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

This process has become an absolute farce. Here we are. Yesterday the government, on budget day, still had to deal with this legislation, which quite frankly we could have dealt with quite effectively two months ago. The Senate gave the government three opportunities to achieve exactly the same objective as is being pursued with the Excise Tariff Validation Bill 2009 and Customs Tariff Validation Bill 2009, but of course, out of incompetence, political bloody-mindedness, a combination of the two, political pride or whatever it was, the government refused to take on board and respond to the very constructive and positive proposals made by Liberal Party and National Party senators—and, in fact, made by all senators in this chamber other than government senators. We could have dealt with this in March and achieved exactly the same objective as is to be achieved with the legislation in front of us today.

How did we get here? Let us just remind ourselves: this is a tax increase that has now been in effect for more than a year, since 27 April 2008. Where did it come from? This was a government that was desperately looking for some revenue measures. It was looking for some cash to fund its various spending sprees. No doubt there were some hollowmen in the Prime Minister’s office and the Minister for Health and Ageing’s office who thought: ‘How can we possibly sell a tax hike of $3.1 billion? You know what? Let’s apply the tax hike to alcopops and call it a strategy to address binge drinking.’ Who could fail to agree with a government that proposes to do something effective about binge drinking? We would agree if the government proposed to do something effective about binge drinking, but of course this is nothing of the sort.

How do we know this? Because clearly the hollowmen in the Prime Minister’s office and the health minister’s office forgot to talk to the people putting the budget papers together. Was there any public health target or performance measure in the budget papers where the government gave us an indication of what it was that they were trying to achieve in reducing binge drinking, alcohol abuse and alcohol abuse related harm? The answer is no. There was only one single target in the budget papers last year, and that was a fiscal target. There was a target to raise $3.1 billion in additional cash, and of course the government failed to achieve that particular objective.

Those hollowmen in the Prime Minister’s office and the health minister’s office are really quite good, you know! They must think they are real geniuses. Not to be outdone, what do they do when they realise that their genius-level plan to raise $3.1 billion in cash and sell it as a health measure would not raise that much and would in fact fall short by 50 per cent? They turn around and say: ‘Isn’t that great? It proves that what we always wanted to achieve is actually happening. It proves that binge drinking is now reducing. It proves that we are more effective at what we were always trying to achieve than we had hoped for in our wildest dreams.’ We, of course, know that that is just changing the spin as we move along. We know that the government planned to raise $3.1 billion, we know that they failed in achieving that plan and we know that whatever political strategy they implement to try and hide their failure is just that: a political strategy.

Was there any evidence when the government introduced this measure that this would be effective in addressing binge drinking? There have been various inquiries, and I will not bore the Senate by going through all of the detail again, but suffice it to say, no, there was no evidence. There was no evidence if you looked at what happened internationally where other jurisdictions had tried similar things—Germany, for example. There was clearly evidence that measures like this had failed. There was no evidence that alcopops were actually the drink of choice for problem drinkers; in fact, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data clearly demonstrates that the drink of choice for problem drinkers is beer for males of all ages, spirits or liqueurs for females up to the age of 29 and white wine for females older than 29.

Essentially, the government never even went out of their way to substantiate properly the political strategy—the con job that they tried to pull on the Australian people—trying to sell a bad, old-fashioned Labor tax grab as a health measure. They did not even do their homework to pull all the strings together properly when they introduced it. They did not put any targets in the budget papers in terms of what they were trying to achieve from a public health policy point of view and they did not put any evidence forward that this was actually something that was likely to be successful. Clearly, indications were that the Senate saw it for what it was from the outset: a tax grab and not a health measure. No doubt this is why the government waited for nearly a year before they dared to come into this chamber to ask the Senate to pass validating legislation and to support moving forward the tax increase being imposed.

It took them nearly a year. We were pretty concerned about the time it took the government to actually come and be accountable to the Senate and the parliament, and to ask the parliament to deal with the tariff proposals that they had implemented. Given that had happened we thought there might be some evidence after 11 months of operation that this measure had actually been effective. We asked questions through Senate estimates and we put questions on notice. It took us a long time to get answers to even the most basic questions, like ‘How much additional revenue have you raised as a result of these measures since it was introduced?’ The government was ducking and weaving, not wanting to answer it. And no wonder, because they knew what we wanted to know—that they were failing to meet their only target, which was a fiscal target.

