Is the Alcopop Tax working?

Posted by Senator Steve Fielding on February 25 2009  |  209 Comments

Figures are emerging which confirm my worst fears that alcohol related hospital admissions have not gone down since the alcopop tax was introduced.  It’s obvious that the government is not doing enough to help people drink responsibly.

I have continually asked the government to tell me if the alcopop tax is working, but they refuse to give me a straight answer and in doing so, fail to give straight answers to the Australian people.  I asked them in parliament 3 weeks ago and as you can see from this document, their response was full of plenty of spin but gave no real answers. I am not sure the government is sufficiently focussed on this problem.  I am not sure the government realises how devastating irresponsible drinking can be to families and communities. This is not about cutting alcohol out altogether, this is about responsible drinking - I’m not anti-drinking and enjoy a drink myself. But I hate the violence, family disintegration and despair that binge drinking and alcohol abuse creates in our communities.

Family First has draft laws before the Senate to tackle binge drinking through health warning labels, banning daytime TV advertising of alcohol, taking control of advertising away from the alcohol industry and educating people about the dangers of binge drinking. Do you agree with me that stopping binge drinking is important and that these measures are worth trying?

Family First will be moving a sunset clause to the alcopop tax that gives the government six months to start really tackling this problem. The revenue collected by the government since the tax was introduced in April last year will not have to be paid back but the sunset clause puts the government on notice that it has six months to really tackle this issue if it wants my support for this tax. So far the government has done nothing but pull in the dollars.  In this time I want to see evidence of real change to Australia’s binge drinking culture, like alcohol related hospital admissions falling and less drunken street violence threatening our communities.

Do you agree with my position?
How else do you think we should be doing to create a responsible drinking culture in our country?

Thanks
Steve

Comments

  • I really couldn’t understand why Rudd put this tax on except as an easy way to grab money.  While my teenage years are long gone and a price hike doesn’t affect me in the slightest (I rarely drink these days) I think its just insanity throwing high tax on premixed drinks there are several reasons behind this.

    1/ Drink spiking - open cups leave user a lot more vulnerable. This really affect ladies more then guys

    2/ Death - “lets see who can skull this bottle of vodka” I don’t believe anyone has ever died from the direct effects of premixed drinks.  I would rather see someone with 12 premixed drinks then a bottle of Vodka or rum.

    3/ Premixed drinks give you a consistent drink all night. As the night progresses the % of rum to coke usually increases to 50 50 leaving the person blind drunk.  Its much better to have a consistent drink all night and much better for you in the morning. 

    In the end I think everyone sees this tax for what it is - just a tax hike so Kevin 07 can squander more money.

    We live in one of the richest countries in the world yet we are one of the highest taxed.  Every chance those grubs get they throw another tax on us so they can make another “department of paper shufflers”  Its for this reason international investment is most limited due to crippling taxes unless there is a resource here they can get cheap or nowhere else. 

    They even have to set up project Wickenby to catch the people trying to flee there tax regime like Paul Hogan

    This is just the tip of the iceberg with these critters however. Remember the temporary tax “income tax” it was set up in around 1915 to fund the imperial war effort (1st world war).  We have a list of “temporary taxes as long as your arm.  Others that were supposed to be taken off but were never like the states stamp duties when GST was introduced by another little weasel.

    Anyways its great to see a little light in parliament house good on you Mr Fielding.  Thing is - anyone notice 8 months after it was voted down the tax is still on us.  Thats democracy in action!!!

    Comment by scottyb on 21 November 2009 at 02:30:53 PM

  • Being a teenager myself, I can see first hand the effect this tax is having. Teens really are opting for more dangerous alternatives, such as speed, ecstacy, and straight spirits. A popular choice for youth without the finance to purchase expensive alcopops is cask wine (goon). Speaking from experience, I know how negitively goon can effect you. If this is the alternative to alcopops, it is not a very smart or healthy one.

    Comment by trista-lee15 on 22 September 2009 at 04:45:46 PM

  • Thanks for opposing this blatantly political tax.
    I myself am an ‘alcopops’ drinker. Contrary to popular propaganda most alcopops drinkers are not teenagers and are equally male and female.
    Whenever I see empty alcohol bottles in park they’re almost always beer bottles - which is mostly what teenagers really drink.

    Comment by hankscorpio on 14 July 2009 at 09:50:00 PM

  • heavy tax on alcohol is the only way to reduce alcohol consumption and correspondingly reduce domestic violence, public violence, hospital related costs (billions!), police manhours devoted to alcohol control.
    reducing alcohol advertising related to sports events/stars is good, but with the following tax scheme, you could look back from 10 years hence and see amazing improvement in lifestyle and huge reductions of cost to government (hence us, taxpayers).
    It would be like looking back at the introduction of seat belts and seeing statistically how many lives have been saved over the past 10 years.
    tax: nil on low alcohol content (max 2.9pct)
    low on mid alcohol content (3.0 to 3.6pct)
    heavy on alcohol content above 3.6pct.
    its that simple really.

    Comment by Steve J on 26 June 2009 at 04:54:56 AM

  • Because of the alcopop tax, there are other ways, or you could say….more efficient ways for teenagers to get high and have a good time… i.e a 4 pack of Pulse was only $11 approx, so for most teenagers they would get two 4-packs for $22 and 8 drinks that are 7% last them all night at a house party, I know, I did!!!

    But now ONE 4-pack is about $19-$23!! so now that’s not even enough to get most people tipsy, let alone pissed…if you will or ‘having a good time’ so what the alternative now I fear for most is, instead of paying $23 for 4 tiny drinks that won’t get you even tipsy and won’t last the night…. for just $25 there abouts, teenagers will buy an extasy pill or a speed pill or some thing along the likes of those now, as they now seem like a more of efficient, cost-effective choice!, more bang for buck, and that will last them ALL night even longer…..but at what cost???

    This alcopop tax will surely push many to these kinds of drugs, it for them (Teenagers) seems like a more valueable choice!

    This alcopop tax must go.

    Thank you, Steve
    Aaron Fitzgerald.

    Comment by Aaron Fitzgerald on 08 June 2009 at 02:03:16 PM

  • PART 2. continued from part 1 post.

    Later down the track these kids are all on dialysis with an STD or two and babies they can’t support, sounds harsh but that’s the truth, all because of this alcopop tax.

    I wish I had at chance to voice my self to the senate… with these FACTS, which ironically are my opinions, but is the facts that I see first hand in the real world and so does the rest of Australia, we don’t want it can’t you pollies see that?, don’t hide behind a tax grab that you all and us, the Australian people know does not work!... one big vicious circle. if you ask me, this tax has to go.

    Sorry, I won’t rattle on any more….for now..

     


    I STRONGLY APPLAUD SENATOR STEVE FIELDING OF FAMILY FIRST!!, THANK YOU MATE!

    Thanks, Aaron

    P.S I am not up in an office that makes up all this legislation and thinking it will fix a problem, I’m out there in the real world and see first hand that this alcopop tax DOES NOT, AND WILL NOT WORK!!! it is a disgrace.

    Thanks again,

    Aaron Fitzgerald

    Comment by Aaron Fitzgerald on 08 June 2009 at 01:50:44 PM

  • PART 1.

    THIS IS WHAT I SENT TO NICOLA ROXON AND UNDECIDED SENATORS AND OF COURSE…..THE “FLIP-FLOP” LIBERAL’S…..

    Hello Hon Nicola Roxon and all other senators.
    am I just wasting my time here, I hope not, will you even read this email and reply to me?
    can you understand the points here and that Australia does not want this alcopop tax.
    please just read this and hear me out, is it possible it will change your decision?, better education to kids and parents about alcohol, reduce advertising, include warning lables on bottles and cans, even heavier penalties for alcohol fueled violence! some of the better and fairer ways to combat binge drinking rather than a higher tax, because it punishes us who drink responsibly not the minority who don’t, because the kids who abuse and binge drink alcohol don’t care how expensive alcopops or alcohol gets because the don’t buy it or can’t because their not old enough to buy it any way, they sneak it out of the home beer fridge, pantry or get if from older siblings or mates or some times even parents!, I know because I used to do it!

    I just wanted to ask some thing here:

    I’ve seen the opposition has now said it will back alcopop tax, so what happens now, is it in for sure now?, it also proves both parties now want it as revenue, not as a health measure, because the opposition says they will back it if labor agrees with cigarette tax, so why now all of the sudden does the opposition not think alcopop tax as revenue like they have done for the past year?, soon as it will get a revenue measure (smoke tax) passed for them, they will all of the sudden agree to help pass alcopop tax, so now does the opposition suddenly no longer think its a money grab, only because it’s helping get them their cigarette tax? I also heard one person from health minister say:

    I quote: “The alcopop tax needs to be passed because it will stop young people buying alcopops, binge drinking, getting raped, having unprotected sex, or getting king hit whilst waiting in line at the local tavern or night club…. where talking 12,13,14,15 year old children here” un-quote.

    and it made my blood boil, it proves whole heartedly that is nothing more than a tax grab and that the tax will not work, she contradicted her self and must of not realized what she said because how the hell can 12,13,14 and 15 year olds….first of all, A: BUY ALCOPOPS and B: GET INTO TAVERNS OR NIGHT CLUBS? So 12,13,14 and 15 year olds would not get king hit because they would not be lining up in a night club line AND be heavily intoxicated because of buying alcopops to begin with?, why can’t you or the Government see this point?

     


    I, along with many others should not have to pay $23 for 4 tiny 300 ml cans of Pulse when I would like to enjoy a few drinks after work quietly at home. They used to be $11 a 4 pack now their $23, I thought the tax increase was only 30c to $1.30 per can?? well to go from $11 to $23 is an increase of $3.00 per can!!

    I can buy a 750 ml bottle of vodka, well maybe not “Smirnoff” but a cheaper brand for as cheap as $18.99, but it still does the job; plus $3.50 for two litres of Coke, just $22.49 for a good 40 odd standard drinks in that bottle opposed to a mere 6.8 standard drinks in a 4 pack of Pulse vodka at 7% per can, mixing your own, kids don’t know how much spirit to pour to equate to one standard drink, so they end up with 5 or more standard drinks in one glass or dirty great big party mug, or about 20% per drink!, not like every binge drinker has done an RSA course!

    As for the rest like the sex and all that, like hell that would be able to happen in a night club where MEASURED alcopops are sold anyway, albeit $15- $20 a piece now because of your tax, that would only potentially happen at home in house parties and such, and that’s then where parents need to take responsibility then, however because of the tax we will see more of these sex issues and possible even rapes, because at home kids won’t be drinking alcopops (Because of the new tax), rather straight spirits or wine, allot stronger, un-measured, more dangerous, uncontrollable way to drink, as they get more intoxicated the mug will then become “half full” with spirits topped up with coke, I’ve seen it with my own eyes, which will lead to stronger binge drinking, allot faster intoxication and finally the bad sexual experiences, just think if there was no alcopop tax and these kids were drinking RTD’s this would not happen… go figure!

    All this tax has done is move the problem from one place to another, taxing is not the answer, and you can’t just raise tax on all other types of alcohol either because that will guarantee your parties defeat at the next election.

    Comment by Aaron Fitzgerald on 08 June 2009 at 01:50:00 PM

  • Steve make sure you opposse this alcopop tax,

    Note: this is not directed at Steve Feilding, it was written in general to the a senate enquiry, and is my opinion, but also has an element of TRUTH!!

