Bills Digest no. 100 2008–09
Excise Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill
2009
This Digest replaces an earlier version published on 24
February 2009. It revises some of the material in the Key issues
section.
WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as
introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest
does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be
consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the
Bill.
CONTENTS
Passage history
Purpose
Background
Financial implications
Main provisions
Concluding comments
Contact officer & copyright details
Passage history
Excise Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures
No. 1) Bill 2009
Date introduced: 11 February 2009
House: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Excise Tariff Amendment
Bill—Treasury; Customs Tariff Amendment Bill—Home
Affairs
Commencement: 27 April 2008
Links: The
relevant links to the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill,
relevant links to the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill, their
Explanatory Memoranda and second reading speeches can be accessed
via BillsNet, which is at http://www.aph.gov.au/bills/.
When Bills have been passed they can be found at ComLaw, which is
at http://www.comlaw.gov.au/.
The purpose of the Bills is to
amend the schedules to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 (the
Excise Tariff Act) and the Customs Tariff Act 1995 (the
Customs Tariff Act) to increase the tax applying to ‘other
excisable beverages not exceeding ten per cent alcohol by
volume’ from $39.36 to $66.67 per litre of alcohol from 27
April 2008.
The increase in excise has been presented by the Government as a
part of its broader strategy to tackle the problem of ‘risky
drinking’ among young Australians, and especially young
women. Ready-to-drink (RTD) beverages, or ‘alcopops’,
are widely recognised as being young Australian women’s drink
of choice. Such pre-mixed beverages are broadly described as
mixtures of alcohol (in particular distilled spirits) with fruit
juices or other flavourings.[1]
Other complementary measures introduced by the government in the
2008-09 Budget as a part of its National Binge Drinking Strategy
include:
- $19.1 million over four years to support early intervention and
diversion programs for people under the age of 18 years who engage
in binge drinking[2]
- $20 million over two years towards an education and information
campaign via television, the radio and the Internet that will
confront people with the costs and consequences of binge
drinking[3]
- a further $14.5 million over four years to develop partnerships
with community and sporting organisations to tackle binge drinking
among young people.
Each of these measures is funded through existing resources.
Many of the debates around the alcopop tax have already been
canvassed in the Senate Standing Committee on Community
Affairs’ (the First Senate Committee) Report entitled
Ready-to-drink alcohol beverages, released in June 2008.
The First Senate Committee was charged with examining the likely
effectiveness of the new tax in reducing binge drinking among young
people, and with scrutinising the modelling and evidence on which
the excise increase was based.[4] It was also to examine the effectiveness of
alternative measures for tackling binge drinking among young
people.[5]
Back to top
A number of commentators have questioned whether or not there
could be said to have developed a youth ‘binge drinking
epidemic’ in Australia in recent years. The available
evidence does not lend itself to a clear answer to this
question.
The National Drug Strategy Household Survey, conducted by the
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), is the most
comprehensive source of data on the use of licit and illicit drugs
in Australia. The results of this survey are released on a
three-yearly basis, with the latest data available being for
2007.[6]
Based on the evidence of 2001, 2004 and 2007 National Drug
Strategy Household Survey data, the Australian Institute of Health
and Welfare argues that there has been virtually no change in the
pattern of ‘risky’ drinking among young Australians
between 2001 and 2007.[7]
It should be noted, however, that while some evidence suggests
that there has not been an overall increase in risky drinking among
young Australians in recent years, there are indications that a
significant number of underage drinkers are nevertheless consuming
alcohol at risky levels.[8] Various studies also show a clear and increasing
trend in alcohol-related harm among those young people who do drink
at risky levels.[9]
In light of this evidence, some participants in the First Senate
Committee argued that debate over whether or not there has been an
increase in risky drinking among young Australians was in fact
misplaced. As these commentators saw it, the fact that a
significant number of young people continue to drink at levels that
place themselves and others at risk indicates that there is a
serious problem that needs to be dealt with.
It may be the case that the definition and general understanding
of what constitutes risky drinking for young people (and
Australians in general) needs to be revised, depending on the final
content of the soon-to-be released National Health and Medical
Research Council (NHMRC) Australian alcohol guidelines for low-risk
drinking. It is the model of risk outlined in these guidelines that
forms the basis for Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
analyses of National Drug Strategy Household Survey findings.
To enable Australians to make informed decisions about their
alcohol consumption and, in particular, decisions that are made
based on latest available scientific evidence, the NHMRC compiles
the Australian Alcohol Guidelines.[10] These guidelines are intended to give
people an indication of the limits of alcohol consumption that are
associated with an increasing risk to health and social well-being.
The goal of the guidelines is to assist people to minimise the risk
of incurring alcohol-related harms. The guidelines are based on the
Australian Standard Drink measure of 10 grams of alcohol. They are
subject to a routine five-year review, with the last review having
been conducted in October 2007.