Then we had another Senate inquiry, and every public health organisation that had been supportive of this measure and, to be fair, continues to be supportive of this measure, came and gave evidence. We asked if there was any evidence at all that this measure had been successful in reducing binge drinking, in reducing alcohol abuse and in reducing alcohol abuse related harm. The answer was no. Not one single witness was able to point to any evidence that this measure had been effective in reducing binge drinking, alcohol abuse or alcohol abuse related harm.

What is the government’s evidence? The government’s evidence is, ‘Well, sales of RTDs have gone down in 2008-09.’ They do not know who no longer purchases RTDs, they do not know who is drinking less, they do not know whether it is responsible drinkers who are drinking less or whether it is problem drinkers who are drinking less: they have got no idea. In fact, not only have they got no idea but they did not even try to find out, as per the evidence provided by Treasury and the health department through our various Senate processes. They did not even try to find out. Do not ask the question if you do not want to know the answer is all I can say to that.

So the government is saying reduced sales equals reduced consumption equals reduced abuse. I do not agree with that logic. It is flawed logic and it is dishonest logic, but let us just for one second assume that the government’s logic is correct. Let us just agree that reduced sales means reduced consumption means reduced binge drinking. Guess what? Do you think the government expects sales to continue to go down? What do you think the government expects to happen with the sales of RTDs moving forward? Remember the $3.1 billion fiscal target became $1.6 billion? That $1.6 billion figure is based on the premise that sales of RTDs will go up again as of 1 July 2009 by 7.8 per cent every year. Either the government has got that wrong as well, and the revenue is going to be even less than what we have been led to believe, or the government is budgeting for an increase in the sales of RTDs moving forward. Some of us have described that as the government actually still banking on a binge, not trying to prevent a binge.

The government delayed introducing this legislation until the last minute. They must have had an inkling that just perhaps the Senate may be suspicious whether what the government has put forward would be an effective way of addressing binge drinking. They must have been suspicious that perhaps they did not have the support of the Senate. So here we were, five minutes to midnight, not only dealing with legislation to validate the revenue collected so far but with the government asking us to support the increased tax moving forward. The opposition have been on the record consistently all throughout. We do not support this tax grab, which the government has dishonestly sought to sell as a health measure. However, we have also been consistent in saying that we did not think it was practical or appropriate for the money that had been collected so far to be returned to the liquor industry. This is why we moved amendment after amendment, to give the government the opportunity to validate.

Even at the third reading stages the coalition, together with the Greens, moved an amendment urging the government to introduce validating legislation forthwith. At her press conference, the Minister for Health and Ageing was putting political pride ahead of good outcomes. She was being stubborn, belligerent—whatever you want to call it—but she was not going to come on board with the very constructive suggestions made by the Greens and by the coalition to validate the revenue collected so far to help the government out of a spot of bother. ‘No, no, no!’ said the minister for health, ‘If this is what happens, if the Senate does not support our tax hike totally the way we want it, the money has to go back to the liquor industry.’ How ridiculous is that? What an absolutely negative approach to public policy and public administration!

But, sure enough, here we are two months later. Clearly the Treasurer, the Prime Minister or somebody must have had a quiet word in the minister’s ear. They must have said, ‘Hang on; let’s have another look at this. We don’t think it would be a good look for the Rudd government to return $300 million, $400 million or however many million dollars have been collected so far to the liquor industry. Perhaps, just perhaps, the suggestions made by Liberal and National Party senators and by the Greens were worthy of support.’ And here we are dealing with what we have been calling for now for more than two months—that is what we are dealing with today.

Let me address an issue of concern, and I know that other senators on the crossbench will raise this issue as well. Tariff proposals are important tools of public administration. The reason for tariff proposals is so that governments are able to collect excise customs duty as soon as a measure is announced. In the absence of a tariff proposal people would bring forward their purchases of goods to avoid paying the increase and the government would forgo revenue on these purchases brought forward. So that is quite appropriate—it is a mechanism that we have used in government; it is a mechanism that you will continue to use in government; it is a mechanism that governments of both persuasions will use into the future. But what this government is proposing to do is to abuse that particular tool of public administration. The government is seeking to use, moving forward, the tariff proposal method to circumvent the express will of the parliament.

We are now no longer talking about the government putting in a fresh tariff proposal proposing a particular increase in excise customs duties or whatever and then putting it to parliament for parliament to make the final decision—with, in most cases, parliament ticking off on that. What we are now talking about is the situation where the parliament, having gone through a very thorough debate—a debate that has involved two Senate inquiries scrutinising, exploring, checking, asking questions and trying to find out whether what the government told the Australian people they were trying to achieve with this measure would in effect be achieved—having gone through hours and hours of debate in the House of Representatives and in this chamber, has rejected the government’s proposal. The parliament—whatever you think of it; for better or for worse—rejected the government’s proposal.

