Senator Steve Fielding - Leader of Family First
Steve chats with 2UE’s Steve Price about the alcopops tax
Posted by Senator Steve Fielding on March 02 2009 | 14 Comments
It’s pretty obvious the alcopops tax has failed to do what it was supposed to - stop binge drinking. Specifically what I want to see is measures which reduce alcohol related hospitalisations and alcohol related arrests. This would be proof of success against binge drinking.
As I said in this interview with 2UE’s Steve Price it’s time the government stopped hiding behind this tax by claiming that it tackles binge drinking when all it does is raise revenue.
I supported this tax to make sure the budget was solid but also told the government it had to address binge drinking. I’ve said the government can keep the revenue it’s got for another six months but over the next six months it must do more to address this problem otherwise I’ll bring the debate back to the parliament until the government gets it right.
There are two things the government can do right now - stand up to the alcohol industry and close the loophole that allows alcohol ads to be shown during the day when sports programs are on and put warning labels on alcohol products. Instead, the Rudd government has just upped the tax on one product to gain revenue.
I’ve read the new research in the Medical Journal of Australian but I still think that substitution of drinks is occuring. What people are failing to get - the government most of all - is that Australia has a culture of alcohol bingeing and that’s what has to be addressed. It will take time and it will take more than just hauling in some tax dollars.
I like a drink, most people do. What I want is to encourage people to drink responsibly and the government, if it’s serious about tackling binge drinking, has to do more. The sunset clause allows six months for them to get it right.
Steven you are 100% correct when you state that there is a culture of binge drinking in Australia, especially young people bothe male and female. I would ask you this; what type of drink is most easily consumed to reach a dangerous level and lead to possible death due to alcohol poisoning? Personally, I believe alcopops to be far too easily consumed quickly (especially by inexperienced drinkers) and by the time you feel “drunk” it is almost to late as your BAC will continue to rise dangerously. Why are you looking to make these drinks cheaper? If you do believe warning labels are a better deterent why are you waiting to now to bring this up? Holding the elected govt. party to ransom over your demands is unfair. Put forward your policies and allow them to stand up for themselves based on merit. I think the Rudd govt. should be congratulated on taking one step in the right direction and the Family First Party should pass this legislation. If the Labour party does not back your seperate policy on alcohol warning labels you will then be able to show them as hypocrites, only interested in increasing govt. revenues. This is the right and democratic way to do things. Please stand up for your beliefs, stop complaining, and let YOUR policies stand.
Comment by damien on 17 March 2009 at 10:21:08 PM
A 35% reduction in sales of alcopops proves to me that my 100% reduction has made a large contribution to the redistribution in the alcohol segmentation of sales. I now only buy straight spirits, beer or wine, as opposed to buying a six pack of pre mixed cans once a month out of convenience whilst attending a party/gathering with family or friends. I am middle income earner that is completey confused by the fact that those who enjoy RTD’s (ready to drink = premixed = alcopops) are being discrimated against by this ridiculous legislation. If the problem is simply teen dbinge drinking, then come down harder or the irresponsible few are supplying the underage with any alcohol and/or raise the legal drinking age to post teen.
To put this into perspective, I am a 28y.o husband that was blessed with the birth of my first child only 13 weeks ago. I am a responsible drinker that enjoys a beverage or two after a hard days work. I have not too long ago been through the prime years of binge drinking, and can vouch for the fact that many a disastrous nights came at the hands of either beer or straight spirits rather than RTD’s.
Senator Fielding, I emplore you to not support this tax even if your advertising concerns are met with. You are correct in your article above when you mention that there is a lot of substitution occuring and that the bigger picture here is the Australian drinking culture. You are correct in my opinion in concerning yourself more about the reduction in alcohol related hospitalisations than the reduction in alcopos.
I hope our Government comes to a more suitable resolution in the next 15 or so years, for my daughters sake, or maybe it will totally be left to me to control.