The latest Draft Australian Alcohol Guidelines reflect a
substantially changed approach by the NHMRC.
Under the existing guidelines, men are advised that they should
drink no more than four Standard Drinks a day on average, and no
more than six Standard Drinks on any one day. It is also
recommended that they should observe one or two alcohol-free days
per week. Women are advised that they should drink no more than two
Standard Drinks a day on average, and no more than four standard
drinks on any one day. Like men, women are advised to have one or
two alcohol-free days a week.
Depending on whether people drink above these recommended levels
in a single day or over a long period of time, the NHMRC
distinguishes between short-term and long-term risks to
people’s health and social well-being. Short-term risks are
those associated with occasional drinking episodes confined to a
single day (such as injuries from violence, accidents, falls,
having unprotected sex, and alcohol poisoning) while long-term
risks (diseases such as cancer, diabetes, and brain damage) are
associated with regular and repeated daily drinking. Within these
two categories, the NHMRC delineates three levels of risk:
- low risk a level of drinking at which there is a
minimal risk of harm
- risky levels at which risk of harm is greatly
increased, and
- high risk at which there is high risk of serious harm,
and above which the risk increases rapidly.
In October 2007, the NHMRC revised in draft form the current
Australian Alcohol Guidelines to indicate that both men and women
should drink no more than two Standard Drinks a day. Under the
revised, draft guidelines, children under the age of 15 years and
pregnant women are advised not to drink at all, on the grounds
that, for them, there is no safe level of alcohol
consumption.[11]
The draft guidelines also advise that 15 to 17 year olds should
only drink under parental supervision. Where older teenagers do
drink under adult supervision, it is recommended that this should
be within the adult guideline for low-risk drinking (that is, two
Standard Drinks in any one day).
Based on analysis by medical experts of scientific research from
around the world, the NHMRC arrived at the decision that it is not
possible to determine a limit at which it is safe for expectant
mothers to drink without risking foetal alcohol syndrome.
Similarly, it was determined that given the vulnerability of an
adolescent’s developing brain (indeed, for young adults up to
the age of 25 years), no safe level could be set for this
demographic either.
In justifying the changes to the guidelines, the Chairman of the
committee responsible for drafting the new guidelines (the NHMRC
Drafting Committee), Professor Jon Currie, advised that the new
levels for adult drinking were not a safe or no-risk drinking
level, but an advisory level for low risk drinking. Where
people drink above these levels, Currie maintains, the risk
‘starts to rise precipitously’.[12] Thus, under the proposed new
guidelines, the ‘risky’ and ‘high risk’
designations, described above, have been dispensed with.
Under the new approach, a level of alcohol consumption to ensure
low risk of harm is defined, with any drinking above this level
carrying a higher risk than not drinking, and therefore advised
against by the NHMRC. This changed approach seeks to shift the
focus from level of consumption as being the key indicator
of alcohol-related problems to an alcohol-related harm
focus. As the NHMRC Drafting Committee sees it, the main benefit of
this shift would be that it allows for a far more accurate and
targeted measure of alcohol-related harm than does the relatively
arbitrary measure of consumption levels. Another advantage of the
proposed shift in focus is that the policy objective of reducing
alcohol-related harm, rather than simply
consumption, is one that can be generally agreed upon.
In developing the new draft guidelines, the NHMRC Drafting
Committee has avoided, wherever possible, the use of the term
‘binge drinking’.[13] It has done so on the grounds that the meaning of
the term is ‘ill-defined and unclear’ and, thus, not
particularly useful in terms of providing guidance on safe
drinking. As McCarthy notes, where it comes to defining binge
drinking, the thresholds used are arbitrary as there is no
consensus on the number of drinks that is considered a binge, the
alcohol content of drinks varies and there is not an international
definition of what constitutes a ‘standard drink’, and
the length of time in a drinking session is not defined.[14] While in the field of
epidemiology, the threshold of five drinks for men and four or more
for women per occasion has gained some currency as a measure for
binge drinking, the lack of specificity where it comes to the size,
strength or type of drink and the duration of an occasion, reduces
the practical usefulness of this measure. The clinical definition
of a binge is closer to the Australian cultural definition: the
consumption of alcohol to intoxication, lasting up to several days
and involving a loss of control.[15]
It should be noted that the NHMRC Drafting Committee’s
refusal to define or to quantify in terms of consumption what is
‘binge drinking’ is in keeping with its changed overall
approach (see above). Under the current guidelines, binge drinking
could be interpreted as the drinking of five or more standard
drinks in a session in the case of men and three or more in the
case of females. Under the new, draft guidelines, binge drinking is
interpreted by the Australian Drug Foundation as drinking ‘on
any single occasion, significantly more than the low-risk levels
advised by the National Health and Medical Research
Council’.[16]
The proposed new alcohol guidelines are among the most stringent
in the world and this has—as is to be expected—caused
some controversy.
