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

As I indicated in the second reading debate, I have some questions for the government. The minister attempted to answer them during her summing up speech but unfortunately did not. I am not sure whether or not the government deliberately have not taken the point on the additional measures that we negotiated. I will reiterate a number of points. Firstly, those measures were negotiated on the basis of the government saying they were not going to collect the windfall tax and that in fact it was not possible to do that. It turns out that it is.

Secondly, we negotiated those measures on the principle that the bill would not get up and therefore the price mechanism would not be in play anymore, and these measures were always designed to complement the price mechanism. The price mechanism is in play again; therefore our belief is that those measures should also be in place to complement the price mechanism.

Why can’t the government tell this place and the Australian community whether they intend the collection of this tax to continue, come what may, after June? Surely, as good economic managers, they would have a clear understanding of what will happen after June if the tax measure does not get up. Do they have the powers to continue to collect the money and, if so, will they use those powers to continue to collect the money for the next 12 months? Previously, they said they did not know. They have clarified that; hence we are having this debate right now. Surely they know whether they can continue and will continue to collect the money whether or not the bill is passed. They are saying that it is pointless to have the discussion until we know what is going to happen in June. It is not pointless; the Australian community has a right to know what the government’s intent is if the bill does not get up in June. We want to know what the government’s intent is.

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

I thought that, before making some comments at a later stage, I would also ask some specific questions. From recollection the government revised its revenue estimate in MYEFO, as a result of this measure, downwards from $3.1 billion to $1.6 billion.  Has the government further revised its revenue estimate since then and, if so, by how much? In MYEFO the government’s estimates of sales of RTDs were that, from 1 July 2009 onwards, sales would increase by 7.8 per cent per annum. As I understand it, that was a core assumption at the basis of the revised revenue estimate. Does the government stand by the assumption that there will be an increase in sales of 7.8 per cent per annum from 1 July 2009 onwards or has it revised that estimate and, if so, how?

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

In respect of the final questions from Senator Cormann, I am advised that estimates have been provided in the budget. We do not currently have them at hand. We will endeavour to get them to you.

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

I looked for them in the budget but couldn’t find them.

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

We will endeavour to get them to you. Senator Siewert, in response to your question, ‘What would happen if the Senate makes a decision not to pass the reintroduced measures in June?’ it would be a very sad day if that were the case. It would be a very sad day if a measure that is working, that has reduced alcohol consumption, particularly in the alcopops form, were not passed by this place. I know that you agree with that. It is important that those opposite get the message that this measure is working in our community.

Can I refer people to research of the Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation, which was released this week, that Senator Fielding referred to. It says that 80 per cent of Australians think that alcohol abuse is an issue in this country. Any political party would be thrilled to get any figure like that, and that is up from 63 per cent. The foundation say that that figure is as a result of the debate we have been having in our country over the last 12 months. It is an important recognition of the shift in understanding of alcohol abuse. So, Senator Siewert, it will be a very sad day if this measure is not carried in June.

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

I do not disagree with the minister, but she did not answer the question.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was an opinion, not an answer.

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

Yes, I will take that interjection; it was an opinion. Unfortunately, the legislation may not be carried and, if I had my way—if I had my way, this country would be quite different, anyway—it would. As we have clearly said, we believe the price mechanism is an important mechanism. However, we do not always all get our own way. My question therefore remains: what do the government intend to do if the measure does not get carried by the Senate? It is very disingenuous for the government to pretend that they do not know. They tried that one before. We had that one during the last debate when the government said they could not do it. I have been trying to find out the answer to this question for several weeks, and we have not had a clear answer. Australia deserves to know: do the government intend to carry on with this tax if the measures do not get up in June? It is very important for us to know what the government intend to do.

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

I am happy for Senator McLucas to have more time to find answers to the questions I have previously asked. If it is in the budget papers, it must be hidden in the fine print. I have certainly had a quick squiz to try and find any reference to the expected revenue from the increased excise on RTDs. I admit it was late at night and perhaps my eyes were a bit too droopy to hone in on it, but if it is in there you have been hiding it very well. I do want to know whether you have further revised your revenue estimate downward and, if you have not, whether you still expect—as you did in December—sales of RTDs to go up, to the tune of 7.8 per cent every year, from 1 July 2009 onwards.