Just a note for Richard Hicks (AKA Nicola Roxon) please get a tape of the 3AW program with Neil Mitchell from Feb 24th, where an independant study showed an increase in alcohol related hospitalisations since the alcopop tax introduction.
Comment by Gezz on 17 March 2009 at 09:20:05 PM
My wife and I are both pensioners, and we are both born again believers,
and yes at the end of a week we enjoy a couple of these drinks. They don’t
have a high alcohol content and are nice to drink.
When the government put up the tax, a 4pack of the drink I like went from
$14 to $22..So now I can’t afford them,,what a joke. Did the government not
think that there are responsible people out there who don’t abuse
alcohol,,,I guess not. So we all have to be punnished.
It is not fair,,,well i have had my say,,,and hope you stand firm in your
commitment to oppose this bill…
Paul
Comment by Paulh on 17 March 2009 at 06:52:44 PM
Lets look at this in detail!
-Obviously a 35% reduction in usage of alcopops provs that the tax works!
> What about all the other forms of alcohol out there? Needn’t we worry about them?
Not to mention potential for drug use.
-The Government is actually trying something to positively reduce the consumption of alcopops. On the other hand you espouse doing nothing and maintaining the status quo which means more alcohol abuse amongst our young people. Government stand positive your stand negative!
>The only thing the Government is positively doing is satisfying their budget needs, completely disregarding the health of Australians.
-The straight answer is a 35% reduction in usage.
>This is offset by substitution, this tax introduces our youth to more potent and cheaper forms of alcohol not to mention the recent trend for “designer drugs” such as ecstacy.
-In regards to spin senator that is you not the government. Your questions to government represent an attempt to spin the debate away from alcopops and onto your own agenda.
>Senator Fielding has demanded real results from the Goverment, with strategies that will affect Asutralia’s drinking habits. The Government has given us no real evidence nor straight answers regarding this tax.
- Its you that fails to understand the consequences of alcohol abuse because your stance seeks to prolong the abuse and stop genuine attempts to change direction.
>No it’s you that fails to see that Australia wants real solutions to binge drinking, not a blatant tax grab, Australia wants
-education
-advertising restrictions
-no link between sport and drinking
-promotion of a safe drinking culture
-a solution that does not introduce youth to more potent forms of alcohol they would not normally experiment with.
-No it is not about responsible drinking, its about bringing about a positive reduction in the overall amount of alcohol consumed in our community primarily amongst the young.
>Overall amount of alcohol consumed means nothing when the focus group are still binge drinking, most likely to a worse extent. It’s about promoting a responsible drinking culture and putting an end to binge drinking.
-Proven facts show that a positive reduction in the amount of alcohol consumed reduces violence, reduces family diintergration, reduces despair and the incidence of binge drinking. You can still drink, it will just cost you more!
>Indeed and this is done by real strategies not taxing strategies. Australia demands results in a solution to the issue of binge drinking.
“You can still drink, it will just cost you more!”
>Why should the (majority) responsible drinkers pay for the (minority) binge drinkers?
-Health warnin labels are a dog biscuit designed to make people think something is being done. Classic spin in fact. The example of cigarettes proves how little all the money spent on lables and education achieved.
>Ohh right, but taxes are the be all, end all solution to binge drinking?
At least health warning labels may actually make people think about their drinking habits not just substitute to another form of alcohol.
-Education programs mean cost without results.
>Too true, education doesn’t work, why don’t we just get rid of the entire education system in Australia because its so ineffective at achieving results?
-And a sunset clause means more delay while our young people suffer.
>Enlighten me, your now claiming this tax is doing our youth harm?
I couldn’t agree with you more, lets get some real strategies that will see real results.
Get your hand out of the pockets of the alcohol industry!!
>Get your head out of the sand and realise this tax was NEVER about health but merely satisfying the Governemnt’s budget needs.
Australian’s want real results to this issue in our society, taxing is not one of them, as if the kids are going to say “ohh nooo, my drinks are expensive, I’m going to stop drinking altogether”.