The revised guidelines have been the subject of criticism on the
grounds that they are unrealistic. It is argued that the advised
safe drinking level is set far too low, and that insufficient
guidance is given on alcohol consumption when this moves beyond the
low-risk level. As a result, some commentators have it that the
draft guidelines do not provide a useful guide to assist
Australians in making decisions about their alcohol consumption.
Indeed, these commentators argue that because the guidelines are so
out of touch with Australians’ actual drinking habits, and
because they are so much more restrictive than the existing version
of the guidelines, they risk being ignored altogether.[17]
For example, in the ‘National clinical guidelines for the
management of drug use during pregnancy, birth and the early
development years of the newborn’—which essentially
followed the approach of the previous version of the current
Australian Alcohol Guidelines—the NHMRC counselled against an
abstinence-based approach to the guidelines for pregnant women. It
did so on the grounds that such advice could ‘result in
disproportionate anxiety’ and ‘precipitous decisions to
terminate a pregnancy’. The guidelines went on to state that
‘affected mothers should be persuaded from such decisions
with information that many babies show no evidence of damage
despite heavy exposure’. The guidelines also advised that
pregnant women who had consumed alcohol during the course of their
pregnancy could be reassured using new knowledge of the ways the
brain can defend itself, and should only then be advised to refrain
from further risk.[18]
It has also been argued that the guidelines do not sufficiently
account for the health benefits that may be realised through
moderate alcohol consumption.[19]
Some research indicates that longer term health benefits may be
associated with low to moderate alcohol consumption. Low to
moderate alcohol consumption can reduce the risks of stroke and
ischaemic heart disease in older men and women. While acknowledging
this protective effect, the NHMRC nevertheless argues that any
health benefits need to be balanced against the risks of other
chronic diseases at low drinking levels. Given the trade-off in
risks, the NHMRC feels that people who do not already drink should
not take up drinking to gain these long-term benefits.[20]
Australian School Students’ Alcohol and Drug Survey
(ASSAD) and National Drug Strategy Household Survey data indicate
that alcohol consumption among Australian adolescents before the
legal age of 18 years is commonplace. There is also evidence that
many young adults (18 to 24 year olds) and underage drinkers are
drinking at risky levels according to the current
Australian Alcohol Guidelines.
Should the draft Australian alcohol guidelines for low-risk
drinking be adopted in their current form, and taken seriously,
then the problem of risky drinking among young Australians would
appear to be more acute and extensive than was previously thought.
This finding would lend weight to arguments that effective measures
to decrease young Australians’ (and Australians’ in
general) alcohol consumption are urgently required if
alcohol-related harm in this population is to be reduced.
The consumption of alcopops in
Australia has increased over recent years.
According to latest Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data,
between 2005 and 2007, there was an increase of 5.9 per cent in
apparent consumption of alcohol in the form of Ready-to-Drink (RTD)
products for persons aged 15 years and over. This equates to an
increase from 1.0 to 1.1 litres of alcohol per person and an
overall increase in consumption from 15.4 million litres in 2005 to
18.1 million litres in 2007.[21]
Data gathered over a longer period indicate more starkly the
increased popularity of alcopops in Australia. As a percentage of
total alcohol sales, alcopops have increased from 3 per cent in
1997 to 15 per cent in 2006—an increase of more than 450
per cent. Per-capita expenditure on pre-mixed spirits increased
from $51 to $252 (an increase of 394 per cent) over the same
period.[22]
Much of the consumption of alcopops is by young Australians and,
in particular, young women.
The drink of preference for Australian females aged between 18
and 29 years across the past three National Drug Strategy Household
Surveys has been roughly divided between pre-mixed spirits in a
bottle or a can (alcopops) and bottled spirits. The same pattern
holds for females under the age of 18 years. For Australian males
aged between 18 and 29 years the drink of preference between 2001
and 2007 has been regular strength beer, followed by pre-mixed
spirits in a can (such as bourbon and cola). For males aged under
18 years, the drink of preference has been relatively evenly
balanced between regular strength beer and
pre-mixed spirits in a can.[23]
According to data from the latest Australian secondary
school students’ use of alcohol (ASSAD) survey,
alcopops are popular among underage drinkers, and more likely to be
consumed by girls than boys. Of the students participating in the
survey, pre-mixed spirits were consumed by 25 per cent of 12 to 15
year olds and 34 per cent of 16 to 17 year olds. Forty-seven per
cent of girls and 14 per cent of boys aged 12 to 17 were found to
have drunk alcopops in the week prior to the survey.[24]
According to the results of recent research, the popularity of
alcopops among young people is to be expected, given that the
development and marketing of these drinks appear to be targeted
directly at young people.
