposals but not if the measure is not passed. That is the reality. We cannot agree to the measures that have been identified in this letter if the legislation is not passed unamended. We will only agree to these measures if the legislation is passed in an unamended form. I hope that has been made perfectly clear to the chamber and to those who are interested.

Finally, Senator Xenophon has an interest in the advertising regime and he and I acknowledge that Senator Fielding also has an interest in that. The letter says:

These would be in addition to the proposals on mandating ‘safe drinking’ content in alcohol advertising and significantly strengthening current data collection arrangements that we have already discussed—again which will only proceed if the legislation passes unamended.

For Senator Xenophon, the ABAC proposal—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It’s not in the letter!

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

I can confirm to Senator Xenophon—you’ve never been here, have you Senator Cormann?—that we will strengthen the regulation through the Alcohol Beverage Advertising Code so that the government will have a more formal role in regulating the electronic advertising sector. It will significantly strengthen the government and public health representation in the process of electronic advertising pre-vetting and all electronic advertising will be pre-vetted on a mandatory basis prior to publication. It is an area that I have been working on with the ABAC for some time and I think that this is a good move in the right direction.

I say to Senator Fielding that there is no one silver bullet in dealing with this. There is a comprehensive range of measures; it is not just breaking the nexus between advertising and sport. We have started down that road. The work that has been done will make an impact in the areas that you are, I believe, very passionate about. We will continue to try to convince you of the benefits of this additional investment of $50 million in tackling the binge drinking culture in this country. I encourage you to continue discussions so we can pass this legislation that will deliver the health benefits I think you particularly are keen to achieve. Given the time, I commend the agreement to the Senate so we can proceed to Senator Fielding’s motion.

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

A well-crafted answer, but it failed to explain to the Australian public why the Australian government will not take steps to de-hook alcohol advertising from sport. That was the question that was put plainly before the minister and it has not been answered. The minister also mentioned tobacco. When we did the tobacco toll we did not raise the tax on the most popular cigarette; we went after the advertising. It seems odd that you like to draw analogies and then all of a sudden they do not work. We did not just take the most popular brand of cigarettes and up the tax on that one and stop there. We knew there would be substitution.

The other thing you said in your speech was that there is no silver bullet. But, gee, you do not want to fire a whole lot of blanks either. I have been consistent on this issue for a long time. Yes, there has been some movement on labelling—and hopefully there are health warning labels on all alcoholic products. That makes sense. That is a tick. Most Australians agree. Getting the ads out of the hands of the alcohol industry and into a regulatory body is another tick. But the third one is the big one. Given that Australia has a serious issue with alcohol and sports, you have got to not fire a blank in that area but fire a bullet that will actually make sure we de-hook alcohol from sport. This is a major issue and for some reason you tap dance around it but will not address it with the Australian people. This is a really important issue. It is a pity it has come down to the eleventh hour. You have had more than 11 months—since September 2007—to take this issue on board and genuinely deal with it. So do not say you do not have time; you have had time. This is a really important issue.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have one question for the minister, and this will not come as a surprise, as she promised in her second reading concluding remarks to address this issue. It relates specifically to beer definitions. Minister, could you please give your response to the commitments that you promised to give during the committee stage.

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

I acknowledge that I did say I would answer those questions. Minister Roxon has committed publicly to determining if there will be any unintended consequences from the proposed changes to the taxation definitions of beer and wine. As a consequence, over the last two weeks Treasury has consulted with around 100 beer and wine importers and some domestic microbrewers on the proposals. Those who have responded to date have been supportive of tightening the beer and wine definitions and they consider that they are robust.

The government will continue to consult on the issue. We must ensure that we do not create further loopholes that would undermine the intent of the legislation. Given your background, Senator Birmingham, I think you would agree that in developing legislative definitions you can unintentionally cause more confusion.

The consultations have indicated that one ginger beer product that is currently taxed as a beer may be taxed as an alcopop under the revised definition of beer. The producer of this product claims the proposed definition should be altered to allow the product to continue to qualify as a beer. I note that the product has a sugar content of around 10 per cent, which accords with the sugar content of many alcopops. The producer is asking for an eight per cent international bitterness unit comparator for beers that have a dominant presence of ginger. Any change to allow ginger beer to have a higher sugar content or a lower international bitterness unit requirement could open the opportunity for ginger based alternatives, which is something we are not keen to encourage. But I understand the producer is concerned that the changes to the taxation definition of beer may prevent the product from being called a beer. I can assure the producer that the way in which it is labelled or classified under the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code does not depend on whether a beverage is taxed as beer for the purposes of excise law.

We are in continuing discussions with your constituent. We are very keen that we do not open up a loophole. We understand that he is producing a product legitimately and it is a quality product. He is not trying to get through a loophole as some of the other producers have tried to do. But we are very keen not to produce an unintended consequence that becomes another loophole that less-respectable manufacturers could slip through.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I urge the government to continue those discussions, not just on the terminology used but also on the tax rate that is applied.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bills be agreed to, subject to requests.

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

by leave—I will in 15 seconds explain that the Greens voted as we did to keep these bills alive so that they may go to the House of Representatives, come back here and be passed, hopefully, by the parliament.

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

by leave—I voted for the bills to make sure that money does not go back to the alcohol industry.

Bills reported with requests; report adopted.