Here is the absolute flaw in the argument. The only so-called evidence that the government has been able to come up with that this measure has been successful is that sales in the 2008-09 financial year have gone down. The argument according to the government is that sales have gone down, which equals consumption going down, which equals binge drinking going down. But they have not got any data or evidence. Who is buying less alcohol? Who is drinking less? Who is substituting? Are the responsible drinkers drinking less because they are faced with a 70 per cent increase in tax or is it problem drinkers? The government have no idea and they have not even tried to find out. They have not done any research. They have not done any assessments whatsoever. That was the conclusive evidence put forward before the inquiry of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs. That was the evidence provided in answers to questions by Treasury themselves. There has not been any further assessment done since the 2007 National Drug Strategy Household Survey, which was of course done before this measure came into effect.

Senator McLucas keeps persisting with this line: ‘The evidence is overwhelming.’ You know what? Let us have a look at the majority report of the Senate community affairs committee. We in this place all know that government senators will do everything they can to protect their government. So, if there is something critical of the government or something that goes counter to the government’s official line in a majority report, chances are that it must be true because it is a very hard thing for government senators to do. Let us have a look at the final page of the report, signed by Senator Claire Moore, the chair of the community affairs committee. It said:

… it was not possible to definitively conclude that this reduction in consumption had resulted in a reduction in levels of risky and high-risk consumption of RTDs by young women …

That is as damning as it will get from a government senator. That is the government’s own senators saying, ‘We can’t conclude that there has been a reduction in risky levels of drinking.’

The reality is that this was always just a tax grab. Somehow the new government thought it was politically smart to dress it up as a health measure. The spin doctors, the hollowmen, the people in the Prime Minister’s office and the people in the Minister for Health and Ageing’s office thought: ‘If we dress it up as a health measure, it will make it easier to get through. It will make it easier for us to get public support.’ That is why they did it. The problem is they did not do their homework. They did not make sure they had all their ducks in a row and, when the Senate started to ask some questions, the whole thing fell apart. When some scrutiny was applied, the whole thing fell apart.

When we discussed this in March, the Senate put forward a second reading amendment. The Senate called on the government to invest all of the revenue collected so far into genuine measures to fight alcohol abuse and alcohol abuse related harm in the community. But of course the government did not support that and there was a deal done by crossbench senators and the government to help the government in its attempt to get the legislation up. We now know that the Senate rejected the increased tax on alcopops as implemented by the government in April 2008.

This brings us to where we are today. The government is playing games on this. We—that is, all senators in this chamber other than government senators—in good faith have said all along, ‘We will validate the revenue collected so far because we do not want it to go back to the liquor industry.’ In March the government was too proud, too stubborn and too bloody minded to go along with that very constructive suggestion. No doubt the health minister was called into the Prime Minister’s office and the Treasurer’s office and told very clearly what she had to do. She had to eat humble pie. So here we are dealing with a proposal that all of us on the non-government side put on the table more than two months ago.

But what are the government doing? The government are playing games. They are being tricky and dishonest. Now that we are here saying we are quite happy to support this legislation to validate the revenue collected so far, they have used a tariff proposal to keep the tax hike going immediately after the parliament defeated it. If that is not dishonest, I do not know what it is. This is tricky. This is against the principles of accountable government. They are a government that is accountable to parliament, and the parliament has sent them a very clear message: ‘We do not agree with this tax. We do not agree that this tax is an effective way of addressing binge drinking. You have to do better. Having a tax on one single product category is not an effective way of reducing binge drinking.’

All of the public health groups that appeared before the inquiry saying, ‘We would like this to go through,’—because they would always support any increase in the taxation of alcohol—in the same breath also said, ‘But what we really want is volumetric taxation on alcohol.’ That is entirely inconsistent because volumetric taxation on alcohol, as I am sure the minister would be well aware, actually works on the basis that lower content alcohol is taxed less than higher content alcohol to provide an incentive for people to choose lower content alcohol products ahead of higher content products. This is doing exactly the opposite. This is putting other excisable alcohol products under 10 per cent alcohol content into the same category as spirits. Instead of having a predictable, lower alcohol content, this is forcing young women across Australia to expose themselves to the risk of somebody else mixing their drink. That drink could well be of significantly higher alcohol content as a result. It could well be spiked. Everybody knows that an RTD bottle is a much more predictable level of alcohol content and a much safer way to consume alcohol. They government are now targeting one particular alcohol product category in isolation. They are not putting forward a comprehensive strategy. They are not putting forward a comprehensive strategy from an alcohol taxation point of view. Do you know why? It is probably because it is too hard. They went for the easy target. They said, ‘Let’s target the distillers.’ The minister keeps talking about ‘the distillers’ as if they are a bunch of criminals. The government said, ‘Let’s target the distillers because we can make them look bad and surely the public is going to agree that we should target the distillers.’