As a measure of goodwill, we the opposition, along with the Greens and other non-government senators in this chamber, offered the government an opportunity to get themselves out of a spot of bother that they got themselves into—the spot of bother being that they collected revenue without legal foundation if it was not validated by this parliament. That was the circumstance they found themselves in at the end of March because they did not support any of the requests for amendments that we successfully passed in the Senate at that point in time. So right now unless we pass its legislation today the government has collected revenue without legal foundation. As a measure of goodwill and in good faith we have said to the government, both during the debate in March and since then, that we will support the validation of the revenue collected so far because we do not think it would be appropriate for it to be returned to the liquor industry.

But what is the government now trying to do? Not only is the government going along with what we have put forward in good faith; they are now turning around and proposing to reintroduce the same measure as a tariff proposal despite the express and stated views of the parliament of Australia. This parliament has explicitly and expressly rejected what the government proposed. Quite frankly, if the government want to pursue this increased tax moving forward then they should come back to this parliament and get its endorsement before they keep collecting this tax. In fact, in the context of this second reading debate and to facilitate smooth progress in the committee stage of the bill, I would urge the parliamentary secretary to respond to the following question. What will happen in the event that the Senate persists with its position adopted in March when this legislation comes back before this chamber? We are told informally that this will be in June—that once the three-month period has elapsed the government will again, as part of their political strategy, load the double dissolution trigger. This is obviously what this is all about: what fits with the political strategy of the government not what is good public policy and in the public interest.

But let us just take the government at their word that they will reintroduce this legislation in June. What will happen if the parliament rejects this legislation again? Will you continue yet again to collect the excise? Will you continue to collect it until May next year, for 12 months, in spite of the parliament’s express intentions? That is what you have done since we as a parliament rejected your proposed increase in taxes in March this year. You have continued to collect it, irrespective of what the parliament’s decision was, because you worked on the basis, ‘Well, we can collect it for 12 months.’ As I understand it, you have sought and obtained legal advice to that effect. However, whatever the legal circumstance, it is a question of what is right and what is proper here. If this legislation were to be defeated twice in this parliament then it would not be appropriate for the government to continue to thumb its nose at the parliament and say, ‘We don’t care what you say. We will continue to do what we want to do irrespective of the parliament’s wishes.’ I remind the government it is accountable to the parliament. (Time expired)

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

This Excise Tariff Validation Bill 2009 is part of a package that the government is introducing to deal with alcohol related harm. The bill collects the tax that the government has already collected. As Senator Cormann pointed out, it is the tax that was collected that they failed to get support for during the last session with their previous bill. The government is also introducing a new mechanism—which I will come back to in a minute—to continue to collect the tariff for up to another 12 months. And in June, presumably—from indications from the government—we will be debating the reintroduction of the bill, a bill validating the collection of the tax that was rejected by the Senate in the March sitting.

During the debate on the last bill, the Greens were willing to support that measure as part of a comprehensive approach to addressing alcohol related harm. We went very carefully, and have continued to go very carefully, into the evidence around alcohol related harm, and it is quite obvious from that evidence that a set of comprehensive measures to deal with alcohol related harm is needed, of which price is a key mechanism. We have always acknowledged the domestic and international research which said that the price of alcohol is a key mechanism in dealing with alcohol related harm. But you cannot use the price mechanism alone. That is also quite evident from the evidence. We therefore negotiated, in good faith with the government, additional funding for measures complementary to the price mechanism.

I will remind the chamber of what those measures were. They related to labelling—and other crossbenchers also held strong views on this, raising it with the government and negotiating with them—and mandatory warnings in all advertising on alcohol related products. A most critical measure for us was the fund that was established to deal with alcohol and the relationship of alcohol products with sponsorship, particularly for sports. The relationship between sports and sporting clubs and their reliance on alcohol related sponsorship has been identified as a key area that needs addressing. The fund that was to be established under our agreement was a voluntary fund which clubs could go to for sponsorship to replace alcohol related sponsorship. It was a key component of our package—to develop a hotline around alcohol, to continue extra funding for community based projects and for some social marketing. That package was negotiated in good faith with the government between us and Senator Xenophon. It was to get funded if the legislation got up—in other words, if the tax continued to be in place.