    I praise Steve for his opposition to this tax.

    Besides I thought this poxy alcopop tax was only supposed to be 30c to $1.30 per can/bottle depending on the strength?


    Yet Nicola Roxon says and I quote: “Alcopops are like cocktails on training wheels” and when the tax was voted down the first time, she also said and I quote: “Soon alcopops will go from $5.00 each to $2.00 each”


    Well that is a contradiction because even with this new alcopop tax, they (alcopops) were only supposed to increase by 30c to $1.30 per unit, so how the hell could they go from $2.00 to $5.00??? that’s more than 30c-$1.30?????? so they should of not ever been $5.00 to drop back to $2.00 in the event of the tax failing and therefore have Nicola Roxon then whinge and wine about it and then make the said statement above? so please explain that? ... whinge and wine?? ahh wine?? maybe she should whinge and alcopop about it rather than wine??  ha ha ha…..funny hey….......


    My favourite drinks were $11 for a 4-pack of Pulse now their $23!! that’s an increase of $3.00 per can!! what ever happen to only 30c-$1.30?, or a carton of 24 cans went from $52 to $109! why should we have to pay that much for one carton of drinks?, its ok for pollies when you want a drink or two; it is either all tax free booze or paid by tax payers “US”, well now I suppose people or these so-called under age kids, (The ones who miraculously can buy alcohol at bottle shops) just buy a full strength bottle, has 40 standard drinks in it, get ABSOLUTly wasted off it, at least at the end of the night they have a nice big bottle they can urinate in and then smash across the road, or throw it at a passing car or smash it over another persons head!!!!


    I proves its revenue, the government and Nicola Roxon have forgotten the bull crap they have said, and lied about to Australia about this tax,
    get it together people! and stop stuffing the country about, just remember who got you all to where you are today!!


    and since my last emails, I suppose its typical, I have not got a single response from a single one of all these ministers and senators alike regarding this issue I have emailed, what is the point of having contact details if no one ever gets a reply , I have been ignored, If I was supporting the tax, I suppose I would get an acknowledgment for sure..


    this tax is a disgrace!

    Aaron Fitzgerald :(


    P.S Thank you Steve Fielding..

    Comment by Aaron Fitzgerald on 08 June 2009 at 01:45:56 PM

  • Hi Steve,
    Governments have to tax.
    Taxes on alcohol is good as it costs a lot to society.
    Taxing alcopops is good in principle.
    I drink.
    Increasing tax raises the cost of alcohol which decreases the amount of alcohol consumption.
    Decreasing alcohol consumption is good for families.
    You say to the government they are not addressing the problem. The tax is a step in the right direction which you should not oppose on the grounds that they should be doing more. Especially since you are not saying what should be done but are asking people what should be done.

    Some Proposals

    * Ban all alcohol advertising as they have done with ciggies.
    * Govt should not pay cost of peoples alcohol abuse. Medical, criminal etc..
    * Increase tax on all alcohol related drinks.
    * Restrict operational hours for pubs, bottle shops
    * Introduce local option where each community decides how many if any alcohol outlets there are.
    * Lisenced premises produce social impact statements and eliminate all negative impact due to their products.
    * People being allowed to ban themselves from pubs and bottle shops.
    * Compolsary rehab for all alcohol related criminals
    *Social impact statements for all events.  when alcohol fuelled problems arise event organizers pay the bill. Even if problems not directly related to their event but associated with it.
    * More funding for AA.
    * Raise the age for people to be able to purchase and enter pubs.
    Young people can be total idiots without alcohol so adding large amounts of alcohol adds insanity to the mix.
    * Offence to be drunk in public
    * All public areas alcohol free. Apply for permit to have alcohol at function.
    *  Harsher sentences for alcohol related offences.
    * Encourage positive alternatives to alcohol.

    Comment by PG on 06 June 2009 at 12:11:51 AM

  • Hi Steve,

    You stand up in what you believe in and “VOTE NO” to passing the goverment “rip off of the century” through the senate.

    Kev & his crew have done nothing to prevent this “Binge Drinking Epidemic” that is apparently sweeping Australia and hitting the young & vunerable all of a sudden.

    Binge Drinking cannot be attributed to Premixed Drinks, it is society & attitudes that have to change in order to fix a problem. Australians live in a society that has an attitude of “No Worries, She’ll Be Right Mate, Few Beers & A Barbie Mate”, to the outside world we are a country that has a laid back reputation with not a care in the world.  Societies need to have informed choices, education and tighter rules & regulations maybe then attitudes will change.  Paying more does not mean people will stop “Binge Drinking”, but what it does mean is people will look for a cheaper option - this may not always be a safer option.  Alot of Wine & Beer carry a higher % of alcohol than say a UDL can which now has had it’s alcohol % dropped to 4.5%.  I can go out and Buy 5 Bottles of Gossips Wine for $3.99 at my local supermarket in red or white, in whatever style I like and since the Alcopop tax was introduced instead of picking up a 6 pack of 375ml cans that cost me $18.99, I am picking up a 6pack of 700ml higher percentaged wine for only $20, great bargin not a safe option for my liver though!!

    Kevin is out of step with his “Australian Public”, I believe he has lost sight of exactly who put him there and why!!  He needs to start listening to the people, we are sick of listening to him making execuses about mistakes he is making with his governments support,  (The stimulus being paid to dead people, people in prison, people who live overseas - who signs these things off!  Is there NO COMMUNICATION) all it does it make people angry.

    Steve, you hit the nail on the head when you said there are other things you can do to help combat the Binge Drinking Crisis in the Young instead of tax grabbing fists full of cash to chuck money at the problem.

    I support the NO Vote 110% to passing this bill it is now and has always been nothing more than a “KEVIN 07 JOKE!!”

    Comment by Rod31 on 28 May 2009 at 10:58:05 PM

  • Steve,

    Hard-working Aussies all over this wide land are sick and tired of Kevin 07 and his tax grabbing ways.  He has done nothing to fix “BINGE DRINKING” it is in fact getting worse, as more people reach for bottles of 700ml or 1 litre Spirit to have a few drinks with their mates.  Lets face it, it is way cheaper than buying RTD’s or Alcopops as Kevin likes to refer to them as.

    The marjority of people that have infact contributed to his tax coffers are people in their 30’s, 40’s & 50’s, an easy target because we are the only ones left with any cash to pay the ridiculous prices that are now required at the checkout.  The Teens and 20 somethings head straight for the spirit section where you guessed it Jim Beam have a buy one 700ml get a free coke for $29.95.  Kevin then amazes me as he then cannot understand why the violence is rising, but insists the tax grab has worked because RTD sales have fallen by 36%.........has he stopped to check any other figures….straight spirits perhaps.

    I support your “NO” vote to passing this bill, the tax grab is a government farce, just another way to make a buck @ our expense!  Maybe you need to look at tightening up Liquor Licences, Bringing Back Pubs shutting their doors at 11.00pm, Host Responsibility, Calling a Halt to Schoolies Weeks….....the list goes on!! 

    If Kevin wants to bring in more cash to put the government back into the black he could look at cutting back his travel around the world.  Let all of the ministers fly economy class, it was good enough before there was business class.  Maybe he could take a pay decrease, there are a million ways he could generate more bucks….

    I myself buy RTD’s frequently and cringe everytime I walk to the registers to pay, it would be cheaper for me to buy 700ml spirits but I trust the people mixing these RTD’s know what they are doing! I know if I have 4 bottles of Jim Beam then that’s my lot, 700ml bottle where does it stop, who know what the exact measure is anyway.

    I’m with you STEVE, say NO!!!  There are other things Australia can do to fix this!!!

    Comment by Jewels211 on 28 May 2009 at 09:43:55 PM

  • Steve,

          For VCE units 3/4 English oral SAC, we have to choose a current issue debated in the media and present a speech as a chosen persona. The aim is to be ‘persuasive’. I have chosen this issue of the alcopops tax. I am also taking your point of view and have chosen you as my persona. Thank you for making my job so easy. Your points are extremely easy to follow and provide a rock solid argument for my speech. You are my new favourite politician. Keep up the good work.

    Christian

    Comment by christiansmith on 21 May 2009 at 08:50:49 PM

  • I don’t understand Senator Fielding’s position on the Alcopop’s Tax. Is he under the impression that this tax will lead to a higher rate of binge drinking among young people? If not, then why isn’t he supporting it? The sole reason young people drink alcopops is to get drunk.

    When he says “Figures are emerging which confirm my worst fears that alcohol related hospital admissions have not gone down since the alcopop tax was introduced,” what figures is he talking about?

    If he’s talking about what he said in the Senate a couple of months back, it is hardly relevant. When asking the government how they were measuring the success of the tax he said, “Last month the New South Wales Labor health minister said alcohol related admissions to hospital emergency departments in New South Wales have soared by 130 per cent for 18- to 24-year-olds in recent years.”

    Ok, so alcohol related admissions in recent years have gone up. BUT, the alcopop tax has been in place for ONE year, so this is hardly a relevant figure is it?

    It seems the government isn’t the only one giving responses that are full of spin and lacking in real answers.

    Alex

    Comment by hough on 05 May 2009 at 11:57:26 AM

  • Hey Steve, well done on your stand.
    Check out this site http://www.pedestrian08.org
    We outline one key zero tolerance measure that deals with 3 linked issues:
    1) Alcohol fuelled violence;
    2) Binge drinking;
    3) Pedestrian deaths.
    I’d love to see your comments there.
    Keep up the good work.
    regards
    Mike

    Comment by Far Right Mike on 01 May 2009 at 10:25:34 AM

  • I make a further comment in regard to Senator fielding ‘s comment that all will be fine and dandy if alchol is not advertised an TV in certain times, this only demonstrates that Mr feilding is not in the real world.

    I have been a policeman, and now own a busy bottle shop, I think most people are so pissed off with the way in which the country is run, the future, the stress , they simply want to remove themself from reality for a while and get drunk.

    The way in which all polititions act , no wonder there is no respect in the country, you watch the question time and the attack on each other, surely sends a great message to the general public.

    I personally have NO time for any polititions and I am not alone.

    The general saying is They are all the same. I concur!

    In regard to the Tax, I really dont care whether it stays or goes, but one thing for sure its nothing more than a further tax on 90% of the population, which they can not afford.

    People will still drink, like it or not. I have noticed no difference in sales, the product mix has changed but thats about all. lately Alcopos have almost returned to the same sales levels as before the tax hike.  People just get used to it, like petrol.