But what really concerns me about the debate today is this. We as a Senate are acting in good faith—we are not playing games—and with a lot of goodwill we have said to the government, ‘We will help you out of the spot of bother that you have created for yourself by validating the revenue you have collected so far because we do not want to see it go back to the liquor industry.’ You are taking advantage of that. You are abusing the Senate. You are abusing the tools that you have got available to yourselves through the tariff proposal process by circumventing the express will of the parliament, which has rejected your proposed increase in the tax on RTDs. You are using a tricky process to circumvent the will of the parliament.

As Senator Xenophon and Senator Siewert mentioned earlier, this is a bit like Groundhog Day, and it could well become even more like Groundhog Day. Are you suggesting that every 12 months now you will bring this legislation to parliament and, if the parliament keeps rejecting it, you will just keep reintroducing another tariff proposal? So for the next three years, or as long as this government is in place, you are essentially going to thumb your noses at the parliament and say whatever you want, like, ‘We know you will have to validate the revenue again in 12 months time because we know that the situation we are in today is the situation we are going to be in in 12 months.’ Because we are sensible people, we do want to do the right thing. We do not want to see $400 million go back to the liquor industry. You are probably quite reasonable in your assumption that, if we were in the same circumstance 12 months from now, we would again say, ‘No, we don’t want those funds to go back,’ but that is an abuse of our goodwill. It is an abuse of the good faith that has been demonstrated by non-government senators in this chamber. The government ought to reflect very carefully on this. If this legislation is defeated again, it would be entirely inappropriate for the government to continue to use the tariff proposal process as a backdoor way to circumvent the express will of the parliament. In that, I very much agree with the comments made by Senator Siewert and Senator Xenophon.

I hope that before this debate is concluded this morning—and I have spoken long enough now, I hope, to allow this to happen—officials in the advisers box will be able to find some very, very simple answers. Have you further revised downwards your revenue estimate as a result of the increased tax on RTDs? I want it to be presented in a form that is comparable to from $3.1 billion down to $1.6 billion. What is the revised estimate now? And what is your estimate of the sales of RTDs from 1 July 2009 moving forward?

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

Can I respond to the question from Senator Cormann by saying that estimates for the alcopops measure were published in the explanatory memorandum. We will get further information for you when we have the budget papers at hand. That is a commitment: to provide that to you as quickly as possible. It probably will not be in the context of this discussion today, but there is a commitment that I have from officials that we will get that information to you as quickly—

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

You have not got the budget papers with you?

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

No. We are actually debating a validation measure, not the budget, so we did not bring the budget papers.

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

So none of your officials have got access to the budget papers?

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

As I said, we will get that information to you very shortly.

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

You are trying to avoid answering the question.

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

I am not avoiding answering the question. That is the advice I have from the officials.

Senator Xenophon has asked me—he cannot be in the chamber at the moment—to reconfirm our position on advertising and particularly on prevetting. Once again, I refer him to the communique from the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy meeting on 24 April. Ministers who sit at that ministerial council supported a series of proposals about an alcohol-advertising regulation to be presented to COAG. People will recall that COAG has actually asked the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy to undertake a very comprehensive piece of work—and we have reported back to COAG—which goes to the questions of prevetting; the ABAC management committee having a more balanced representation of industry, government and public health; expanding the adjudication panel; expanding the coverage of the scheme to include emerging media and other forms of media; including the naming and packaging of alcohol products; and, for the first time, meaningful and effective sanctions for breaches of the code. Senator Xenophon, I hope that that answers the intent of your questions. I urge the chamber to pass these bills.

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

Minister, what discussions have been held between the government and various bodies addressing the advertising of alcohol and putting in place restrictions on alcohol advertising on television specifically? Can you outline to the chamber what discussions the government has had with regard to putting in place tougher advertising restrictions on alcohol with regard to television?

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

I refer you to the communique. I will get you a copy if you have not received one. COAG requested the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy to look at the Alcohol Beverages Advertising Code, which was meant to ensure that alcohol advertising is responsible and does not encourage underage drinking. We recognise, though, that the current system, which has been in place for some time, does have significant shortcomings and should be reformed as a mandatory co-regulatory scheme—an issue that you have referred to in the past, Senator Fielding, I think. You can be assured that the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy is progressing this matter and we will hopefully be responding to COAG for its June meeting, although this is not actually confirmed yet.