The tax, of course, did not get up and now we come to the issue that this tax is continuing. The bill that we are talking about is actually collecting that tax. To date, as I understand it, it has collected $424 million and, as has also been pointed out to the chamber, if that bill and the measure are not passed by tonight, the money goes back to distillers. Nobody in this chamber wants that money to go back to distillers. We have always been of the opinion that that money should be retained by the Commonwealth and spent on alcohol related harm. At the time of the debate, if people recall, we were very strongly told that it could not be done. As Senator Cormann pointed out, the opposition and crossbench supported a motion for validation of the tax and collection of that money and that it be directed to payments on alcohol related harm. We were told at the time that you could not do that. So there was no point in negotiating further with the government about expenditure of any of those funds on complementary measures because the government said they could not do it. Well, between March and now they have obviously either had new advice or have known all the time that they could keep that money.

One of the key questions here regards the next bill in this package that comes up in June. If that goes down, will the government continue to collect the tax for another 12 months?

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

Good question!

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

We have not been able to get a straight answer on that one.

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

Funny, that!

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

And that was exactly the same position we had last time. So you can understand the Greens concerns as to the position. I take it from Senator Cormann’s comments that they are the opposition’s concerns as well, and I understand that Senator Xenophon, from whom we will hear shortly, is also concerned. Come clean with the Australian public. What is the position? Is this tax going to continue to May next year regardless of what the Senate says? The Greens, for one, are clearly on the record in supporting the price mechanism, but we want to know what the government intends to do with this. We negotiated in good faith with the government around a package of complementary mechanisms because we believe that price is not the only mechanism that deals with alcohol related harm. It has to be part of a comprehensive package. That is the way we negotiated. The point here is that the government is continuing the price mechanism without those complementary measures.

The other interesting fact from the research is that price has an impact—a fact that, as I said, we recognise—but that it is highly likely that the effectiveness of the impact of that price mechanism will be diluted as it continues to be implemented if those complementary measures, such as dealing with alcohol advertising, sponsorship, opening hours and the like, are not in place. This is why we so strongly want those mechanisms in place now. From the Greens point of view, the issue here is that we are negotiating in good faith on a bill that puts in place a price mechanism. The government said that they would fund it if the price mechanism got up. The point here is that the price mechanism is continuing, regardless of what the Senate said, yet the complementary measures are not. That is bad faith on the part of the government. It is bad faith on the part of the government not to be telling the Senate and the community at large what will happen to this tax after June.

We understand that the government thinks that the Greens are, because we support the tax, in a difficult position. But we support the tax as part of a comprehensive approach not as just a revenue-raising mechanism—which, it is quite plain from the government’s approach, is what this is about. If they are not prepared to put the funding into the complementary measures we have negotiated, it is quite plain that this is about revenue raising. It is not about dealing with alcohol related harm; hence our very strong concern that the government, in bad faith, are not prepared to start funding the mechanisms. We expect that those mechanisms are to be implemented as the tax is rolled out. The package we negotiated was $50 million. We are not expecting the whole $50 million to be delivered this year, because we expect those mechanisms to be rolled out as the price mechanism is rolled out. So of course we expect them to be delivering on a pro-rata basis as the price mechanism is rolled out.

I should indicate now that I want to refer this to the Committee of the Whole, because I have some questions that I want the government to answer that we have not been able to get a straight answer out of them on. Will this tax continue past June—that is, if the bill is debated in June? The government may delay the debate on the bill until later in the year because they have 12 months, as we understand it. We want a straight answer. Will this tax continue after June? Of course, the problem for the government is that they have not been able to give us a straight answer on that question. We want a straight answer on that point.

We believe it is absolutely essential that these complementary measures are in place. The evidence, we believe, is clear that the alcopops price mechanism to date has been having an impact. We do see from the evidence that there has been some substitution. You can debate the level of substitution—if you give the same evidence to a group of people they will still argue over the degree of substitution that has occurred. So, yes, there has been some substitution but, overall, the number of drinks drunk in Australia has decreased. We believe that that is what the evidence shows.

We also are dismayed at the continuing rate of binge drinking in Australia. The issue with the rate of binge drinking is not just about alcopops; we acknowledge that upfront. But alcopops are a very important component, and the reason the Greens are so concerned about that is because it is a particularly targeted component of the drinks market—targeted at young people, when they are most vulnerable, when they are starting to drink. We definitely believe that these products—particularly the sweet products—are particularly targeted at a vulnerable market, to get young people and young women in particular into drinking alcohol. We believe, despite what the industry says, that these products are particularly marketed at that section of the community, at that cohort. Who else, quite frankly, would be drinking those particularly sweet ones? So there is not a doubt in our minds that those drinks are particularly focused on young people. But the price mechanism alone does not and will not work—that is plain from the evidence that has been collected both in Australia and overseas. That is why we are so strong on the point that we need a comprehensive approach.