    Richard Konarik

    Comment by ruddwatch on 28 April 2009 at 08:24:38 PM

  • Binge drinking has been around fore ever, most of us including Mr (Strip Club) RUDD has binged. We enjoy a beer with our mates, even the former governor general is encouraging us to Raise a Glass. Truth be known most of us like getting drunk and having fun with our friends . So why the elevation in violence. Enter recreational drugs.
    Scenario: Lets call this person Aussie, Aussie, Aussie

    Aussie, Mixes his own spirits at home before going out to a night club
    Aussie is Already Pissed as the nips have got bigger as the bottle empties.  (The nips are getting bigger) Australian Crawl 1980s yep 1980
    Aussie does not know how much he has consumed as measured alcopops are now too expensive.
    Aussie attends a city location, he does NOT drive.
    Aussie goes to a night club (free country your allowed too)
    Aussie takes a ecstasy Pill then another, a line of speed some cocaine etc.
    Aussie is in lala land , so Jaeger bombs are a good idea, he spends $60 on a round for his mates, Kevin07 is happy because the government has just made $24.00 (39%)
    Aussie is having fun, the drugs have kicked in and home is the last place he wants to go.  He could not get there anyway, because its impossible to get a Taxi and there is no public transport.
    Aussie, like most is well behaved, but one of his mates who has taken 4 pills and some ICE , by this stage is becoming aggressive.
    Aussies mate gets into a fight, and Aussie being an Aussie sticks up for his mates.
    The polititions take the easy road and blame the alcohol, but binge drinking has been around for ever, and this extreme violence has not.
    Aussie, is not himself until the following Thursday.  A hangover usually lasts one day, a drug come down last three or four.


    Aussie Aussie Aussie oh oh oh!

    More can be seen on this topic and Kevin Rudd’s performace. http://www.ruddwatch.net (this is a non income generating site. In fact it costs me.

    Richard Konarik
    Richmond

    Comment by ruddwatch on 28 April 2009 at 08:22:52 PM

  • BanzaM,

    Thank you for responding to my post.

    Consolidated Revenue is a black hole out of which funds are used the way that it suits the government at the time and NOT NECESSARILY FOR THE INTENTION ORIGINALLY STATED.

    An obvious example is the introduction of Parity Pricing of fuel.

    Initially we were told that we should not be paying less for fuel than the rest of the world just because the oil comes from Australia and is not imported and that the government of the day, in their wisdom would tie the price that we paid for our oil to the world price and use the additional tax (excise) to build better roads.

    THAT MONEY GOES INTO CONSOLIDATED REVENUE.

    Well, if the RACV is to be believed not much of that money is actually spent on roads.

    And what about this Alcopop Tax which was supposed to address the issue of binge drinking? 

    From what I and others have been able to find out NOT ONE CENT of the $300 million gathered so far has been spent on alcohol abuse prevention programs.  If the government were fair dinkum in addressing the problem surely a sizable proportion of that $300 million would already have been allocated to such programs.

    So lets get back to your assessment of ‘my’ idea which is a funding model that the government cannot get their hands on to spend for other purposes e.g. giving a rise to pensioners – no matter how noble that may be.

    I live in Victoria and would like to mention two possible models which no doubt already exist in other states in one form or another.

    The first is the Transport Accident Commission (TAC) charge attached to each registration payment/renewal. 

    This money goes directly to the TAC and not the state government’s CONSOLIDATED REVENUE.  The money is used to pay for medical expenses and compensation to victims of motor accidents. 

    The fee is determined according to a formula and more powerful cars as well as buses, trucks, police vehicles, taxis, ambulances etc. pay higher fees according to the risk involved. As an example my last registration payment (on a Toyota Corolla) involved a Registration Fee of $178.00 and a TAC Charge of $378.00. 

    If I only paid the registration Fee and not the TAC Charge then my permit to drive on the road would not be renewed.

    In the same way a Community Clean Up Charge could be added to the permit issued to alcohol distillers and importers based on the alcohol units (volume x strength) produced/imported AND THIS MONEY GO DIRECTLY TO COVER EDUCATION AND MEDICAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH ALCOHOL ABUSE.

    So why not a NATIONAL ALCOHOL ABUSE COMMISSION (NAAC) which would not only pay for the results of alcohol abuse but also fund education and advertising programs in a similar way to the TAC????

    You mention $1.6 billion.  If you check the senator’s last posting on this blog the estimated cost to the community is $16.5 billion a vast difference to the $1.6 billion raise through the tax. No doubt some of that estimate is due to productivity loses which would be difficult to measure as well as other factors which could be argued.

    Medical costs and compensation for injuries related to alcohol abuse are much easier to define. Such costs could be charged directly to the NAAC.

    The other model that I would like to mention is WORKCOVER.

    This model would actually be more appropriate as it is based on the WAGES BILL of the insured i.e. the cost is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONATE to the amount of wages being paid during the coming year with an adjustment up or down at the end of the year if the estimated wages were more or less than the estimate supplied in the first place.

    Again no need for endless court cases to get the money out of the alcohol industry.

    Now wouldn’t a mechanism like that be better targeted and more likely to get results than for the tax to go into Consolidated Revenue and be spent on God knows what, rather than on alleviating the alcohol problem that we have in Australia???

    Regards

    Ange

    Comment by Ange on 27 April 2009 at 12:36:49 PM

  • hey steve. if we can stop the amount of shops that sell alcohol at a Very cheap price it would make the industry change for the better. i have had 4 new location that has opened near me that people can buy it from. alcopop is what i feel is the problem its really the amout of shops that we as a public can buy alcopops ect from. why do the supermarkets on every street corner sell alcohol?? why can any small shop get a liquire lincess and sell it. what ever happen to the good a pub/bottle shop the has regulations to sell to people with staff that are trained with RSA to say no to people while other people that are drunk can goto a locol supermarket and buy as much as he like??

    Comment by myhumpday on 26 April 2009 at 03:06:50 PM

  • Ange,

    If the Booze Tax goes into CONSOLIDATED REVENUE, SO WHAT?  I imagine the 1.6 billion we pay to clean up THEIR mess comes out of CONSOLIDATED REVENUE.


    “If on the other hand the payment/penalty/court judgement is specifically to clean up the mess then the government cannot get their hands on that money to just spend it on whatever they like.”

    .

    Your idea would require the government to spend millions taking companies to court. The companies spend millions defending themselves. It would take years to resolve cases and establish precedents. Look how difficult it is/was to get money out of the tabacco companies.  The only people who would benefit from your idea are the lawyers.

    Taxes are simple and clear-cut.  And it would be easy enough for the government to legislate that Booze Taxes can only be spent on appropriate programmes.

    Yours, BanzaM

    Comment by BanzaM on 25 April 2009 at 04:38:04 PM

  • Got excited and pressed the wrong button before I finished.

    If you tax the booze the tax goes into CONSOLIDATED REVENUE. 

    If on the other hand the payment/penalty/court judgement is specifically to clean up the mess then the government cannot get their hands on that money to just spend it on whatever they like.

    Please refer to my earlier post yesterday.

    Comment by Ange on 22 April 2009 at 01:34:59 AM

  • BanzaM, don’t TAX the booze.  JUST MAKE THEM PAY.

    Comment by Ange on 22 April 2009 at 01:31:26 AM

  • Senator Fielding said “Thanks Ange, yes should be $15.6 billion - a massive amount of money wasted on cleaning up after drunken hoons”.

    And why should the rest of us pay for the mess they cause? Tax their booze and make them pay for the mess THEY make.

    Comment by BanzaM on 21 April 2009 at 02:56:58 PM

  • hey steve, are you worried that if a double dissolution election was held that you would lose your seat? correct me if i’m wrong but has your support base in voting grown beyond the 1.86 % plus the preferences that got you elected in 2004? do you think that it will actually come to a double dissolution?

    i agree that binge drinking is a scourge on society, i am a young australian who is out most weekends looking for fun and on a few occaisions have seen violence because of drunkeness, and i thought, like the government, that you would support any legislation that would help prevent the breakdown of family values, especially amongst young australians.

    do you disagree with the tax or do you just not think enough is being done?  because i’d hope you were realistic and would know that what you were asking for not even the opposition would approve. its worth noting that the previous government created this loophole for the liqour industry in the first place why side with them?

    i’m not angry just dissappointed i thought you would be happy to put your name to any policy that tackled binge drinking, obviously not

    good luck and i look forward to a response

    Comment by ryanvorherr on 20 April 2009 at 06:21:04 PM

  • Thanks Ange, yes should be $15.6 billion - a massive amount of money wasted on cleaning up after drunken hoons.

    Comment by Senator Steve Fielding on 20 April 2009 at 10:12:46 AM

  • Sorry I got excited!!!!

    Typo in my own comment.

    SHOULDN’T YHAY BE $1.6 BILLION AND $15.6 BILLION (with a “B”).

    Obviously should read:

    SHOULDN’T THEY BE $1.6 BILLION AND $15.6 BILLION (with a “B”).

    Comment by Ange on 19 April 2009 at 10:12:05 AM

  • Senator,

    I believe that there is a typo in your last statement:

    ‘The government is complaining that $1.6 million in taxes will be lost if this measure doesn’t go through. Australian taxpayers already pay out $15.6 million a year to mop up the mess caused by binge drinking. Do the math, we’re paying out a fortune to fix this hideous problem and couldn’t that money be better spent?’

    SHOULDN’T YHAY BE $1.6 BILLION AND $15.6 BILLION (with a “B”).

    Rather than taxing the alcopops why not do something similar to what happens to polluters of the environment where the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY takes them to court and the polluter is forced to pay for the clean-up of the damage that they have done to the environment.

    Perhaps there should be a SOCIAL PROTECTION AGENCY which would proxecute industries such as the tobbaco and alcohol industries and make them pay the medical costs incurred by society as a result of the use of their products.

    If individuals can sue the tobbaco companies for getting cancer then why can’t we as a society sue the industries which cause such havoc amongst our population.

    An added benefit would be the dramatic rise in the cost of alcohol drinks as the alcohol industry tried to recoup the money spent on health and education programs that they were forced to pay.

    What do you think, senator?  TOO HARD??  Maybe but is the idea worth throwing out there for general discussion in the media????????

    Comment by Ange on 19 April 2009 at 10:07:56 AM

  • Senator Fielding,

    “Half a loaf is better than none” as the old adage goes.

    Take the half loaf that is being offered - and keep on fighting for the other half.

    Comment by BanzaM on 19 April 2009 at 09:31:44 AM

  • Steve, it is a point of absolute disgust to me that these parties simply do not say ‘Steve, you have a point, we are banning Advertising at these sporting events immediately’. I can’t see any argument FOR leaving these loopholes in place. None at all. You are doing the right thing.
    No silver bullet is going to fix this problem, but a concerted effort from a number of directions will have an effect.
    Consider supporting a Pedestrian 08 blood alcohol limit. This will enforce ‘responsible’ drinking at the street level. One more Pedestrian was killed in my home town last night. How many does it take?
    regards
    Mike

    Comment by Far Right Mike on 18 April 2009 at 04:51:46 PM

  • don’t back down on this Senator Fielding, I think the fact that they’re going to re-introduce it without any additional policy measures demonstrates that they are not serious about binge drinking and this is just a tax grab.