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

Senator McLucas, we have just very helpfully and very constructively provided you with a set of budget papers—and I have a set of budget papers over here. You might say that this is not about the budget bills, but this is a measure that was part of last year’s budget. The only target in last year’s budget was a fiscal target. There was no public health target, no target to reduce binge drinking, no target to reduce alcohol abuse and no target to reduce alcohol abuse related harm. There was one target: that was a fiscal target. That target was that you wanted to raise $3.1 billion worth of revenue.

Through estimates, we sought to assess—as is properly the role of Senate estimates committees—the performance of your government against that target, and your government was ducking and weaving. When I first asked, through the Senate estimates process, how much additional revenue you had raised as a result of this measure, the answer that outrageously first came back was that the information was not publicly available, as if Senate committees can only ask questions about things that are on the public record. It was outrageous. You forced us to come into this chamber and to propose an order of the Senate ordering you to produce the information that, quite frankly, you should have been able to provide on the spot during Senate estimates. That is when we found out that your revenue estimate had collapsed. But by then you had had enough time to develop your political strategy and your failure to meet the fiscal target was sold as evidence of your success in achieving the alleged public health target.

You are continuing to play the same games. We are here doing the right thing. We are here to validate revenue that you have collected so far without the validation of parliament. We want to know how you are performing against the revenue estimates that you have put into the budget. Last night the government tabled another budget. I want to know whether you continue to assume that the sale of RTDs will go up by 7.8 per cent every year from 1 July forward—because, as recently as December 2008, that was your expectation. Your evidence that this measure has worked, which is based on the premise that this year’s sales are down and so binge drinking must be down, is shot down in flames by the fact that your government expects sales to increase as of 1 July 2009 by 7.8 per cent every year. If you have revised it, I would like to know. Surely you should be able to point without much problem to what the revised revenue estimate is. And I want it adjusted such that it is actually comparable—apples with apples. Compared to the $3.1 billion down to the $1.6 billion, what is your revised revenue estimate as a result of the measure that was introduced in April 2008 and, in the presence of this increased level of taxation on RTDs, what is your expectation moving forward in terms of sales volumes of RTDs?

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

I would point Senator Cormann to budget paper No. 1, page 529, where he will find a partial answer to the question. Senator Cormann, we have a thing in the Australian Senate called Senate estimates. That is the appropriate place to be answering the level of detail that you are asking for. The figures that we have in that document are aggregate figures. I encourage Senator Cormann to use the Senate estimates process to ascertain the answers to his questions. Alternatively, the offer that we have from the officials here in this place is to, firstly, confirm absolutely the question you are asking. It is not quite clear what you are asking. Secondly, the offer to provide you with that information as soon as possible is still there.

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

Minister, that answer is, quite frankly, outrageous. This government has been ducking and weaving when it comes to being open, transparent and accountable on the fiscal effect of this measure. This was only ever a tax grab. You aimed to raise $3.1 billion in revenue. It took us a year to pin you down and get you to acknowledge that your revenue estimate had collapsed down to $1.6 billion. We are now two minutes to midnight, not because of our doing but because of your doing. You are introducing this legislation and in good faith, as reasonable people, we have agreed to pass this legislation today. But we want to be reassurred, and we think the Australian people deserve to be reassurred, about what the fiscal effect of this measure is going forward.

If you put the Senate into a position where we have to deal with this legislation today—where this legislation has to be passed by midnight tonight—I think the government ought to reciprocate with a little bit of good faith and stop this stalling, ducking, weaving and trying to cover up and hide information. Let me be very, very clear about the specific information that I am looking for. Have you further revised downwards, yes or no, the estimated revenue out of the increased tax on RTDs? Firstly, tell me yes or no. If it is yes, by how much? If it is no, that is fine; you can just say no. Do you still expect, as you did in December 2008, that the sales of RTDs will increase by 7.8 per cent per annum from 1 July 2009 forward? Yes or no? If it is yes, that is fine. If it is no, tell me what your revised expectations are in terms of the sale of RTDs moving forward. They are very simple questions, and they are questions that the Senate and the people of Australia deserve an answer to.

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

I remind Senator Cormann that the names of the bills that we are debating today are the Excise Tariff Validation Bill 2009 and the complementary Customs Tariff Validation Bill 2009. Those bills are asking for the validation of $424 million that has been collected over the last 12 months because of the imposition of the alcopops tax. So, as to your assertion that the Australian people need to be reassurred that the fiscal position is known, I can absolutely, unequivocally answer that, if these bills are passed today, $424 million will not go back to the distillers and the importers. It will be collected and used by the government in a range of ways, including a whole range of measures that we have talked about for the last couple of hours. That is the position that the Australian people, I believe, totally understand. I re-offer to assist on those specific questions that you have asked as soon as possible.