We also believe that we need to be moving towards a volumetric approach to taxation on alcohol products, and we have been very upfront about that in the debate. We want the government to be moving in that direction. We understand there are continuing problems with the volumetric approach. It seems to me that there is no perfect approach to taxing alcohol. But we acknowledge that, in the absence of that overall move to date, there is a need to move more quickly on certain products. Alcopops are a particular product that, as I said, we need to be moving on now.

The point here is that we are getting confusing messages from the government. Is this really about addressing alcohol related harm—the harm that costs our community up to $15.4 billion each year? And that figure does not put a price on the damage that is caused through domestic violence, the break-up of homes or the psychological impacts that they have. That figure of $15.4 billion is just the cost that people can actually quantify.

So the issue for us is this: of course we want the government to keep the $424 million that has been collected to date. The Greens, in principle, believe in the price mechanism. We are deeply concerned at the approach that the government has taken to this. We are deeply concerned that the government has not told the Australian community what it intends to do with the revenue measure if it goes down in the Senate in June. We are deeply concerned about that. Our position is this. If it does continue for the next 12 months, the government will have collected probably close on $1 billion over the two years of this tax, which is getting close to the $1.6 billion that, during the debate last time, was the figure down to which it revised the budget forecast on the measure. But, given that it has collected $424 million of this tax already, if you double that you are getting close to the $1 billion mark in the just over two years that this mechanism has been in place.

The government has not rolled out the complementary measures that it committed to rolling out as part of this measure, which is supposed to be dealing with alcohol related harm, binge drinking and, hopefully, starting to address the drinking culture in Australia. We need to start addressing the issues around the abuse of alcopops. There is absolutely no doubt that the sales of alcopops have increased in Australia; in fact, Australia has the dubious record of being the leader in the sale of alcopops around the world. They are marketed very heavily at young people, particularly young women. There is no doubt that that is the market that the alcohol manufacturers target. You only have to look at some of the advertisements to identify the fact that they are targeting that particular market, despite what they say. It is very peculiar that the alcohol manufacturers claim that they do not target that market—you only have to look at the advertisements to realise that they do target it. If you can start addressing the drinking culture in that age group, then you will of course be addressing it as they age. But there are other sections in our community where we also need to be dealing with the drinking culture and alcohol related harm, which is why we need these other measures.

That is also why we need to break the nexus between sport and alcohol advertising. At the moment the message is clear in Australia: to have a good time at sport you have to drink alcohol, or after you have a good time at sport you drink alcohol. That is not the message that we should be sending to our young people. That is why the Greens put this measure to the government, and I am hoping that that is why the government said that they would support that measure, because it is a very important measure.

On social marketing: it is so important that we have a range of messages that address key markets. You cannot just have one marketing campaign that sends one message and hopefully targets all the people that we are trying to target in our marketing campaign, so we need to invest very heavily in that campaign. I am sure Senator Xenophon will talk in more detail about the community projects because they are an area that I know he is particularly keen on, and the government also said they would invest more money there. If the government believe that the price mechanism should continue, surely they will believe that they should start these comprehensive projects and this comprehensive package now, as they are rolling out this measure.

I have asked this question before, and I expect an answer in this debate: what will the government do after June? Is this tax going to continue or not? They need to show good faith with the Senate and they need to show good faith with the Australian community. If this tax is going to continue, what are they going to do in May next year? You can guarantee that it will be like Groundhog Day. We will be in here having the same debate. In fact, they might as well just table the Hansard now, and then we will not have to bother to show up, because they will be putting it in place again, saying, ‘We want to validate this tax.’

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

It’s very arrogant, isn’t it?

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

It is very arrogant. And they expect that the opposition and the crossbenchers will go, ‘Oh, yes, because we don’t want that money going back to distillers.’ And, no, we do not. So the government think they are being very clever by forcing us to vote at the last minute—we have to have this done by midnight tonight—by catching us at the last minute, and saying, ‘If you don’t, it’ll go back to the distillers, and you don’t want that to happen, do you?’ No, we do not, but we expect the government to be honest and come up with a more thorough way of dealing with this issue.

I repeat: the Greens fundamentally believe in the price mechanism, but it is part of an overall approach. That is why we tried so hard to get a package up that at least started to address the other measures that the government need to address when they address alcohol related harm. It is not just a simple issue of putting one tax on one product. A comprehensive approach is needed, and we need to make sure that we have that comprehensive approach in place.