For example, a 2005 National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre
(NDARC) study that aimed to determine the palatability across age
groups of a range of drinks, including alcopops, and their
potential impact on age of initiation and patterns of alcohol use,
found grounds for concern in relation to alcopops. The study found
that alcopops:
- are designed to appeal to a young audience through their
marketing and packaging
- are likely to appeal to children and teenagers and, in some
instances, to be confused with similar non-alcoholic products
- are relatively affordable for teenagers in individual
packaging, and
- make it easier and more palatable for teenagers to drink
alcohol, due to the drinks’ high sugar content and to their
disguising the bitter taste of alcohol.[25]
A similar study that focused specifically on the acceptability
of alcopops to 12 year old to 30 year olds found that among the
younger drinkers studied alcopops were typically the first used and
most preferred alcoholic beverage.[26]
While alcopops are clearly the drink
of preference for many young Australians, and especially young
Australian women and girls, evidence for the link between alcopops
and an increase in risky drinking (as it is currently
defined) is limited. The AIHW summarises the situation as follows:
‘given the stable prevalence of risky drinking, and the lack
of any clear trend regarding preferences for RTDs, the increased
availability of RTDs does not appear to have directly contributed
to an increase in risky alcohol consumption’.[27]
That said, there is evidence to suggest that where young
Australians do engage in risky drinking, this is frequently likely
to involve alcopops. For example, Australian Bureau of Statistics
alcohol consumption data from 2004-05 indicate that of risky/high
risk drinkers aged 18 to 24 years, 75 per cent drank ready-to-drink spirits and liqueurs compared to 56 per cent
of low risk drinkers of the same age.[28]
There is substantial evidence to support the link between
alcohol affordability and levels of alcohol consumption, with
increased prices typically resulting in reduced consumption. For
example, a recently published macro analysis of data from 112
studies that tracked the relationship between alcohol pricing and
consumption found that the more alcohol costs, the less people
drink it. Alcohol prices were found to affect the consumption of
all types of alcoholic beverage, and the drinking behaviours of all
types of drinker.[29]
While there were variations in the magnitude of price effects
across groups, situations, places and times, at the most basic
level, increased price was found to interact with income in
reducing alcohol consumption. Based on their findings, the
report’s authors argued that increasing the price of alcohol
through taxation is the most consistently successful means of
reducing drinking:
We know of no other preventive intervention to
reduce drinking that has the numbers of studies and consistency of
effects seen in the literature on alcohol taxes and prices.[30]
Increasing the price of alcohol not only reduces alcohol
consumption, but it also reduces alcohol-related harm. According to
another recent summary of international research into the links
between higher alcohol taxation and alcohol consumption, an
increase in alcohol prices:
reduces hazardous and harmful alcohol
consumption, alcohol dependence, the harm done by alcohol, and the
harm done by alcohol to others than the drinker.[31]
A volume of research indicates that young people, in particular,
are price sensitive when it comes to alcohol consumption.
According to the World Health Organisation
(WHO), increased alcohol taxation has proven to be effective in
reducing alcohol-related problems among young people. Because young
people tend to be on limited budgets, the WHO notes that alcohol
consumption amongst this demographic is more sensitive to price
changes. In addition, where alcohol taxes have been increased
in some developed countries, this has been found to have reduced
among young people the harmful consequences associated with
excessive drinking.[32]
Drawing on such evidence, as well as their extensive knowledge
of the costs of alcohol-related harms in Australia, Collins
and Lapsley have claimed that ‘increasing the tax
rate on alcoholic drinks which are specifically targeted at the
youth market (for example, alcopops) is likely to be effective [in
reducing alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harm]’. On
these grounds Collins and Lapsley argued that ‘there would
appear to be strong justification for the April 2008 increase in
the Australian tax on pre-mixed drinks (alcopops) by 70 per
cent’.[33]
In their recent analysis of the alcopop excise increase, and the
use of taxes to improve public health outcomes related to alcohol
consumption more generally, Doran and Shakeshaft
were more circumspect in their conclusions than were Collins and
Lapsley. Doran and Shakeshaft determined that ‘although the
Australian Government’s recent decision is likely to arrest
the increased sales of premixed spirits, it is unlikely to
substantially reduce overall rates of usual or binge
consumption’. Doran and Shakeshaft then proceeded to qualify
this statement, as follows:
This conclusion does not indicate, however,
that the Government’s decision was wrong—going part of
the way is not the same as going the wrong way. The principle of a
standardised tax rate [for spirits and spirit-based products] is
sound, and governments have a clear role to proactively improve
public health.[34]
Back to top
Based on the available evidence, the alcopop excise increase has
resulted in a significant decrease in the overall consumption of
alcopops.[35]
According to excise figures for May to September 2008, there was
a decrease of 40 per cent in sales of alcopops.[36]
While there are seasonal variations in alcohol sales figures,
these figures are consistent with earlier data and appear to
indicate a general trend. In the month following the introduction
of the alcopop excise increase, a Nielsen ScanTrak Liquor Survey
commissioned by the Distilled Spirits Industry Council of Australia
(DSICA) indicated that there was a national reduction in alcopop
sales of up to 39 per cent.