    Comment by Kate on 18 April 2009 at 02:32:56 PM

  • The alcopops tax is to come before the Senate again during Budget week in May. I am urging the Rudd government not to waste this opportunity to really tackle binge drinking and change the cultural mindset of alcohol abuse in Australia.
    I know many people think that this tax measure is good enough. I disagree. I think the government thinks this tax makes everyone think they are doing something for binge drinking and they can just then put this issue aside. But if this government wanted to really fix this problem it would have held a summit a year ago to find out the best way to do it, and that wouldn’t be a tax on one product. The AMA has urged the government to hold a summit. That request has been met with deafening silence. The government is complaining that $1.6 billion in taxes will be lost if this measure doesn’t go through. Australian taxpayers already pay out $15.6billion a year to mop up the mess caused by binge drinking. Do the math, we’re paying out a fortune to fix this hideous problem and couldn’t that money be better spent? Let’s get serious and take some action. Ask yourselves - has alcohol fuelled violence in our streets lessened? Have hospital admissions dropped? Look at the recent drink driving charges over the easter weekend - drunks are still getting behind the wheels of cars! A year after this tax was introduced, there remains an enormous problem in our community with binge drinking and alcohol abuse. I have told this government that I will support this tax measure if the government also legislates to close the loophole that allows alcohol ads to be shown during sporting events in family viewing times. I’ve told the government it can take five years to phase those changes in. The government stubbornly refuses to do it. The government must also follow through on its promises to put warning labels on alcohol products (all Australian alcohol products have these warning labels on them when they go overseas) as well as a supplementary advertising campaign and for control in regulating the industry to be taken out of the industry’s hands. 72% of Australians want these alcohol ads stopped. Why is the government ignoring their wishes?

    Comment by Senator Steve Fielding on 17 April 2009 at 10:29:44 AM

  • In Melbourne, people are murdered on the streets by alco fuelled drunks. We need to do the following:
    1. Apply the same road safety research that applies to Motorists to those other road users ‘Pedestrians’.
    2. Work out what the acceptable and safe Alcohol limit is for a Pedestrian to be able to do things like:
    a) Cross streets safely;
    b) Get into cab safely on the traffic side of the car;
    c) Down here only : Navigate their way safely in and around Tram stops;
    d) Reliably navigate safely around Train platforms.
    According to my reading of this source: http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/BicyclesPedestrians/Pedestrians/Pedestrians.htm, the limit would be 0.08.
    So, when you are over this limit you are unsafe to other road users and need to be fined and/or isolated from harming yourself.
    This will clean up Melbourne in a couple of weeks.
    regards
    Mike

    Comment by Far Right Mike on 16 April 2009 at 04:47:56 PM

  • Alcopops is being reintoruduced - Time to make amends for your last screw up Steve.

    Comment by adrian on 16 April 2009 at 10:46:47 AM

  • Hi Steve,

    I admire the stand you are willing to take here and am glad someone actually cares about our youth, rather than pretending to. This alco pop tax is just a money grab and I am not surprised at Labor for it, but am still dissapointed in their lies.
    I think your position on stopping sports time alcohol advertisement is a real step forward and is very much akin to stopping smoking advertisments, a breakthrough.
    As for this tax; if it has to happen, then if the government isn’t just money grabbing, why not force them to promise that all money ‘raised’ must go to teaching about alcohol damage in schools and also putting the money into alcohol rehab programs.
    If the government refuses to use the money in prevention and support, then it just shows their utter hypocrisy.
    I am also dissapointed the Libs haven’t made a harder stand in forcing the government show its true colours.
    Good on family first for straying true to their beliefs and morals.

    Comment by livinginhope on 15 April 2009 at 05:24:55 PM

  • Thanks for your support Gary. I think the government’s actions today in announcing it will reintroduce the alcopops tax shows it is just not serious about tackling this problem. And the Australian people are letting the government get away with this deceit. This is purely and simply about raising revenue because it doesn’t even scratch the surface of the binge drinking epidemic. I implore this government to show some guts and break the link between alcohol and sport that preys on vulnerable young people so that we stop this alcohol abuse problem from destroying future generations. More than 72% of Australians want alcohol ads to be banned during sporting events in family viewing times. This government has the power to do more to stop binge drinking. It’s time it did.

    Comment by Senator Steve Fielding on 15 April 2009 at 04:57:36 PM

  • Steve,
    Fully support your stance. The Health Minister is clueless.
    I have 2 kids, 24 & 20, Previously my 20 year old and her group would buy say 4 alcopops before they went out and knew exactly what they had consumed.
    Since the increase they now purchase 700ml bottles of spirits and have no idea how much they are drinking. 4 glasses half filled with spirit and topped up with coke and they are off their faces. Price increase did not fix their binge drinking, just exaberated it.
    Also I am a 52yo and used to buy 1 or 2 cartons of mixed drinks per year. I now buy none.
    The smokescreens around this issue by Labor are exactly that. Stick to your guns.
    Regards

    Comment by GaryC on 15 April 2009 at 03:43:16 PM

  • Regret and Damien,
    Thank you to both of you for responding to my post.

    I would like to respond to both in two parts the first answering the issue of taxes and tobacco consumption and the second relating to alcohol.

    Damien, obviously the people that you know are a lot more money conscious that my friends, and dare I say smarter than at least two of them, who, when the price of cigarettes became unacceptable, instead of having the good sense to quit or cut back, switched to roll your own and boasted how they had cut the cost of their habit by 50%. Here I would like to ask Regret once again, can you remember any of your friends who quit smoking stating that the main reason was the increased cost of cigarettes?

    Regret, thank you for the links to the articles on cigarettes and alcohol.

    I would like to address each of the articles you refer to as well as comments made by Professor Ian Olver on 19 March and SuefromKingsCross also on 19 March.

    First lets look at the U.S. article regarding Tobacco free Kids at http://tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0146.pdf

    The chart on pg.2 shows that from 1981 at a price of $1.50 and a national consumption of 32 billion packs of cigarettes to 1999 when the price of a pack was $2.50 the consumption had dropped to 23 billion packets, a drop of 9 billion.
    From 1999 to 2007 the price had risen to $4.25 and consumption dropped to 17 billion, a drop of 6 billion packs. The price increase in both cases was approximately the same (66% and 70%) and yet the decrease in consumption in the first instance was 50% more than in the second instance.

    Here I would now like to examine the statement made by Prof. Olver who stated that, ‘Since the early 1980’s smoking rates in Australia have halved – with price control through taxation the most effective intervention.’

    In both of these examples other ‘interventions’ have been ignored.

    Who remembers the graphic anti-smoking advertising of the 1980s e.g. a pregnant woman holding a cigarette while a voice over stated, ‘How early should baby start to smoke’.

    Or the anti-smoking campaigns in the U.S. in the 1990’s of prominent public figures such as John Wayne and Yul Brenner, who died from smoking related cancer,  making TV ads in which they announce, ‘I would be alive today, if I didn’t smoke.’

    SURELY SEING THINGS LIKE THAT WOULD BE A WAKEUP CALL FOR MANY PEOPLE.

    What about the banning of smoking in many workplaces beginning in the early 1980’s?  Then the banning of tobacco advertising at sporting events?

    DID THEY HAVE NO EFFECT AT ALL???????

    Any so called correlations between price and consumption whether of tobacco, alcohol or any other product must look at ALL the KNOWN variables and this weakness in the findings of many studies is acknowledged as is the case in the very good study on the effect of price increase and alcohol consumption you refer to at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CXH/is_1_26/ai_90681217/?tag=content;col1

    SuefromKingsCross,  19 March, also refers to two very good studies on price and alcohol consumption at http://findings.org.uk/count/downloads/download.php?file=Wagenaar_AC_7.txt  and at
    http://findings.org.uk/count/downloads/download.php?file=Meier_PS_12.txt”
    The first article argues for an introduction of a minimum price for alcoholic drinks based on alcohol content of the drink. 

    What is interesting is that the price in Australia in ALREADY SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER per unit of alcohol than that proposed by the article. 

    So where does that leave us?

    Back to the article on alcohol consumption that you refer to above.

    Taking a closer look at the conclusions of that study it appears that social factors have a greater influence on alcohol consumption that does price. This is evidenced by states that raised the legal drinking age to 21 having a greater decrease in alcohol consumption amongst youth compared to those states that maintained a legal drinking age of 18.

    I believe that Jeff, 31 March, hit the nail on the head when he stated that in Italy and Greece children are taught to drink at home and grow up with a RESPONSIBLE ATTITUDE TO DRINKING ALCOHOL.

    So here I would like to thank Damien for pointing out the obvious and that is that Labor are now going to put forward a much broader bill taxing a greater range of alcohol drinks with tighter advertising restrictions.

    After all isn’t that what Steve was on about in the first place.

    Comment by Ange on 05 April 2009 at 07:56:06 PM

  • Ange

    Thanks for your question. Raising taxes is a known way of reducing tobacco consumption, particularly in vulnerable groups (ie the young). For a nice summary see this fact sheet from the US Campaign for tobacco free kids: http://tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0146.pdf

    There is also a useful article on the issue of raising alcohol prices to reduce consumption here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CXH/is_1_26/ai_90681217/?tag=content;col1

    Comment by Regret on 04 April 2009 at 07:36:22 AM

  • Hey Ange, I can’t believe none of your friends state cost is a factor in them quitting smoking. I personally know heaps of people that have cut back or quit smoking because of the realisation they would save heaps of money. The alcopops tax was not intended for people to quit drinking, but an attempt to fight a particular type of drink which shamlessly promotes irresponsible drinking to the youth of Australia.

    ps to those cheering on Steve for his decision.

    Labour are now going to put forward a much broader bill taxing a greater range of alcohol drinks meaning much more than just alcopops will be going up. With tighter advertising restrictions added on to the bill I bet Steve will actually vote this one in.

    Comment by damien on 04 April 2009 at 12:20:52 AM

  • The increase in tax on anything ends up denying the battler but the rich still have the money to do whatever it is they want. Tax hurts the battler, the family man on one wage bringing up a family is hurt but the whingers don’t seem to consider this. If your kids are binge drinking then I must ask what are you as parents doing about it. Maybe you think the government should be responsible for their upbringing. Secondly, what respect does Rudd have for our constitution when he can ignore the law in relation to bills on taxation. Maybe I will just ignore the fine I get and see what happens. Rudd is not above the law, he is our servant except somebody obviously forgot to tell him this fact.

    Comment by leatherman on 03 April 2009 at 05:47:02 PM

  • Regret,

    Maybe Steve had to vote this Bill down at this time to make a LOUD statement to the Government that what it is doing about binge drinking is not enough.

    If the reports that the Distilled Spirits Group is going to withdraw alcohol advertising before 9.00pm are true, then this the first step in a community wide response that is needed, with ALL players taking responsibility for their contribution to the problem or being a part of the solution.

    If Steve had voted for this Bill, then I think that would have been the end of it. There would have been very little else done by this Government on this issue.

    Comment by acs on 03 April 2009 at 12:49:03 AM

  • Regret,
    I am not sure if you read my posting which appears just below yours where I assert that increased taxation is ineffective as a tool for social engineering.

    In support of my claim I would like to use an example that we are all familiar with and that is the tax on tobacco as a means of reducing smoking in the general population.

    A carton of Peter Jackson Regular (6 x 30 cigarettes) costs $77.05 at Coles in Campbellfield.  The same costs only $37.49 at First Duty Free.  Therefore the tax is $39.56 or 51% of the cost of the cigarettes at the local supermarket.

    Over the last 30 years the cost of a packet of these cigaretter has increased from around $2 to almost $13.

    In that time many of my friends have given up smoking and all were happy with the money that they saved by not smoking but NOT ONE OF THEM EVER GAVE THE INCREASED COST OF CIGARETTES AS THE REASON FOR QUITING. The reasons given were either for the sake of their own health or the health of their children who had been subjected to passive smoking.