Comment by MBirch on 17 March 2009 at 06:17:54 PM
When I was a younger drinker and couldn’t afford the pre-mixed cans I would buy a bottle of whisky for about $12 and a large bottle of mixer and end up more drunk than I would have otherwise, for less cost. Kids aren’t STUPID.
Alcohol advertising should be banned just as smoking advertising was.
Alcohol accounts for most Australian criminal court cases.
BUT to tackle binge drinking or more precisely the alcohol-fuelled violence that occurs, pubs and clubs should have their hours reduced as was in the past. If people want to drink after the pubs and clubs have closed at say 12 midnight, then they should get their supplies beforehand and go home or to a friends to party on, like we all used to. At least then they will be in the company of friends closer to where they live, rather than out on the city streets at 3 or 4am amongst drunken strangers full of p-ss and bad manners.
If you want to tackle the cause of the problem, cut the opening hours to opening at 10am and closing at midnight Monday to Saturday and go back to the more family orientated counter lunch openings on Sundays.
Comment by Russell Langfield on 17 March 2009 at 05:54:21 PM
Sorry to say that the alcopops tax doesn’t work. I have noticed that kids now drink before they go out. They also buy the large bottle of vodka, bourbon or whatever and often drink stronger drinks than before.
There is a mentality that you have to get drunk to have a good time. When I was young we went out to have a good time, nowadays kids go out to get drunk. We need to change that attitude. If we tax alcohol too highly then kids will just change over to other more harmful alternatives.
We need to make drunkeness and violence unacceptable by choice rather than by policing. In order to discourage speeding, an advertising policy in NSW emphasises “Speeding - no one thinks big of you.” with appropriate wiggling of the little finger. It is amazing to see how many people use this gesture when they see speeders and it seems to have some effect. We need a similar thing for drunkeness and the bad behavior that goes with it. It’s an attitude thing and I don’t think taxing is going to solve it.
Comment by Ozziejack on 14 March 2009 at 05:47:54 AM
in reply to richard hicks 2/03/09 you obviously don’t drink and sound like a wowser
Comment by mcmc on 13 March 2009 at 02:20:30 PM
the raise in alcopops tax is a disgrace and just a tax grab. all it does is drive our young people onto drugs like ecstasy, speed and the like. we do not control them so who knows how much their consumption has gone up. now my wife finds it hard to afford some of the drinks she used to like. i drink beer so it does not affect me. also people buy large bottles of spirits and mix their own and then connot tell how many drinks they have had.
Comment by mcmc on 13 March 2009 at 02:19:22 PM
If the Government was serious about tackling alcohol related problems, surely they would have imposed a tax on all types of alcohol rather than just alcopops. You don’t need reports to tell you that substitution is taking place.
There is a guy in Queensland that runs a private security firm for parties etc and he has got some really interesting stuff on his website about what they have observed since the introduction of the alcopop tax. Most frightening for me was his observation that young girls would now turn up at parties with a bottle of vodka rather than 6 pack of pre-mixed because that bottle of vodka was cheaper.
Here is the link to his web page:http://www.privatesecurity.com.au/private-party-security-news.php
Comment by Kate on 05 March 2009 at 09:23:51 AM
I’m happy to accept your comments and I’m sure that in the light of those comments you defineately don’t take kickbacks of any kind. Still, I am a passionate believer in the idea of reduced alcohol consumption, though I do have a glass of wine like yourself. It is my belief that a higher tax is the right course of action to reduce alcohol consumption.
Comment by Richard Hicks on 03 March 2009 at 12:40:53 PM
Senator Fielding;
I must say that you are right about one thing and that is that a night out does not have to end with someone lying in hospital. It is also totaly unacceptable for someone to say “I was drunk , I didn’t know what I was doing.”
On the other hand, if you don’t take kickbacks from the alcohol industry, act like it. Support a program that will positively reduce alcohol consumption and abuse, like that which you described. Positively support government legislation and add positively to if you must but stop being obstructionist. As you must know the evidence actually does support the fact that education and labeling are marginal tools at best. You place a lot of money in the hands of advertisers and printers with absolutely no guarantee of success. If you want to really help families advocate for higher taxes on spirits and other heavy alcoholic beverages; make a real difference.