Such has been the decline in consumption of alcopops since the
introduction of the excise increase that excise revenue for 2008-09
and 2009-10 has been substantially revised down.[37] While the decrease in excise
from alcopops has been partly offset by the substitution of spirits
and other excisable alcoholic beverages, the Bills’
Explanatory Memorandum indicates that the alcopops excise increase
will only deliver $1.6 billion from 27 April 2008 and over the
forward estimates period. This is significantly less than the
estimate of $3.1 billion contained in the 2008-09 Budget Measures,
and a reduction on Minister Roxon’s original estimate of $2
billion.[38]
From a public health perspective, the main issue associated with
increasing the price of alcopops is that this could lead to the use
of harmful substitutes among young drinkers for whom alcopops are
the drink of choice. Alternatively, the excise increase could lead
young people to purchase bottled spirits and soft drinks and mix
their own drinks. In doing so, they could mix drinks that have an
alcohol content significantly higher than that of alcopops, and
suffer more alcohol related harms in the process.
The evidence for young drinkers switching to other forms of drug
use in response to alcohol price rises is limited. Instead, young
drinkers tend to change their alcohol preference: the data suggest
that where alcohol prices are raised, this results in a reduction
in overall consumption among young drinkers, but also a shift to
cheaper beverages.[39]
It is difficult to determine the nature and extent of drink
substitution as a result of the alcopop excise increase.
Based on excise figures for May to September 2008, a number of
former alcopop drinkers would appear to have either taken to
drinking spirits or mixing their own versions of alcopops.
According to these figures, there was a 19 per cent increase in
full-strength spirits sales.[40] Once again, these data appear to be relatively
consistent. In the month following the excise increase, ScanTrak
Liquor data revealed that there had been a 21 per cent increase in
sales of hip flask and 700ml bottles of full-strength
spirits.[41]
While these figures suggest that some drink substitution has
been taking place, it is important to bear in mind that excise
figures for May to September 2008 indicate a decrease in total
spirits clearances of 9.2 per cent, relative to the same five month
period in 2007.[42]
Assuming that former alcopop drinkers have not substituted beer,
wine or cider for their preferred mixed spirits (something that is
difficult to determine with any degree of certitude), then this
outcome could support research findings that increased alcohol
prices tend to result in reduced overall alcohol consumption.
It is also important to note that drink substitution has been
rendered easier with the recent introduction to the Australian
market of so-called ‘malternatives’. The new drinks,
which are pitched at drinkers aged between 18 years and 30 years,
are similar in alcohol content, flavour and appearance to many
alcopops. However, because these drinks are beer- rather
spirits-based, they attract far less excise than do their alcopop
equivalents, and retail for around half their price. The maker of
one of the new ‘malternatives’ is reported as having
introduced the new product directly as a result of the alcopop
excise increase. Corporate relations director of Diageo, the
world’s largest alcohol company, has stated that ‘this
is a time when [the launch of the product] makes sense. The
government has created an environment where it makes
sense’.[43]
Other than by extrapolation from reduced alcopop consumption
levels, it is not clear whether or not the alcopop excise increase
has resulted in reduced alcohol-related harm among young people.
Indeed, it is difficult to determine how this might be
definitively assessed in the absence of data that draw a clear
association between alcopops and alcohol-related harm.
The AIHW publication, Alcohol and other drug treatment
services in Australia, Report on the National Minimum Data
Set, provides data on closed treatment episodes for people
with alcohol or other drug use problems. However, these data do not
distinguish the types of alcohol drunk by people receiving
treatment. The same holds for alcohol-related hospital admissions
data.
The only major existing data source that could enable a more or
less conclusive assessment of whether or not the alcopop excise had
resulted in reduced risky drinking and alcohol-related harm among
young people is the National Drug Strategy Household Survey.
However, detailed findings of the 2007 National Drug Strategy
Household Survey were only recently released (in December 2008),
and the report of the next survey is not due to be released until
2010.
That said, if there is consistent evidence of reduced
risky drinking and alcohol-related harm among young people
following the alcopop excise increase, then it is reasonable to
assume that this is in large part a result of the excise increase
itself, given the popularity of alcopops among this segment of the
population.