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

For the record, I note that the government is not prepared to answer some very straightforward questions. I am very well aware which legislation we are debating, but I would also remind Senator McLucas that she herself, in her reply to the second reading debate, advised the Senate of the new tariff proposals introduced by the government and of the government’s intentions moving forward. The validation bill in front of us today is part of a continuing process. It is a process that started on 26 April with the government’s organised leak on what it intended to do on this. Sorry, the leak was on the Medicare levy surcharge thresholds. I am getting myself confused! This process started with the announcement on 26 April 2008 that the government would effectively increase the taxation on RTDs by 70 per cent by getting rid of the category of ‘other excisable alcohol products with an alcohol content of less than 10 per cent’. It started in April 2008. It went through the whole debate we had in two Senate inquiries and the debate we had in March.

We as a Senate are here helping the government to mop up where they had created a serious problem for themselves. We are demonstrating good faith. We are accommodating the government because we think it is the right thing to do. And we know that the government continue to play games and refuse to answer very reasonable and precise questions. I can only have one assumption as to why you are ducking and weaving and not prepared to answer my questions on the record. I can only assume that you had to revise your estimates further downwards. I can only assume that you are expecting that there will be continued growth in the sale of RTDs from 1 July 2009 in your revenue estimates and that, in the context of this debate, you are not prepared to let the cat out of the bag. You are not prepared to say on record here today that, yes, the government continue to expect that the sale of RTDs will continue to grow moving forward. The reason you do not want to say it is because it shoots down in flames your core argument, the only argument you have been able to come up with, which is that sales have gone down in 2008-09 and so binge drinking must have gone down. It is a totally flawed argument that not even your government senators on the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs agree with. I think the point is well made.

I do hope that the parliamentary secretary’s commitment in this chamber today will be followed through by her officials and that sometime this week—and I would like some reassurance on this from the parliamentary secretary—I will be provided with the information I have asked for.

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

Senator Cormann, you have said that you would like the information sometime this week. I am sure you would understand how busy Treasury is the day after a budget. The advice I have is that the information will be provided as soon as possible, and maybe by the end of the week. But I do not want to say on the record that you will have the information by Friday because if it does not come until Monday I am sure you would be grumpy with me. It is an honest commitment. We are not trying to duck the issue. The figures that you are asking for are not explicit in the budget papers.

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

Funny, that. That’s where I was looking for them.

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

The table I referred to in budget paper No. 1 is exactly the same as your government would have produced, so the allegation of a cover-up is unfounded. That is an honest commitment to get to you as soon as possible the detail that you have requested, but we may have to talk to you about what in fact you are asking for because that is absolutely not clear to some of the officials.

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

I thank Senator McLucas for that commitment. I will not hold up the Senate much longer, but I just want to explain why I am a bit suspicious. On 16 March the government came into this chamber in relation to another Senate order in the health portfolio. The Senate had ordered the production of about 300 documents in relation to private health insurance reforms. The government made a statement in the Senate that they had to take some time to go through them all but that the information would be provided as soon as possible. It took two months before that information was provided.

I am a bit confused as to why the officials would be confused about my questions. I would refer them back to the answers they provided in response to the relevant Senate order on the RTD measures, which followed on from the Senate estimates process. I am quite happy to provide that in a written form if people have difficulty finding it. But, very specifically, there was a table provided then out of the MYEFO information, after a lot of prodding and searching and asking, which indicated what the expectations were in terms of the sale of RTDs moving forward. These assumptions are quite important because they are the foundation of your revenue estimates. If you are telling us that you expect sales to go down then your revenue estimate of $1.6 billion is absolutely unachievable. Your revenue estimate of $1.6 billion, which is the most recent estimate that I have got in front of me, is based on an assumption by the government that the sale of RTDs will go up by 7.8 per cent from 1 July 2009. I am not inventing that. That is information that I was provided by Treasury out of the MYEFO data. So I would urge people to go and have another look.

The other information I was provided was that the $3.1 billion revenue estimate that was in place at the time of the May 2008 budget announcement had been downgraded to $1.6 billion. Has it been downgraded further? If yes, by how much? I hope that that is clear enough. I am really confused about this, quite frankly, though I assume that the government is not keen to answer these questions here and now, that they would much rather have time to manage the political spin and the PR strategy before releasing that sort of sensitive information.