    I’m sure that you know people who have quit smoking.  I wonder did any of them ever tell you that they quit because of the increased cost? Probably not.  I would be very surprised if their reasons would be anything other than health related.

    I personally don’t know of any case where there has been a DRAMATIC AND PERMANENT CHANGE in social behaviour due solely or even mainly to the use of punative taxation to solve the problem.

    I would challenge you to come up with even one (yes, just one) example where this has been the case.  But if you can’t think of any, perhaps you can contact Professor Simon Chapman or Michael Daube who no doubt have based their comments on successful examples of the effectiveness of punitive taxation in modifying socially undesirable behaviour.

    I look forward to your reply as I would be happy to learn of any such examples.

    Ange

    Comment by Ange on 03 April 2009 at 12:20:39 AM

  • Got an e-mail from a young Labor thing. basically telling me to come here and leave a rant about ruining everything.

    I can’t agree with them one bit, the fact they’re willing to sacrifice health just to make some quick cash for now, not to mention they’re trying to spam they’re way into making you think a tax will do health justice.

    Well done, I’ve lost my faith in the Government, the fact the alcohol industry is doing more about binge drinking abuse then the Government really goes to show how deceitful and spin doctored to buggery this Government is.

    Taxing has elevated the problem of binge drinking amongst youth incredibly, they just made cask wine, cases of beer and spirits all the more attractive.

    When the tax fails, the damage will still lurk as people have being effectively converted and won’t see point in going back now.

    It’s going to be the future generations that foot the bill for the damages this tax causes when preventative healthcare is required.

    I’m glad someone with some authority in this country has some common sense.

    Comment by John burns on 02 April 2009 at 08:49:21 PM

  • Steve
    You say the Government offered no concrete proof that the tax worked. You have not offered contrary proof.
    Rather than resort to hysterical language why not listen to experts who devote their lives to improving the lives of Australians. Experts who offer evidence based public health advice. Experts like Professor Simon Chapman from Sydney University who says the defeat of the alcopops bill is a huge setback to the fight against binge-drinking. Or Michael Daube, President of the Public Health Association. Even the Christian Temperance Union

    Yes, alcohol is a problem in Australia. Your naive stance has not helped this problem one iota.
    Forget the cameras. Forget the stunts. Try and represent the mere 2500 people who voted for you.

    Comment by Regret on 01 April 2009 at 08:54:41 PM

  • Steve,
    As you rightly pointed out using taxes for social engineering is at best ineffective and at its worst/most obvious a cynical exercise in tax grabbing by the government.

    We are already taxed to much as it is.

    Why don’t you and Family First have a serious look at the National Debit Tax as proposed by Leonard Crisp which would see direct tax reduced to 1% of a persons income.

    Yes it may be hard but it is certainly worth looking at as it would help EVERY FAMILY in Australia, and isn’t that what FAMILY FIRST IS REALLY ALL ABOUT????

    Comment by Ange on 01 April 2009 at 12:36:36 PM

  • I have spoken to many young people about this issue - and I still am - and the one thing that stands out is that they still drank regardless of the tax on alcopops. This tax did not work. The government offered no concrete proof that it worked. Go into any bottleshop, ask a young person and they will tell you that people substituted those drinks for spirits, often in bigger measurements, or just paid a bit more to keep drinking them. Many Australians have a problem with excessive drinking. It affects us all because it increases the incidence and severity of domestic violence, it increases the issue of violence in our streets and it costs us as a community $15.3 billion a year to clean up. Aren’t you sick of paying out that money to fix up the mess caused by drunken thugs? When do we stand up as a nation and say that excuse “I was too drunk, I don’t know what I was doing” is not good enough when it comes to domestic violence, abuse of children, road accidents and violence in our streets? I’m annoyed that the Rudd government thinks a tax hike on one product is going to satisfy the public’s demand for action on binge drinking. And I’m annoyed so many have fallen for the government’s spin that it’s too hard to do anything about the link between alcohol and sport. Try telling those women fleeing their homes because of drunken abusive husbands that it’s too hard, try telling that to kids cowering under their beds in fear as their mother or father rages in a drunken episode, try telling the parents of a young man or woman lying in a hospital bed after being attacked in Melbourne’s streets by a drunken thug that it’s all too hard. Yes, it’s hard. But that’s no excuse not to try and do something to help those struggling with alcohol addiction and our communities that suffer because of it.

    Comment by Senator Steve Fielding on 01 April 2009 at 09:35:47 AM

  • Steve
    You have shown incredible naivety in your stance on alcopops and have confused the opportunity to grandstand on your hobbyhorse with your role as Senator for Victoria.
    Funding for meaningful anti-alcohol measures was on the table but you threw it away in your desire to take the high moral ground, demanding measures that you knew the government was in no position to be able to deliver.
    What was the point?
    I so deeply regret voting for a publicity seeking fraud like you.

    Comment by Regret on 01 April 2009 at 06:55:46 AM

  • Well done Steve, I don’t think you have gone far enough though. Constitutionally the collection of the tax so far is illegal. The government cannot impose any taxation on anything until it has been passed by both houses. The arrogance of the government and their total disregard for our constitution is sickening. They want other to obey the law but they consider themselves above it. The tax was not legal then and it is still not legal. I have every receipt from my purchases of alcopops since the illegal move by Rudd to force the tax illegally on the people and I for one will be sending copies of those receipts the tax department demanding a refund. As for all the whingers who want to blame you for kids binge drinking, what a cop out! take some responsability and educate your children. It would seem you want to blame somebody else for your own shortcomings in your ability to raise your own children. Yes I do speak from experience with four children that are now young adults with their own families. It is typical of people who have failed to be good parents to want to blame somebody else. Now Steve your next job is to assist all those responsible drinkers who have paid that illegal tax to get there money back from the Tax Office. good luck and keep up the good work.

    Comment by leatherman on 31 March 2009 at 01:22:32 PM

  • Anna (from 20/3/09) obviously doesn’t go to pubs and clubs. Anna supports taxes to pay for adverising etc but on just one product. Get a life Anna! Hoteliers have a community responsibility to provide a safe “watering hole”. They sell the booze and should pay increased taxes on all products. Booze providers must be accountable for the fights etc that happen in and around their premises. Really…even when the Police come they can now ligitimately be attacked by brawling drunks who “fear for the safety of their drunken/brawing friends” (per Butcher trial in WA). Steve Fielding is right to assume his hard stance on this ridiculous revenue raising disguise of the Rudd government who cannot balance the books since his economic spending spree!

    Comment by Taxed enough! on 31 March 2009 at 01:14:06 PM

  • Take cars…taxed on purchase, the fuel, servicing and lets not forget the infringments along the way. So how does this compare with alcpops? Tax kids for being born…then breathing…then dinking. Instead of the alcopop tax why not increase taxes on parents/others for suppling booze, raise the drinking age then harshen up the penalties at the end of the line when they get out of line.

    Comment by Taxed enough! on 31 March 2009 at 01:03:27 PM

  • This is a cultural issue which needs cultural change. In both Italy and Greece children are taught to drink small amounts of wine at the family meal. As the child/teenager matures, the amount of wine is increased. The young person learns how to drink and in moderation. In Australia we forbid the use of alcohol until 18, then open the floodgates and wonder why they go overboard. Lets use our common sense and take away the asepcts of the ‘forbidden fruit’ and make it a normal part of the culture in order to avoid the binge drinking culture all to prevalent at present.

    Comment by Jeff on 31 March 2009 at 12:58:14 PM

  • Whether the tax was effective or not the appropriate action would have been to abstain given the state of the national accounts and the GFC -

    Comment by Kym Durance on 31 March 2009 at 12:02:06 PM

  • Petra, et al,

    “So BanzaM and all you other strange tax-lovers,”

    “strange” - I have no argument with that.
    “tax - lover” - not on your life! It is easy to avoid paying taxes on tobacco - don’t smoke. Tax on alcohol - don’t drink and you don;t have to pay it! Fuel tax - don’t drive and you avoid paying it!

    “With regards to alcopops being the cause of :

    UNWANTED PREGNANCIES:  Ridiculous
    ABORTIONS:  Even more so.”

    I never said that alcopos were the ONLY cause of these. So don’t twist my words.  These have been issues throughout human history - but I bingedrinking and a culture of drunkennesss exacerbates the problem.

    “UNWANTED AND UNLOVED CHILDREN:,- I know many of those, none caused by binge-drinking, Alcopops or otherwise.”

    Again a problem throughout human history.  Anbd while you may not know of any caused by alcopops doesn’t mean I don’t know of any.

    “VEHICLE ACCIDENTS: Caused by drinking all sorts of alcohol long before alcopops was even a word, drugs and mostly STUPID, SELFISH ATTITUDES. ”  Granted. But again it is a problem exacerbated by alcohol consumption in its various forms. Alcohol is know to depress peoples normal inhibitions. Normally a person does not want to be percieved as “stupid” or ‘selfish”, when drunk these natural, normal, inhibitions are depressed - a person is more likely to ehibit “stupid selfish behavious when drunk.


    Are we going to tax attitudes OR STUPIDITY?

    Bingedrinking is not an “attitude”;  Bingedrinking is “stupidity”.  Taxing alcopops is a tax on “stupidity”. “Stupid” people who bingedrink should be taxed. taxes can then be used to show others how “stupid” bungedrinking really is.


    “OBESITY: I was watching Insight on SBS last night, Teenage Obesity was the subject. Kids at 14 having surgery to loose weight. “

    Alcoholic drinks are high in calories. And consumption of excessive calories, in whatever form, contributes to obesity.

     


    “What is the fix for that?  Weigh all under 18’s and tax them by the kilo that they are deemed to be overweight? Weigh the lot of us and do the same? This too is a huge problem, waiting to be fixed by banning advertising at certain times, they say. Same argument. A tax won’t help that, but wait for some bright spark to impose one.”

    Haaaaa now that’s a thought. Thanks for the suggestion!

    “So- you people employed by us, paid by us (not some distillery, food company or sporting organisation) - get off your butts and DO something real.”

    Well, this remark is not addressed to me. I am not paid by you nor am I employed by you. Being a self employed landscape gardener.

    Comment by BanzaM on 25 March 2009 at 07:56:58 PM

  • So BanzaM and all you other strange tax-lovers, I hope you are going to listen to SS today.With regards to alcopops being the cause of :

    UNWANTED PREGNANCIES:  Ridiculous
    ABORTIONS:  Even more so.
    UNWANTED AND UNLOVED CHILDREN:,- I know many of those, none caused by binge-drinking, Alcopops or otherwise.
    VEHICLE ACCIDENTS: Caused by drinking all sorts of alcohol long before alcopops was even a word, drugs and mostly STUPID, SELFISH ATTITUDES.  Are we going to tax attitudes OR STUPIDITY? The “recession” would be over then. (Make the punishment fit the crime would be a better fix)
    OBESITY: I was watching Insight on SBS last night, Teenage Obesity was the subject. Kids at 14 having surgery to loose weight. What is the fix for that?  Weigh all under 18’s and tax them by the kilo that they are deemed to be overweight? Weigh the lot of us and do the same? This too is a huge problem, waiting to be fixed by banning advertising at certain times, they say. Same argument. A tax won’t help that, but wait for some bright spark to impose one. So- you people employed by us, paid by us (not some distillery, food company or sporting organisation) - get off your butts and DO something real.