The government has shown bad faith with the Greens and the crossbenchers in the package that we negotiated. It has shown bad faith with the community, because it will not tell us what it intends to do with the tax if the bills go down in June. The Greens do support the collection of this money, but we are extremely disappointed in the approach the government is taking. As I said, I ask that we go into Committee of the Whole so that we can question the government and get some vital information that I think it is important for the Australian community to know.

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

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

Almost two months ago I stood in this spot and urged the Rudd government to reconsider its position on whether or not to keep the money raised by the collection of the alcopops tax in the past 12 months. The coalition, the Greens, Independent Nick Xenophon and I were all in agreement that the tax collected should be retained by the government. But the government said no to keeping the tax collected. It did this because it was more interested in trying to make a political point. It stubbornly refused to do the sensible thing and to keep the millions of dollars that had been collected through the ready-to-drink tax over the past year. In fact, the Rudd government insisted the collected money from the tax be handed back to the alcohol industry.

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

That’s right.

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

That is right. That is absolutely the way the government voted. I was disappointed with the government’s lack of maturity and its determination to point-score on this matter. But it appears the government has come to its senses. Today we see a government that has recognised that its stubborn stance of two months ago bordered on the absolutely ridiculous. But much of the debate about the so-called alcopops tax was farcical. Initially, we were told with great sincerity by the Rudd government that it was not a tax measure but an important strategy to tackle the binge-drinking epidemic—an epidemic that is creating a climate of fear in Australia and destroying families and relationships.

But the Rudd government finally came clean. After the tax grab failed to pass the Senate in March, the government began talking about the importance of the measure as a tax, not a binge-drinking strategy. Fair enough: it is a tax measure on one product but it is not a binge-drinking strategy. It never has been and will not be. The government hijacked the debate on binge drinking by turning it into a debate about a tax and then had the gall to pretend it was not. What a pity the Rudd government was not honest from the outset. What a pity the Rudd government did not come before this place and say, ‘We want to introduce a tax on this product,’ and at the same time allow an honest and open debate about the problem of binge drinking in our community and the best way to tackle it. The government has missed an enormous opportunity to have a real debate about what is a real crisis in our country. It is a crisis of culture, because Australia has a drinking problem. Australia has a drinking-to-get-drunk culture, and no tax will fix that. We must change the way Australians feel about alcohol and how they act around it. We must tackle the core of this terrible mindset, where the only way to enjoy yourself is to get blind drunk and where you are not a real man if you do not get blind drunk.

Recent research found that 80 per cent of Australians think that we do have a drinking problem, and 85 per cent want more to be done about it. This research comes a year after the alcopops tax was introduced, a year in which alcohol fuelled violence, domestic violence, hospital admissions and car accidents continued unabated. Australians are calling out for change. Australians are calling out for leadership. How does this government respond to that call? With a tax grab on one product. When the swine flu epidemic was considered a reality for Australia, the Rudd government acted immediately, but what does the Rudd government do when it is faced with alcohol abuse, binge drinking and violence that continue to scar our friends, families and colleagues? The Rudd government responds to Australia’s alcohol toll with a blatant tax grab on one product and hides behind it as a solution. What a farce; Australians know it is a farce.

This government is not content with hijacking a decent debate about Australia’s alcohol toll—it costs Australia $15.3 billion each year to mop up after excessive alcohol consumption—and hiding behind the blatant tax grab called the alcopops tax; it also wants to use this issue for a double dissolution.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you want us to.

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

Now they want to use it for a double dissolution. I take the interjection from the government. They reckon that I want to use it. That is just a joke. You guys could bring in tomorrow the tax that you are proposing for this measure to continue rather than waiting. When are you going to wait until? June? Why June? Does waiting until June give you the trigger for a double dissolution? Does it? I bet you the answer is yes. You would not bring it in tomorrow, would you? You would not try to test the parliament tomorrow, would you? You would wait until June to deliberately make it a double dissolution trigger. You guys are not honest. You guys have got to be real. Bring it in tomorrow; do not wait until June. Let us have the debate and then let us get on to the real issue: tackling binge drinking.

Back in 2007, Family First also spoke to the then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, about this and raised three issues. The first issue was warning labels on alcohol products, which does not cost the government a cent. But they will not do that; it does not collect any revenue, so they will not do that one. The second issue was getting the ads out of the control of the industry and into an independent body. They will not do that either. The third issue was the big one: restrictions on advertising alcohol, closing that crazy loophole that allows alcohol ads to appear at any time of day because of sports programming. That is linking alcohol with sports. We have a huge issue with alcohol in sport, yet they refused to implement that measure. Again, it cost them nothing. But, no, they are quite happy to hide behind a blatant tax grab and try to con Australia. Well, Australians have woken up to it. They are against it, and they know that you folks are hijacking a decent debate on how to tackle binge drinking. Hijacking the debate and turning binge drinking into a tax problem does no good to anyone. It is not leadership. It does all of Australia a disservice, and the sooner we get beyond this issue the better. I challenge the government to bring in tomorrow the legislation to keep the tax going forward rather than using this issue for political point-scoring or as a trigger for a double dissolution.