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

If I could just get clarification from the minister in relation to the time frame for the prevetting of advertising, and if I could have on the record the issue to do with alcohol labelling. I have had a private discussion with the minister, but I think it is important to have that outlined. Also, from a policy point of view, the government’s rationale is that the ‘deal’, for want of a better word, with my colleagues the Greens and me was that the additional $50 million would be spent if the bill went through. If the deal went through, it would mean $1.6 billion in revenue of four years. The fact is we are now validating some $400 million in revenue since the measure was announced. In good faith and in the spirit of the agreement, why won’t the government commit to a least a pro rata expenditure of these projects that the government said were worthy projects that would actually make a difference to binge drinking? Or will the government at least say they will seriously consider making a pro rata contribution in relation to these projects on the basis that they are projects that the government considered would be useful in tackling binge drinking?

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

Senator Xenophon, was the first question about the time frame for the prevetting?

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

Yes.

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

I missed the second question, sorry.

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

The labelling.

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

Thank you. I refer you to the communique from the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy. What has occurred is that we have a report that was requested by COAG. We will provide that, we hope, to the June/July meeting of COAG and then it will become a COAG document. We have done the analysis work. It is being driven by COAG and we expect COAG to deal with it at that meeting. It is comprehensive. It goes to prevetting; the membership of ABAC; the adjudication panel being expanded; taking it outside of the current restrictions on media to emerging media, to point of sale and to naming and packaging; and, importantly, and I think you would agree, the potential for meaningful sanctions being applied to breaches of the code. That is the time frame. MCDS has dealt with it and it will now go to COAG.

Your second question was around labelling. You would be aware that COAG asked FSANZ, Food Safety Australia New Zealand, to look at labelling around alcohol. That work is progressing. It will also go to COAG as a part of that package. The ministerial council on food policy has agreed for that to occur as well. But, once again, that is coming to the pointy end of getting that information to COAG.

Your third question was: why won’t the government commit to a pro rata allocation of that $50 million? I refer you to the letter written to you from Minister Roxon dated 17 March. That is our commitment. It still stands. When these measures are passed, that letter and the contents of it will stand. That is the commitment we have given.

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

I thank the minister. That begs two questions. Firstly, what will happen in June if the substantive bill is not passed? Secondly, I think it was implicit in the agreement reached with my colleagues the Greens and me that that was on the basis of the package passing to the extent of $1.6 billion, with an additional $50 million to be spent. You are getting $400 million now as a result of this measure—a quarter of it—why won’t the government, in good faith, consistent with the spirit of the agreement, agree to pro rata expenditure for these very worthy programs, or is this going to be the way the government is going to operate with the crossbench? If an agreement is made in good faith, are you going to take a very technical, narrow, legalistic view without looking at the spirit of the agreement and the good faith in which the crossbench negotiated with the government in relation to these measures?

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

Senator Xenophon, I absolutely reject your notion that we are not operating in good faith. We, in good faith, made an arrangement with you and the Greens that we will allocate $50 million should this measure pass. Once again, we are now having another debate rather than the validation debate. That is the situation. We stand by that agreement. That is not going to change. In terms of having some sort of pro rata arrangement, it is our view that the measure should be passed and then we can, in good faith, deliver the measures that you and Minister Roxon’s office have negotiated. That commitment is unwavering.

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

I do not know whether Senator Siewert agrees with me on this, but the government’s version of good faith and my version of good faith are somewhat different. But I will leave it at that.

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

It is not good faith for the government to not indicate to this chamber and to the Australian community what it intends to do if the bill goes down. If the bill goes down in June, the Australian community what to know whether the government intends to keep this tax going for the next 12 months. Does it intend to? Does it have the capacity to? It told us before that it did not have the capacity to keep the money raised through the collection of the tax over the previous 12 months. That is what it clearly told us—that it did not have the capacity to do it.

The minister came out on the night that the tax went down and said very clearly that that meant that all the money would be going back to the distillers. I appreciate that the minister was very upset and angry that the bill did not go through. I, in fact, shared that feeling, because the Greens supported it. But we were clearly told that they could not do it. It is clearly wrong; they can. Can you tell me that it is appropriate governance of this country for the government not to have a clue what it is going to do if the bill goes down? We do not have an idea about whether they intend to collect the tax, because they have not looked beyond June? Come on! What a con of the Australian community. You are clueless about it. Pull the other one!

Bills reported without requests; report adopted.