It is also reasonable to expect that based on substantial
research evidence the alcopop excise increase should result in
reduced alcohol-related problems among young people over the longer
term. This was the conclusion reached by the First Senate
Committee.[44]
While the First Senate Committee acknowledged the potential for
alcohol substitution in response to the alcopop excise increase, it
felt that the degree to which substitution would undermine the
overall benefits brought about by the restrictions were likely to
be limited in the longer term.[45]
The Department of Health and Ageing advised the Community
Affairs Committee during Senate Estimates hearings on 4 June 2008
that it was in the process of designing an evaluation for both the
alcopop excise increase and all of the other components of the
National Binge Drinking Strategy. It is to be assumed that the
findings of this evaluation will be presented to the Community
Affairs inquiry into the Bills.
On 12 February 2009, the provisions of the
Bills, along with an assessment of the impact of the alcopop excise
increase, were referred to the Senate Community Affairs Committee
(the Second Senate Committee) for inquiry and report by 13 March
2009.[46]
As already stated, on 15 May 2008, the alcopop excise increase
was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs
Committee (the First Senate Committee).[47] That Committee reviewed a wide range
of evidence on the alcohol consumption patterns of young people in
terms of risky drinking and alcopops. It concluded that while the
majority of evidence showed that alcohol consumption in general
remains steady, the evidence that some young people are commonly
engaging in risky drinking behaviour at unacceptable levels, and
that alcopops figure in this behaviour, indicated the need for
action to be taken to prevent the negative health and social
consequences of risky drinking behaviour in young people.[48]
The First Senate Committee supported the increased excise on
alcopops, on the understanding that this was one of a range of
measures being introduced or considered to address harmful alcohol
consumption by young people.[49] That said, there was a dissenting report from
Liberal Senators and Senators’ Andrew Murray and Rachel
Siewert provided additional comments.
Support from public health and drug experts for the increase in
alcopop excise has been strong and sustained.[50] Since its introduction, the
excise increase has been backed by these experts on the grounds
that it would help to reduce risky drinking among young
Australians, and lessen the likelihood of young people taking up
drinking early in life.
Nevertheless, most health experts have argued for an increased
range of complementary measures to support the alcopop excise
increase and National Binge Drinking Strategy. These proposed
measures include restricting the availability of alcohol (through
reducing outlet density and opening hours), targeting alcohol
advertising and marketing aimed at young people, better policing of
alcohol sales to underage drinkers and community alcohol awareness
projects.
A number of commentators have also supported the introduction of
a volumetric taxation system for alcohol.[51] Such a system would result in all
forms of alcoholic beverage being taxed consistently according to
their alcoholic content. It is argued that this would be an
improvement over existing arrangements from a public health
perspective. A volumetric system could help to tackle the problem
of risky drinking throughout the Australian population as a whole
by increasing the relative cost of drinking higher alcohol
beverages and making lower alcohol beverages more affordable and
attractive.[52]
The liquor industry has fiercely resisted the alcopop excise
increase since its introduction, labelling it ‘unfair,
unworkable and dishonest’.[53] Both the Distilled Spirits Industry Council of
Australia (DSICA) and Independent Distillers Australia have argued
that:
- there is no indication that harmful alcohol consumption
patterns among young people have changed
- there is no evidence of a direct link between alcopops and
risky drinking
- the excise increase has and will continue to result in young
people shifting to cheaper and potentially higher alcohol content
products
- the excise increase will neither lead to a decrease in alcohol
consumption, nor address the underlying causes of young
people’s risky drinking.[54]
Since the introduction of the excise increase, the Coalition has
dismissed it as an opportunistic exercise in revenue
raising—a ‘tax grab’—on the part of the
government, and not as a measure that is primarily concerned with
the health of young drinkers.[55]
This accusation is based mainly on the fact that because of
inconsistencies in alcohol taxation, young people are able to binge
drink on similarly priced or cheaper beverages that may have a
higher alcohol content than that of alcopops. This argument has it
that unless the price of these alternative, substitutable beverages
is also increased by the government, the excise increase cannot be
said to be truly concerned with tackling the problem of risky
drinking among young people.
The Greens have expressed concerns with the government’s
overall approach to tackling the problem of risky drinking among
Australians, and young people in particular. While noting that the
alcopop excise increase goes some way towards addressing the
problem of underage drinking and risky drinking among younger
Australians, they have argued that a more comprehensive and
integrated approach to problem drinking is required. Such an
approach would include the introduction of a volumetric tax on
alcohol, stricter regulation of opening hours and the concentration
of venues in problem areas, a ban on alcohol advertising and
sponsorship, and increased efforts in community education,
referral, treatment and rehabilitation.[56]
Senator Steve Fielding is reported by some sources to have
promised to support the alcopop excise increase.[57] However, Senator Fielding is
also said to be demanding the introduction of liquor advertising
restrictions, including limits to the broadcasting of television
alcohol advertisements before nine pm.[58] It is not clear whether or not
Senator Fielding intends to make further demands, such as those
contained in his Alcohol Toll Reduction Bill 2007 [2008],
introduced to the Senate on 19 September 2007, and referred to the
Community Affairs Committee for inquiry and report by 18 June
2008.[59]
Some reports have it that Senator Nick Xenophon is ‘open
to the idea of the tax increase but … concerned with the
projections’.[60] Judging by questions posed by Senator Xenophon in the
Senate on 5 February 2009, his main concerns appear to be that
evidence should be produced to confirm the success or otherwise of
the alcopop excise increase, and that funding raised through the
increase should be invested in drug and alcohol education and
addiction programs.[61]
Alcohol is currently subject to three taxes:
- all forms are subject to the Goods and Services Tax (GST)
- wine is subject to the A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation
Tax) Act 1999 and
- beer and spirits are subject to excise—although the rate
of excise per litre of alcohol differs considerably.