With respect your focus should change to a focus on the reduction of alcohol consumption. The efforts with the reduction in cigarette smoking and the obvious heath benifits are a truely comparative guide to follow. With this guide the obvious pitfalls of the early cigarette debate can be avoided rather than repeated at high cost to the community and our young people. Please forget about the obvious waste of money going down a path of advertising, education and labeling while all the while people continue to drink to excess, as happened with cigarette smoking.
Comment by Richard Hicks on 03 March 2009 at 11:57:50 AM
Richard,
I want to thank you for commenting on my blogs and leaving so many messages. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my position to you as I think you’ve got me wrong.
- Firstly, I’ve never been offered kickbacks from the alcohol industry and wouldn’t accept them if they did. That’s not what I’m about.
- You have frequently commented upon the fact that a higher price of alcohol will reduce overall consumption and you are partly correct. However, my main focus is not on reducing overall consumption of alcohol, it is directly targeted at stopping binge drinking. It seems quite possible that reducing overall consumption might simply result in responsible drinkers (like you and I) drinking less, whilst irresponsible drinkers continue to binge. The economic modelling you offer is based on a ‘rational expectation’ assumption. Alcohol addiction and binge drinking is anything but rational.
- The measurements of success for the alcopop tax should be a reduction in alcohol related hospitalisations and crimes. As yet the government have produced no such data to prove the alcopop tax is working, so what else can we conclude then the tax is a token-gesture and revenue raiser, not a genuine attempt to tackle a culture of binge drinking.
- Richard I simply flatly disagree with you that educating people means ‘costs without results’
- Stopping the devastation of irresponsible drinking is about changing the mindset in our culture that says you can’t have a good time unless you get drunk off your face. The mindset that allows violence and abuse to happen because “I was drunk, I didn’t know what I was doing.” That’s what I want to see changed and judging by what the new police commissioner Simon Overland said yesterday he agrees that a night out with mates doesn’t need to end up with someone lying in a hospital bed or at a police station, so that families aren’t wrecked by alcohol abuse and so that all of us can safely go out on our streets without fear that we’ll be targeted by drunken louts. The government’s answer to this serious issue is just to raise taxes, but this is not fixing the problem
And forget the scotch and coke, I am more of a beer and wine man.
Comment by Senator Steve Fielding on 03 March 2009 at 11:03:05 AM
What’s the matter Steve don’t you want to pay 10% more for your scotch on the rocks?
Comment by Richard Hicks on 02 March 2009 at 06:52:03 PM
Lets look at this in detail!
-Obviously a 35% reduction in usage of alcopops provs that the tax works!
-The Government is actually trying something to positively reduce the consumption of alcopops. On the other hand you espouse doing nothing and maintaining the status quo which means more alcohol abuse amongst our young people. Government stand positive your stand negative!
-The straight answer is a 35% reduction in usage.
-In regards to spin senator that is you not the government. Your questions to government represent an attempt to spin the debate away from alcopops and onto your own agenda.
- Its you that fails to understand the consequences of alcohol abuse because your stance seeks to prolong the abuse and stop genuine attempts to change direction.
-No it is not about responsible drinking, its about bringing about a positive reduction in the overall amount of alcohol consumed in our community primarily amongst the young.
-Proven facts show that a positive reduction in the amount of alcohol consumed reduces violence, reduces family diintergration, reduces despair and the incidence of binge drinking. You can still drink, it will just cost you more!
-Health warnin labels are a dog biscuit designed to make people think something is being done. Classic spin in fact. The example of cigarettes proves how little all the money spent on lables and education achieved.
-Education programs mean cost without results.
-And a sunset clause means more delay while our young people suffer.
Get your hand out of the pockets of the alcohol industry!!
Comment by Richard Hicks on 02 March 2009 at 06:49:45 PM