    Comment by Petra on 25 March 2009 at 04:03:44 PM

  • what are all of you’s thinking? the ones who dislike the alco-pops tax being taken off???
    hes done a great thing to save the goverment claiming more tax and most of you and steve is correct it comes down to alot more than just how much it cost to buy the alcohol..
    i should know im seventeen and the alcohol tax did nothing to me and when or how much i drink
    i’d either work more to pay for the pre mixed drink or just go and buy a bottle of straight vodka or midori and mix myself which trust me was not 30ml shots or id go and by a bottle of passion pop for 7$!! or a bottle of pink and id be set for the night..
    it seriously comes down to the amount of alcohol in the drink and how you drink it and a hint most young teens younger than me are used to “sculling”
    im not the one to binge drink ive been brought up by my parents to drink responsible and if you go out with four drinks thats all you have and ive stuck by it…
    the look is not good
    by adressing this issue steve as brought up that the tax has done nothing
    doing some research for my oral presentation and the percentages of anything have just risen up
    i congratulate you steve for your win in parliment
    i know im only young and imsupposed to be yeah! cheper grog lets go and get guttered but im not i like to drink and have a good time and yer on occasions i get drunk but it has nothing to do with the tax or taxing of any alcohol its more who supplies it to them or how much percentage in it and how there brought up parents giving there kids at 15 or younger are just irrisponsible you are just setting your child up to be an alcoholic you shjould be ashamed at yourselves and not blame a “tax” for binge drinking in younger teenagers
    thanks

    Comment by ss on 25 March 2009 at 01:40:24 PM

  • Steve;

    As a member of Family First, I was disappointed by your vote against the Alcopops Tax. I think you will have your work cut out - explaining your “all or nothing” stand to the larger community. As the saying goes “Half a loaf is better than none”.

    Personally, I doubt that the decoupling of alcohol and sport would affect the issue of binge drinking.

    I was talking to a youthful customer the other day - he offered me a drink, which I declined. When he discovered I was never drank alcohol, he asked “How do you have fun?” And that, I believe, is the real issue binge drinking is percieved to be “fun”. Getting drunk allows young folk, particularly girls, to abandon any inhibitions in their pusuit of “fun”. Boys, naturally, are able to take advantage when girls abandon their natural inhibitions -

    While taxing alcopops would not in itself significantly impact the consumption of such beverages - and I would not have expected it to do so; Taxing alcopops would, at least, have raised the funds needed to confront binge-drinkers with the true cost of their “fun” through advertizing campaigns.

    And what is the “true cost” of binge drinking - unwanted pregancies, abortions, unwanted and therefore unloved children, vehicle accidents resulting in death and permanent injuries, obesity - the list is almost endless.

    Comment by BanzaM on 25 March 2009 at 09:27:50 AM

  • Senator Fielding your decision is an absolute disgrace and is a slap in the face for many families who are affected by alcohol use and misuse. Increases in taxation on alcohol drinks especially on RTD’s has been effective in the past in reducing alcohol uptake by young people even in other countries.

    Worse still, is your knowledge that millions of dollars would be handed back to the liquor industry if this bill was not passed.

    As David Templeman from the Alcohol and Drug Council of Australia (ADCA) pointed out on radio last night….“it’s like putting Dracular in charge of the Blood Bank!”

    DISGRACEFUL! When is someone going to step up and protect our children?

    Comment by Darrell on 25 March 2009 at 08:34:18 AM

  • Good on you Den, right you are too. As I’ve said earlier, I work in a University and see so many of our SMART ones smoking, I find it very distressing and frustrated that the message has not gotten through. It looks like every second kid there is smoking.This morning I hear that the “alcopop tax” will stay in place untill May to “recoup money”. That proves my earlier point, THE MONEY HAS ALREADY BEEN SPENT. And not on anti-binge-drinking programs. I am amazed at some of the attacks on Steve, some are just downright idiotic. But who could think that given all the proof with taxing things in the past and anti-everything programs, that a tax was going to do anything? And if they think that this can so easily be fixed, wait just a few years, when these people have kids. See what they’ll have to teach THEM. There’s worse to come. I was watching Insight on SBS last night, Teenage Obesity was the subject. Kids at 14 having surgery to loose weight. What is the fix for that?  Weigh all under 18’s and tax them by the kilo that they are deemed to be overweight? Weigh the lot of us and do the same? This too is a huge problem waiting to be fixed by banning advertising at certain times, they say. Same argument. A tax won’t help that, but wait for some bright spark to impose one. So- you people employed by us, paid by us (not some distillery, food company or sporting organisation) - get off your butts and DO something real.

    Comment by Petra on 25 March 2009 at 07:24:15 AM

  • while is is obvious that people care about the children , others are more worried the higher cost , Alcohol should be higher taxed right across the board ,taxing one and not the rest will only them send to cheaper alcohol ,stop the advertising of all alcohol ,break the link to sports ,sports will survive,Programs alone will not work unless other measures are taken ,the young still smoke cigarettes why advertising was stopped and yet their are no programs in place to inform them only what they see on TV programs should be started at a school level and at home , NO parent want to see their child lying in the street drunk in their own vomit , but it does happen and its not all due to alcopops , would a higher tax have gone into programs for alcohol NO because in the end there would not have been enough money to sustain the program long term , they even advertise Tasmania is a Beer ad what does that tell you , the drinking problem has been around long before Alcopops ,it has been accepted as a way of life , a few drinks in the pub on the way home from work or a few while watching a game on TV or maybe drinking at the home ground Violence and alcohol go hand in hand and advertising only go to encourage it when its linked to sports , at any given time during the night children are sitting in a park somewhere drinking and its not all alcopops , where are the parents in the club or pub this is not the governments responsibility its your, these children grow up to be adults and the circle begins again , to take a stand is the first step the second step is to remove all advertising of alcohol the third step is programs in schools and alone with all the others the parents should be talking to their children enforcing these programs

    Comment by Den on 24 March 2009 at 11:20:17 PM

  • No MJ, you are missing the point, large as it is. The tax was NOT working. The money raised would NOT have gone to fixing the problem.That is definetely a hoax. Anti-binge drinking campaign? More advertising? Only one winner there. When has that worked?  They have no idea HOW to fix it. The money would have disappeared into consolidated revenue, or worse a payrise for them or their super. It still may, It has not been returned yet and likely won’t. The need to actually DO something instead of taking the easy way out, apply taxes on everthing and sit back and say “Well, we tried” This problem is an attitude problem, not a financial one. You just need to watch the TV and listen to people to know that. I sit on an inter-campus bus and listen to the Uni students laugh, joke and compare their own outings with that of the latest “Sports hero” who made the headlines with their behaviour, this happens almost daily now. No mention about how expensive it is.

    Comment by Petra on 24 March 2009 at 04:10:52 PM

  • Steve your latest post shows that you are still missing the point.

    YOU (Family First) have made the biggest problem drink among young people significantly cheaper.

    YOU (Family First) have scuttled the fund that was going to pay for an anti binge drinking campaign.

    YOU (Family First) have stripped nearly 2 billion dollars from the Federal budget and placed it in the alcohol companies’ pockets.

    Please at least tell us that you have a workable alternative and funding source to put foreward.

    Comment by mj on 24 March 2009 at 01:13:29 PM

  • Can anyone who has read the news or seen the footage of the brawl outside the Queensbridge Hotel in Southbank in Melbourne have any doubt that one tax on one alcohol product will fail to fix our drinking culture - a culture that thinks it’s okay to get blind drunk and smash the face in of someone who looks at you the wrong way? The Rudd government has failed all of us with its pretence that it was tackling binge drinking by taxing one product. It was a blatant tax grab and Australians should demand more. You should be demanding, as I am, that your government show some guts and start the process of change. Yes it will take a while, yes it will be difficult. But it will be worth the effort it it curbs the violence, abuse and despair that excessive alcohol causes in our community. You are all obviously passionate about this issue - why don’t you put that passion to your government and force it to do more? Why should we settle for a tax grab?

    Comment by Senator Steve Fielding on 24 March 2009 at 12:40:46 PM

  • Bravo Steve!

    I have just read the article from Sydney Morning Herald “Time for Sport to get off the grog” posted on your website.

    Finally someone in the media is getting it!!
    Congratulations on their fine article. Of course sport will survive without alcohol sponsorship. There are many other corporations who would love the exposure and will fill the gap.

    While your vote last week was confusing to many, some of us have been able to see the bigger picture that you are pushing for, and you have got people talking.  Well done.

    Keep the pressure going on this. Don’t let the momentum get away!

    Comment by acs on 23 March 2009 at 03:52:32 PM

  • Steve I’m amazed; you know more than the AMA, Medical Journal of Australia, Phsycology Australia, a vast range of Academics, the list goes on. They all thought that the Alcopop tax was working, they should have come to you first, Family First like.

    They also thought that the money commited to combat binge drinking funded by the tax was a good move.

    Families actually thought that the extra $1,500,000,000.00 would be good for them given the recession, job losses and all.

    On what possible grounds could a party with the doctrine “Family First” justify backing the alcohol industry and causing that sort of harm?

    I agree with the government (unfortunately) when they say they have to hand the tax already gathered back. You’ve made them hand it back. You can’t say the tax is wrong (yes you did - voted against it) then say you and your Liberal buddies will back legislation to keep money from what you are saying is an unfair tax.

    It’s not a game Steve, you are out of your depth and have caused close to $2,000,000,000 worth of harm to this country - not counting any violence, rape or death that an increase in the consumption of Alcopops might cause.

    You’re a one trick pony Steve and you’ve forgotten how to do your trick. That means no preferences next time round, no support from the voter base you’ve let down and you are famous internationally as a friend of the alcohol industry. Wow!!! Still the alcohol industry has 1.5 billion reasons to give you a job.

    Comment by mj on 23 March 2009 at 03:15:48 PM

  • Please correct me if I am wrong but it appears that you don’t believe in the tax but you were willing to agree to the tax/disinsentive on sweet drinks specifically targetted to females/daughters in exchange for devastating famiies with a child in a sport financially supported by the alcohol industry. 

    I really don’t think you alone should be able to decide on the issue of advertising alcohol at sporting venues. 

    I am really sorry you have an all or nothing attitude to alcohol abuse.  I think I am not alone in thinking something is better than nothing.  I really love my daughter.

    Comment by LAMB on 23 March 2009 at 10:37:27 AM

  • the house of reps would not even have passed a advertising bill on a Alcohol ban during sports programs on TV or in sports grounds , but blocking the Alcopops bill and forcing the government to rethink the way it presented the bill is a good thing , I dont know if you people who are upset that this legislation didn’t pass was because you where trying to protect children or your sports , we have had such a bad drinking culture in this country for far to long and when anyone tries to disable it people cry unfair to sports dont you all see the link to advertising and sports should be severed ,advising sports on TV is not a bad thing but alone with alcohol is   , the place for advertising Alcohol should be in clubs and pubs not at sports events or TV or at the local shopping centre at a bottle shop that is close to a supermarket Are you really protecting children or yourselves ,without the advertising children would not even know these product where available , We are breeding a country full of Drunks and no one else is to blame but us for we have turned a blind eye , it would not have taken much for the government to amend this law to include the ban but it chose not to so who are they protecting the alcohol companies or the children ,think about this with some common sense a higher tax on one product only send people to cheaper alcohol so put a higher tax right across the board , stop all advertising of alcohol in public venues except for clubs and pubs , stop early openers and late night closing why do we need place like this to be open at these times this effects not only the youth of Australia but also middle aged people who fall over drunk in the street , domestic violence all linked to advertising of alcohol , we get pamphlets in our letter boxes telling us about cheap alcohol come on really think about raising tax on one product does nothing

    Comment by Den on 23 March 2009 at 10:28:44 AM

  • Bangbangbangers ...your outburst directed at Steve is based on one simple premise.  Which is, does the tax on alcopops reduce youth alcohol problems? 