The inconsistency in the manner and level of alcohol taxation
between different alcoholic beverages is the result of a number of
factors including:
- the desire to increase revenue
- the desire to minimise the social costs of alcohol
consumption
- political compromise and
- industry protection.
According to Daryl Smeaton, Chief Executive of the Alcohol
Education and Rehabilitation Foundation, it is largely the desire
to increase revenue and industry protection that has contributed to
the alcohol taxation system’s having become so
‘distorted’. As Smeaton sees it
the taxation system is riddled with loopholes
because of backroom agreements between industry and government
designed to boost the liquor industry. As a consequence the system
encourages substitution of alcoholic products based on price
whereby people switch to alcohol that is only cheaper because there
is less tax on it.[62]
The government has argued that the excise increase proposed in
the Bills serves to ‘close an existing loophole on the excise
on alcopops’.[63] This loophole arose from ‘a decision of the
previous Government to tax RTDs and alcopops at a rate similar to
that applied to full strength beer’ rather than the rate
applied to full strength spirits.[64] As a result spirit-based products (such as
alcopops) with less than 10 per cent alcohol content were taxed at
a lower rate than bottled spirits.
The amendments proposed by the Bills equalise the tax applied to
spirits, regardless of the form they take—that is, pre-mixed
or straight.
Back to top
The conventional procedure for effecting excise and customs
tariff amendments is a tariff proposal followed by validating
legislation.[65]
The rationale for this method is set out in Odger’s
Senate Practice as follows:
The Customs Act 1901 (ss 226 and
273EA) and the Excise Act 1901 (ss 114 and 160B) contain
provisions which allow the collection of customs duties and excise
duties from the time of the announcement of proposals by the
government, within a period of 12 months before the passage of
legislation to validate the duties. The purpose of these provisions
is to ensure that windfall profits may not be made between the time
of announcement of duties and the enactment of legislation to levy
the duties.[66]
The tariff proposal process is described in House of
Representatives Practice:
Customs (duties levied on imports and exports)
and excise (duties charged on goods produced in Australia) tariff
measures are usually not initiated by a bill, as considerations
relating to timing and drafting make a bill an unsuitable vehicle
to initiate the variety and number of tariff proposals that come
before the House. Such measures are generally introduced
by way of motion, in the form of custom
tariff and excise tariff proposals. These, as
‘proposals dealing with taxation’, may be submitted to
the House without notice [under standing order 178]…
The moving of a customs tariff (or excise
tariff) proposal is normally treated as a formal procedure for the
purpose of initiating the collection of the duty… It
is usual for the debate to be adjourned by an opposition Member and
for all tariff proposals to be listed together on the Notice Paper
under the one order of the day… Collection of
duties is thus commenced on the authority of an unresolved
motion, and this has been accepted as a
convention.
When the Parliament is prorogued or when the
House has expired by effluxion of time or been dissolved or is
adjourned for a period exceeding seven days, a notice of a customs
or excise tariff proposal may be published in the Gazette and
the proposal is deemed to have effect as
from such time after the publication of the notice as is specified
in the notice.[67]
The changes to the ‘alcopop’ customs and excise
duties were contained in two tariff proposals which were tabled in
the House of Representatives on 13 May 2008 by the Hon. Nicola
Roxon who stated that:
The excise and customs tariff proposals that I
have just tabled contain alterations to the Excise Tariff Act
1921 and Customs Tariff Act 1995.
The proposals formally place before the
parliament changes to both acts to increase the rate of excise and
customs duty applying to ‘other excisable beverages not
exceeding 10 per cent by volume of alcohol’ from $39.36 to
$66.67 per litre of alcohol content, on and from 27 April
2008.[68]
The two proposals were Excise Tariff
Proposal (No. 1) 2008 (covering goods made in Australia) and
Customs
Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2008 (covering imported goods).
Notices of Excise Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2008[69] and Customs Tariff Proposal (No.
1) 2008[70] were
duly published in the Gazette of 26 April 2008.