You guys are not real. You have to stop hiding behind this tax and start addressing the real issues. A drug educator with Drug and Alcohol Research and Training Australia, Paul Dillon, was right when he said in an article in the Newcastle Herald:

Alcohol and sport are tangled together so tightly in this country that it is extremely difficult to work out where one stops and the other one begins, and that is exactly the way the alcohol companies like it. As a result, there are very few sports now that don’t have a drinking culture.

You have a chance to break that link. Give us a date when you will bring in advertising restrictions that break the link between alcohol and sport. Make the announcement today. But, no, you would rather use the issue for political point-scoring and a double dissolution. Why? Because you are scared? Why not bring it in tomorrow rather than in June? You will not answer that question, will you? Mr Dillon goes on to say in his article:

It is time for this link to be severed—not because alcohol is bad or we should not be drinking but because it sends a mixed and confusing message to the Australian public.

The government have agreed to introduce alcohol warning labels and they agreed to make sure that the ads are not in the control of the advertising industry—but only if the tax stays. Come clean with the Australian public and explain why you will not implement those two measures anyway. Why are you trying to hold onto the tax? It is not working. You are actually hijacking the debate so that we cannot have a decent debate on what measures Australia should put in place to change the culture of alcohol. Turning binge drinking into a tax problem is mischievous. It is hijacking the debate and stopping Australia from moving on to a mature debate about what measures need to be put in place to create a culture of responsible drinking. The issue that this government have not come clean on in coming to parliament is why they will not break the link between alcohol and sport by putting in place tough alcohol-advertising restrictions that dehook alcohol from sport. How many more days, how many more months will it take? How many more cases of alcohol having a huge, devastating impact on sport and leading many of our young Australians astray do we have to read about on the front page of the paper? How much longer can you allow this to happen before you come into this place and say that, by this date, you will put restrictions on alcohol advertising in sport? You have to be real.

Let us hope the money that has been collected does not just go into the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to give them a few extra staff; let us hope the money is used to address binge drinking rather than just filling your coffers. Let us make sure that we actually get the money used wisely—all of it, not just part of it. Let us make sure this government stops hiding behind a blatant tax grab and gets onto the real issue of addressing binge drinking by putting in measures that will really tackle Australia’s drinking problem and create a culture of responsible drinking.

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

I thank all senators who have contributed to the debate on the Excise Tariff Validation Bill 2009 and the cognate Customs Tariff Validation Bill 2009. These validation bills ensure that the additional duty collected on alcopops over the period of 27 April 2008 to 13 May 2009 does not have to be refunded to the payers of the duty or the manufacturers and importers of alcopops. To ensure that this does not occur, these bills, as we have heard, must be passed by parliament and receive royal assent today. The Senate’s approval of these bills will protect $424 million in revenue, so that revenue, collected under the tariff proposals, will not be returned as a windfall gain to alcopop producers and importers.

When we were last in this place, those opposite and the senators on the crossbenches indicated that they did not want this windfall to occur, and that has been reconfirmed today. Senator Siewert, you are right—the price of alcohol products is not the only lever that we have to pull in order to deal with inappropriate use of alcohol. That is something that all senators who have contributed to this debate have commented on. It is a problem Senator Fielding has rightly identified is of concern. That is why our government, back in March last year, introduced the National Binge Drinking Strategy—the first time that leadership had been shown on the question of alcohol abuse for the last 12 years. It is wrong to say that the government has not facilitated a debate about alcohol abuse. Compared to the previous government, which did not talk at all about alcohol for the last 12 years, our government is showing the leadership that you are quite rightly calling for.

In March of last year we introduced the National Binge Drinking Strategy. There are three elements to the strategy, three elements that we are rolling out to ensure that we start changing the culture around inappropriate alcohol use in the country. $14.4 million has been allocated to the community-level initiatives that Senator Xenophon spoke of. They were very well received by the community. It was the first time for a long time that that had been done. It is wrong to say that we are shirking the debate around alcohol abuse; we started it. I am sorry, Senator Fielding—you simply cannot say that this debate is not being had in an appropriate way. $19.1 million is going to be committed to early intervention projects in each state and territory around the country to ensure that young people assume personal responsibility for their drinking. Agreements between the states and territories have occurred, and that work is rolling out. There is a very successful social marketing campaign targeted at young and, particularly, underage drinkers entitled ‘Don’t turn a night out into a nightmare.’ Those were and are confronting ads and they are targeted at that part of the market that alcopops are targeted at. So we are working on many fronts. We are aiming to change behaviour, particularly amongst young Australians.