    If you can confirm that categorically then your little vent is justified.  Otherwise you have no basis to attack anyone over this.

    I think that the evidence shows that youth drinking habits have shifted to the more dangerous option of buying unmixed drinks.  There is no evidence to suggest that youth alcohol problems have been reduced by this tax.

    So then we have to ask the question, Why do something that not only doesn’t work, but may cause a more severe form of alcohol abuse?

    Just coz Rudd thinks something is a good idea, doesn’t mean it is.  In fact if Rudd suggests something we should all get in the habit of lifting it up and having a good look underneath.  It is probably covering up dead fish.

    Comment by Kimbo on 22 March 2009 at 01:11:04 AM

  • Regarding the comment -

    “Senator Fielding’s brinkmanship on this issue is reportedly based on a commitment to a comprehensive strategy or nothing. And, to the great disappointment of Cancer Council Australia and a number of other independent public health groups, he has achieved the latter.
    Professor Ian Olver
    Chief Executive Officer
    Cancer Council Australia
    Medical oncologist”

    No, it is the Government who has achieved nothing.
    The Government has shown itself up as being very weak in its willingness to commit to a tough comprehensive approach needed to tackle to binge drinking.

    It is very easy to put a tax on a product, and then quote statistics to say there has been a small decrease in overall alcohol consumption. So what?
    Where was the proof that “binge” drinking had been reduced? It wasn’t there, so Fielding wanted the Government to commit to a comprehensive program, but it wouldn’t.

    To all those who are very angry with Fielding, please send angry letters to your Labor MP’s demanding that they do much, much more on binge drinking than put a tax on one product.

    Comment by acs on 20 March 2009 at 08:17:22 PM

  • To all those who are attacking Fielding’s decision….

    Why are you happy that the Government you voted for could only come up with a flimsy tax on one alcohol product as an attempt to deal with the problem of binge drinking???

    Why do you think this is even remotely good enough from the Government?

    Comment by acs on 20 March 2009 at 08:02:09 PM

  • Steve – my disappointment in you is palpable.  How? How could you vote against the alcopop tax.  You have failed me and failed families across Australia.  Reducing youth binge drinking is a challenge that needs to fought on a number of different fronts.  It’s a complex puzzle, which needs to include a advertising bans, restricted sales, educational campaigns and taxation.  Taxation is an important piece of the puzzle.  Increasing the cost of alcoholic soft-drinks   would reduce sales among a youth looking for cheap alcoholic options.  It would also diminish the profits of the alcohol industry which is systematically targeting our youth.  By voting against the alcopop legislation, you have denied me and other Australians the chance to wage a holistic and comprehensive attack on youth drinking
    Disappointing Steve.  I expected as much from the Liberal opposition.  I did not expect this from you.

    Comment by Anna on 20 March 2009 at 07:26:27 PM

  • I see where you are coming from but targeting the sponsorship of sport needs to be researched.
    A decade ago they banned the sponsorship of sport. Sport lost the funding from the tobacco company’s, who replaced the tobacco companies?
    Alcohol companies. It’s all good to discuss the funding of sport by alcohol companies but is taxing people the way to replace the funds that sport losses. Should we think of the options before discussing a tax? In the current climate the money provided to sport is subjective. Sport needs to be funded. We have the Pokies man in parliament who wants to ban poker machines; ok he has his platform, but the clubs that have pokies fund community sport and other good things. Develop a structure that doesn’t rely on alcohol sponsorship before discussing bans. The tax on alcohol should be reformed across the board and not targeting one product, the government didn’t think they reacted to studies. It could be a good idea to use the alcohol tax for sport but the government will have other ideas.
    Take away the funding of sport by alcohol companies, who else will support sport.
    Gaming organisations….......
    We then start discussing the harmful affects of gambling.

    Comment by Think on 20 March 2009 at 05:26:44 PM

  • No, the reality is that MOST teenagers don’t get drunk on the stuff. Certainly none in my circle do.The teenagers I know have a drink, have a good time but do not wipe themselves out. Neither do they they get in the car and drive. They call home and ask to be picked up, like they were taught by us. It’s a minority that are causing all this. A tax will not fix it. Attitude adjustments are needed, on all sides, starting in the home. But I feel that ship has sailed.

    Comment by Petra on 20 March 2009 at 04:07:50 PM

  • The real reality, is that most teenage drinkers would be too lazy to go to the trouble of mixing their own drinks. Alcopops aren’t called RTDs (ready to drink) for nothing. They are a cynical exercise by the distillers to hook a new generation into spirits.

    In the early part of getting the habit, its all about taste, convenience and image, and some stuffy old image of an obscure coats of arms on a bottle of scotch or vodka does not appeal to a 13 or 14 year old.

    Spirits were in terminal decline until the RTDs came along. Sen Fielding and the Opposition are being toasted as we speak by the distillers for saving their industry and their profits.

    Comment by Graham on 20 March 2009 at 03:39:04 PM

  • Steve ...ignore that previous nutter.  Lefties are a violent lot when they don’t get their way ...tis the way of the world (unfortunately).

    I am glad that someone is calling Labor to task.  They have begun a rolling program of lever pulling with little thought or insight.  This alcopops tax demonstrates perfectly how this government doesn’t understand complex issues let alone the consequences of its so called fixes.

    I wish I had a magic word to descibe how this government is governing but I don’t.  They do not attempt to defend their policy in depth, they simply shift focus to the opposition.  They take a simple path that will please their constituants, not the path that is right for Australia long term.  They are obsessed with “doing something”, therefore we have knee jerk reactions and simplistic retoric.

    This government is dangerous and needs to be hammered day and night.  We don’t want big inept government and thanks to you and the Liberals they are finally being make to take stock of themselves.

    Comment by Kimbo on 20 March 2009 at 03:55:40 AM

  • Bravo Rod,

    You’ve summed up this discussion in a very clear and unbiased way; a new tax has been rejected by a democratic majority in government. 

    Steve Fielding is only a tiny part of a majority which voted against this new tax.  Most people who voted the new tax down were Liberal politicians.  My opinion of Liberal politicians has improved as a result….

    Comment by Debs on 19 March 2009 at 09:48:14 PM

  • This is a new tax. We dont need new taxes. One man alone cannot stop a new tax. However, more than 50% of the senate can. That’s the way this democracy works. 100% of the senate will decide how they will vote, more than 50% wins. This new tax failed to go through government because more than 50% of the senate opposed it. The remainder of the senate voted for a new tax.

    Comment by Rod on 19 March 2009 at 09:12:01 PM

  • I am for solutions, albeit from the country across the way or not.
    I understand the issue here is taxation and this governments attempt to raise cash and lower rates of teenage drinking at the same time.  Surely you have to admit that a ban on TV advertising in conjunction with the taxation would of been a perfect scenario. This government ( that I voted for by the way) had that option and it chose not to take it because it is in the back pocket of big media and big alcohol.

    This argument is no different to that of tobaco advertising and taxation 20 years ago and I reckon we will be having the same argument in another 20 years when we get around to banning KFC from sponsoring sport.  Tobacco, Alcohol and Deep fried chicken will bloody kill you!!!

    My point is that I am ready for change in the way we advertise and promote anything thats bad for you. I have a 3 year old that will one day be a 16 year old and I dont want her to see advertising on TV that promotes the latest and greatest Fizzy drink with an 8% alcohol content, no more than I want her to see an ad for a packet of benson and hedges or for a happy meal thats full of trans fat and sugar.

    Advertising is written by psychologists who know how to get you to consume. Alcohol hitched its wagon to sport years ago in the same way tobacco did and its a golden rainbow of profits for them. They will fight tooth and nail not to lose it. The media make a motza from the advertising revenue and sporting clubs love the sponsorship. The big end of town wants teenagers to drink a lot, they dont care how many kids end up in an emergency ward on friday night.
    They want to appear to be doing something when in reality its a smoke and mirrors game.

    Taxation was a winner for the government because it got revenue, big alcohol kept its sport, big media kept its advertising revenue and we the people got a half assed excuse for legislation that is meant to be helping when its not going to solve the problem.

    We can fix this because this fight isnt over yet, increase the taxes and ban the advertising. Thats the direction for proper change….anything else was fiddling with the edges for a half baked result.

    Thanks for your time.

    Comment by Scotty on 19 March 2009 at 09:01:49 PM

  • Two brief comments on previous posts -

    1.  Netsy, I’ve found your candid comments on the increase in youth alcohol consumption since the government’s alcopops tax to be true also.  When I asked the guy at the local bottleshop what young people were doing since the price rise, he said “They’re pooling their money to buy bottles of spirits and pouring half a bottle into a big bottle of coke to share.  They’re drinking themselves stupid.” 

    2.  Professor Ian Olver, you say “Based on what we know, passage of the “alcopops” tax would have reduced cancer risk in Australia and opened the door to a longer-term change to Australia’s unhealthy drinking culture.”  This is a very impressive statement, if it were true.  How would the cancer risk be reduced by young folk drinking stronger mixes because they can no longer afford to drink pre-measured pre-mixed drinks, so they are sharing spirits in coke bottles, increasing their risk of contracting meningitis?

    How do these habits contribute to a “long term change to Australia’s unhealthy drinking culture”?  And please direct us to the research which shows that binge drinking - sharing a bottle of an unregulated amount of spirits / coke - decreases cancer risk.

    Your credentials are impressive, but you don’t sound very informed about the detrimental effect of this excessive tax on young people.

    Comment by Debs on 19 March 2009 at 08:21:06 PM

  • as a mother of teenage kids i know that the alcopops tax hasn’t worked.kids now buy spirits in bottles and mix their own usually at a lot stronger rate than in any alcopop.if you seriously want to fix teenage drinking the tax needs to cover all alcohol not just premixed.a good hard look at how adults drink wouldn’t hurt either.not all adults but a lot are not able to go out without a drink.even to kids events at school and clubs.this tells our kids that to have a good time you must drink. the only trouble is that kids [as in everything they do as teenagers]are unable to be moderate and so we end up with binge drinking.its the social attitude to drinking that is the problem and from there lies the answers.

    Comment by netsy on 19 March 2009 at 07:47:57 PM

  • Senator Fielding’s decision to oppose the “alcopops” tax is a victory for the spirits industry. As well as the early data showing the tax coincided with a net reduction in alcohol consumption (reported in the Medical Journal of Australia), a good indication of its potential effectiveness was the liquor industry’s outspoken opposition.

    We saw this for years, with the tobacco industry opposing every evidence-based attempt to cut smoking rates through public policy. Since the early 1980s, smoking rates in Australia have halved – with price control through taxation the most effective intervention.

    Senator Fielding’s brinkmanship on this issue is reportedly based on a commitment to a comprehensive strategy or nothing. And, to the great disappointment of Cancer Council Australia and a number of other independent public health groups, he has achieved the latter.

    We are a non-political organisation, but realise pragmatism is part of politics. Based on what we know, passage of the “alcopops” tax would have reduced cancer risk in Australia and opened the door to a longer-term change to Australia’s unhealthy drinking culture. Senator Fielding has closed that door – and thrown the baby out with the bathwater (or in this case with the sweet, fizzy spirit mix).

    Professor Ian Olver
    Chief Executive Officer
    Cancer Council Australia
    Medical oncologist

    Comment by Professor Ian Olver on 19 March 2009 at 07:46:44 PM

  • Brent, Comment by brent on 19 March 2009 at 06:10:14 PM,
    You need to have a more positive influence on your children and not expect the government to stop your kids from drinking. If the tax was put through, your kids would have just gone for an alternative.
    So really is this the right answer?

    Comment by Gezz on 19 March 2009 at 07:26:52 PM

  • Well, if 13 and 14 year olds are getting drunk on these drinks it just proves the point that the tax would not have helped anymore than the fact that under 18s are not supposed to be allowed to purchase alcohol in the first place. This is obviously a much deeper problem and stems from the home. Where would these kids be getting the money from?

    Comment by Petra on 19 March 2009 at 07:08:01 PM

  • Can someone, for this alcopop tax, prove that this tax was going to tackle the problem of binge drinking, without discriminating against those responsibly drinking RTD’s? No, so go and make a constructive argument to our Government how they should tackle this issue.
    Everyone is on about the youth being the problem, obviously the rest of Australia has not set a good example over time.

    Comment by Gezz on 19 March 2009 at 06:32:46 PM

  • Nickh, when we see the increased sales figures of pre-mixed drinks in the coming months, we should keep in mind a few facts.

    75% of pre-mixed drinks are ‘dark spirits’, consumed by older working men.  The emotive argument used by the government to win public support for this big fund-raising tax, is that alcopops = kids binge drinking, but only 25% of pre-mixed drinks are consumed by under 30’s.

    Right now, our kids are getting drunker by mixing their own drinks from bottles, stronger.  At least on the pre-mixed drinks, they can see how much they are drinking, and their pre-mixed drinks are around 5% alcohol.

    When the sales go back up, consider how many middle-aged people have moved back to the pre-mixed drinks from bottles of spirits and beer.  Some people will try to make the whole increase look like it’s all young folk.  The rest of us will want the facts.

    Comment by Debs on 19 March 2009 at 06:16:04 PM

  • I am depressed.

    I am upset and angry.

    What a stuff up!

    Shame on you Mr Fielding!

    Next time you look in a mirror, do you see a man of little humility? Do you see a man of arching ego and unbalance?

    Listen- can you hear cheers from the alcohol industry? Perhaps you can smell the vomit of the teenage girls whose first introduction to drinking are these types of drinks? Reach around and pat yourself on the back for taking millions and millions from hospitals,schools,job creation,the environment…...and giving it to the wonderful achievement of making these drinks that bit more affordable.

    Your justifications are self serving,illogical and pathetic.

    Shame on you Mr Fielding.

    How depressing it is to have such a non-representative nit as you holding any position of authority let alone being part of the balance of power in the senate.

    I can only hope you find some wisdom and temperance and reconsider and remedy the mess you have made.

    These comments are written by a father with three children.

    PS You are not related to George Bush by any chance? I am so tired of people of people who are so-called “true to their principles and know what is right in their gut”.

    Give me intelligence and calm and considered logic any day.

    Comment by brent on 19 March 2009 at 06:10:14 PM

  • I would like to a big THANKYOU Senator for taking the right road, even if it is the hard road.  You are doing a great job standing up for what you believe in.  God got you right where you are, and He is using you greatly!  You ARE making a difference, You ARE most definately appreciated by many!
    Thankyou, and bless you!

    Comment by kazisme on 19 March 2009 at 06:00:56 PM

  • Attention: Steve Fielding

    Dear Steve,

    Sit back, take a deep breath and have a good long think about what you’ve just done. Take away the context of your attempted negotiation, and realise that you have just reduced the price of alcholohic beverages that are marketed to young adults.

    This has to be one of the most irresponsible acts to have ever been performed by a policition, or for that matter, anybody in a position of authority.

    Remember, your backfired stunt is the reason that the groups of young people that buy these drinks will continue to do so at an increased rate.

    I would like to see acknowlege this publically, and face up to your decision when the sales figures are published in the coming months.

    Comment by Nickh on 19 March 2009 at 05:53:32 PM

  • And now I read that Steve is also having a go at the pollies superannuation payouts, You go Steve. We need more like you, calling it what it is.How is it that they who make the rules that tell us where WE put our super and when WE can take it, are also the same lot who let themselves take theirs when they want to, and at a much better and guaranteed rate. You go Steve.

    Comment by Petra on 19 March 2009 at 05:34:33 PM

  • HMMM anyone find it strange that steve only got negative comments in the early part of the day. Got a few members off the community working together? Or just icondevil?

    No one writes like some here around the same time and strikingly similar ways of writing.  hmm could be we have some insider help here!

    Comment by Petra on 19 March 2009 at 05:25:49 PM

  • Icondevil,

    I’m a little affronted that you seem to be saying my post isn’t my own, or is in some way a fake contribution (?).  I’m sure it happens sometimes in some forums, but I can assure you I’m a firstime poster here, and a genuine contributor who has no connection to the other poster you also seem to think is an “insider”.

    Comment by Debs on 19 March 2009 at 05:22:51 PM

  • One visible measure I’ve noticed is that since this tax has been introduced there have been less broken bottles of alcopops left around at bus stops, on the verges etc… oh well I’ll have to go back to picking these up again - a small complaint compared to those who have to pick up the human wreckage now this has been voted down.

    Comment by adrian on 19 March 2009 at 04:52:27 PM

  • Thanks Steve for not supporting the alcopop tax government fundraiser, which hasn’t reduced drinking among teenagers in my area, that’s for sure!

    As a middle-aged pensioner I used to enjoy a six-pack of these drinks weekly, but can’t afford to now.  The alternative is now to buy a bottle of spirits and mix it.  The difficulty is mixing the right strength - at least these alcopops were premixed to about 5% alcohol, and it was easy to limit consumption in strength, and to see easily how much you’d drunk in a can or bottle.

    Since the alcopop tax, young people in my area pour spirits into a large coke bottle at much more than 5% and share the bottle by drinking straight from it and handing it around.  What about meningitis!  The government ran a campaign about the danger of contracting meningitis by sharing drinks, but they refuse to see that their tax has caused a big increase in this behaviour.

    Thank you again Steve for recognising that this tax is just about government income.  It has delivered no evidence that drinking has reduced in young people, or indeed in people my age who drank them.  Not being able to measure the strength and amount being drunk has caused big problems since the premixed drinks have been overtaxed.

    Comment by Debs on 19 March 2009 at 04:08:42 PM

  • Good on you Leigh, a bit of common sense. Make them think of something REAL to do about the problem. Sitting on their complacent backsides and thinking up ways to impose taxes is easy. Where have the days gone when politicians had a bit of guts, called a spade a spade and we actually respected them?. Back then they may even have earned the “honorable” title that they like to give them selves.

    Comment by Petra on 19 March 2009 at 04:00:17 PM

  • Steve,
    I have no problem with you voting this down. I am employed in the alcohol industry (wine) and so declare a vested interest but I really despair at how so many people abuse alcohol and have no real understanding of the fact that anything in excess is dangerous.
    I am also angry at how the irresponsible minority always mess things up for those who do go about their business responsibly and cause no harm to anyone when they drink.
    The reason I support you is that the alcopop tax is a blatant tax grab. Already $300,000,000 has been raised and what was the govt giving back in educational programmes - $50,000,000?  Where was the rest of the money going?

    There is no evidence that this tax has actually reduced drinking. It might have led to decreased consumption of RTDs/alcopops but from all the accounts I have read the sales of large format spirit bottles has actually increased. Doesn’t take a genius to work out that kids will buy spirits and mix their own.

    I also support your view that alcohol advertising should be banned from sporting programmes. The govt had a three year window to enact this yet they did not have the balls to stand up and support your view - seems to me that they are not really interested in tackling this problem and changing community attitudes at all.

    Comment by leigh on 19 March 2009 at 03:36:37 PM

  • Its true, more tax will not stop us from enjoying ourselves. Specially when we get jobs and $ is no longer limiting.

    Comment by Ned Lennoc on 19 March 2009 at 03:32:52 PM

  • and a good job on having a go at pollies super payouts, maybe some of that lifetime payments they get could go towards something useful like educating kids on the dangers of booze instead of cavair and penfolds grange. how much grange will wayne swan be able to buy with his $105000 a year when he retires?

    Comment by gmnicho on 19 March 2009 at 03:29:20 PM

  • way to go Steve!
    there’s no way in the world that taxing everyone is gonna stop the young ones from getting smashed, they’ll just find something else to drink like straight spirits or passion pop, or worse-you can get high on almost anything these days for $30 or even less.
    i’m only 27 so it wasn’t that long ago i was doing what kids today do…get drunk for as cheap as possible. it’s wrong to tax everyone who enjoys a premix because of an out of touch politicans theory that all kids drink is vodka cruisers.
    i agree with less booze advertising, how many kids smoke now in comparison to when the tobacco giants were allowed to advertise?
    more education to kids, ‘hey it might be funny when jono spews, but what about when his 15 year old girlfriend is pregnant or he falls off the train platform into the oncoming xpt?’
    i spose we all thoght we were bulletproof at some stage…...

    Comment by gmnicho on 19 March 2009 at 03:21:51 PM

  • I think its a disgrace that a senator who squeezed into his job with a tiny primary vote can deny the will of a majority government - the representatives of a lot more families than Mr Fielding will ever be!  Stand aside and let the tax on alcopops through.

    Comment by Member of the majority on 19 March 2009 at 02:51:33 PM

  • Congragulations, now the Government needs to show the maturity to ensure the money is not returned to the alcohol industry and to come up with something that will actually decrease binge drinking amonst Australia’s youth.

    This tax had the potential to cause so much damage to australian’s health and you have saved this from occuring, you ought to be proud of yourself.

    Here’s hoping the Government tackle the issue properly now.

    Comment by MBirch on 19 March 2009 at 02:30:17 PM

  • Good Work Steve. Yip Yah for a pollie with the cahoonys to say it like it is. Sport on TV and the promotion of alcohol during it have no place in this society. You did the right thing and at last I am proud to say that I have faith in humanity and politics again.
    YOU DID THE RIGHT THING STEVE!!!! Dont listen to the spin.
    Get on with the job mate and expose our useless political parties for what they are…..Hypocrites!!!

    Comment by Scotty on 19 March 2009 at 02:21:15 PM

  • Senator Fielding

    No one but the bleedingly idiotic can deny that

    Higher Alcohol Tax = Lower Alcohol Consumption

    If you wanted to do something useful you would have got the government to raise the tax on spirits as well. Now you have blown it.

    Comment by adrian on 19 March 2009 at 02:02:01 PM

Leave a comment

You need to be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Join up now.

Blog archives

Bookmark and Share