Senator Fielding said we are not doing any work on a whole range of other things like labelling and advertising. I table the communique of the 24 April meeting of the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy. It said:

Ministers supported a series of proposals about alcohol advertising regulation to be presented to COAG including:

•       Mandatory pre-vetting of all alcohol advertising

•       Expanding the ABAC management committee to have a more balanced representation between industry, government and public health

•       Expanding the adjudication panel to include a representative specialising in the impact of marketing on public health,

•       Expanding the coverage of the scheme to include emerging media, point-of sale and naming and packaging, and

•       Meaningful and effective sanctions for breaches of the Code.

This is not only our government. This is our government showing leadership and working with the states and territories in order to meaningfully deal with all of those elements that will lead to inappropriate use of alcohol. We are happy to provide for Senator Fielding a briefing about the range of measures that we are undertaking to work in a meaningful way in this space.

That is all aside from the work of the Preventative Health Taskforce, the task force that will make its report and recommendations to the government in June of this year. I remind the Senate that our government established the Preventative Health Taskforce to look at three particular areas in the first instance. Those were alcohol misuse, tobacco and obesity. It is the first time ever that this country has turned its head toward a preventative health agenda that we so desperately need. It is wrong to say our government is not working to limit in a broad sense the health impacts on our community that come from the inappropriate use of alcohol. The government has introduced new excise and customs tariff proposals, with effect from 14 May 2009, so that the current tariff proposal rates remain on alcopops. This will ensure that revenue will have been collected for all spirits at the same rate, whether they were consumed as alcopops or full-strength spirits, for the last 12 months.

The government will also reintroduce the bills rejected by the Senate later in this session of parliament. This will legislate the higher rate for alcopops so that alcopops and spirits continue to be taxed at the same rate into the future. Senator Cormann and Senator Siewert asked what will happen after June if the Senate does not pass the reintroduced legislation. Can I say: that is speculative. It is our government’s view that the Senate should pass this measure. It would be speculative to make a judgment about what might happen in this chamber at that time. So it is a question that cannot be answered.

The government’s view is that the measure should be passed because we have seen such success coming from it. We have seen reductions in consumption. We have seen a 35 per cent fall in alcopops sales in the past 12 months and an eight per cent fall in spirits sales overall. There has been a slowing of consumption of alcohol across the board. This measure is working. The opposition knows it is working. The distillers in particular know it is working, and that is why they are fighting so hard. We know that spirits consumption is lower and that there is less growth in consumption across the board.

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

Your figures don’t show that.

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

Yes, they do, Senator Cormann. Senator Cormann spends a lot of time in this place telling us that there is no evidence. Senator Cormann just does not listen. There is plenty of evidence out there, such as the half page ad from every senior public health organisation in the country urging the Senate to pass this measure, recognising that it is part of a whole range of measures that we have to introduce in order to deal with it.

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

‘It was not possible to definitively conclude that this reduction in consumption …’ These are your own senators’ conclusions.

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

I would suggest, Senator Cormann, your head is very firmly in the sand on this issue. We have seen a 35 per cent fall in alcopops sales and an eight per cent fall in total spirits consumption. The government’s alcopops measure is just one among the many necessary to combat binge drinking. Change in society’s attitude to drinking does not occur immediately, and intervention must take many forms on many fronts. The higher taxation of alcopops is an important step in changing this attitude, and it is supported by health groups and, importantly, police right across the country.

With respect to the comments that the crossbench senators have made about the arrangement between the Greens and Senator Xenophon when last we debated this matter, I refer to the Hansard of 17 March. I think it is important that people understand what the agreement was at the time. I said:

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—

that is, the letter from Minister Roxon to Senators Siewert and Xenophon—

if the legislation is not passed unamended. We will only agree to these measures if the legislation is passed in an unamended form.

I made it perfectly clear then, and that is still the position of the government. Whilst I understand your desire, Senator Siewert and Senator Xenophon, to do more work in this space, that was the agreement the government made with the Greens and Senator Xenophon. That is the commitment we made and continue to make. Senators, I urge you to support these bills. I think they will be passed, because this is an important measure for the country.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.