A tariff proposal is not legislation. It is an executive
instrument. A proposal does not legally alter the relevant
legislative tariff[71] and it is arguable that caselaw suggests that a
proposal alone does not actually give the Commonwealth legal
authority to collect duties according to the new or amended tariff
contained in the proposal.[72]
However, using the example of the practical operation of the
customs system, customs officials could simply refuse to release
the goods which are the subject of a tariff proposal unless the
customs duty was paid according the proposal. In such a case,
section 226 of the
Customs Act 1901 prevents the importer of the goods
who refuses to pay the tariff in the proposal from taking action
against the customs officials for wrongfully withholding the
goods.[73]
According to section 226, that prohibition lasts for the period of
12 months from the date of the proposal or until the end of the
parliamentary session, whichever is the earlier. This 12
month period provides the basis for the convention that governments
pass validating legislation within 12 months of a proposal coming
into effect.
Not withstanding the doubtful legal force of tariff proposals as
mentioned above, the content of the vast majority of such proposals
are uncontroversial, and thus the amended duties are presumably
paid in the expectation that validating legislation will be passed
within the 12 month period.
Odgers Senate Practice states:
The Senate has not declined to pass a bill
validating increases in duties, and there has long been speculation
about the remedial action which might be taken in such a case. In
June 2000 the Senate passed a resolution expressing opposition to
rates of excise contained in an excise tariff proposal tabled in
the House of Representatives (29/6/2000, J.2980). A compromise by
the government avoided rejection by the Senate of the
measure.[74]
The compromise which is alluded to
led to the introduction of the Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation
Account Bill 2001. The
second reading speech to the Bill and the Bills
Digest provide relevant information. In that case,
the Senate allowed amended versions of the validating customs bill
and excise bill respectively[75] to pass on condition that the Alcohol
Education and Rehabilitation Account was established to fund the
charitable work of the Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation
Foundation.
If the 12 month protective period elapses and no validating
legislation has passed, the Commonwealth would be open to legal
action for the repayment of the difference between the duty paid
under the proposal and the duty imposed by the legislative
tariff. Even in the absence of such action, it is unclear
whether the Commonwealth could retain that amount. However,
the government view appears to be that the Commonwealth could not
retain the amount paid to date under the tariff proposals.
The Minister for Health and Ageing has stated that ‘if this
measure is not passed, the money must be returned to the
distillers’.[76]
In support of this view, newspaper commentary is that:
If the excise rise is blocked in the Senate,
money already collected since the Budget will have to be returned -
but not to the customers. Liquor importers and manufacturers will
pocket it as a windfall profit.[77]
Whether the government would be legally entitled to publish a
subsequent notice in the Gazette of a second tariff proposal for a
further 12 months in the face of a rejection by either chamber of
the Parliament of the validating legislation is also unclear.
The records do not immediately reveal a similar circumstance.
However, were a ‘rolling proposal’ to be attempted it
is likely the collection of the relevant customs and excise would
be the subject of a challenge in the High Court.
According to the
Explanatory Memorandum, the Excise Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures
No. 1) Bill 2009 and Customs Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1)
Bill 2009 will result in an ongoing gain to revenue of $1.6 billion
from 27 April 2008 and over the forward estimates
period.[78]
Item 1 of Schedule 1 of the Excise Tariff
Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009 amends the Schedule to
the Excise Tariff Act to increase the rate under item 2 from $39.36
to $66.67.
Items 1–11 of Schedule 1 of the Customs
Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009 amend Column 3
(the rates of duty column) in Schedule 3 of the Customs Tariff Act
so that the rates accord with the Excise Tariff Act.
Items 12–22 of Schedule 1 amend Column 3
in Schedule 5 of the Customs Tariff Act to show that the rate of
duty for various beverages originating from the US is $66.67 per
litre of alcohol.
Items 23–33 of Schedule 1 amend Column 3
in Schedule 6 of the Customs Tariff Act to show that the rate of
duty for various beverages originating from Thailand is $66.67 per
litre of alcohol.
Item 34 is an applications provision which
states for the avoidance of doubt that the amendments apply in
relation to goods imported into Australia on or after 27 April
2008, and goods imported into Australia before 27 April 2008 where
the time for working out the rate of import duty on the goods had
not occurred before 27 April 2008.
Back to top
Concluding comments
A significant body of evidence supports the use of pricing
mechanisms, such as the alcopop excise increase, as the single most
effective means of reducing alcohol consumption and alcohol-related
harm. However, if the objective is to tackle an underlying culture
of risky drinking among young Australians over the longer term,
then a broad-based approach that employs a range of different
measures is required. It is questionable whether or not the
National Binge Drinking Strategy is sufficiently robust and
wide-ranging to achieve this objective.
The alcopop excise increase has, as is to be expected, resulted
in reduced consumption of ready-to-drink alcoholic beverages. It is
safe to assume that this means less drinking of these products by
young Australians. On the face of it, there does not appear to be a
large amount of drink substitution by young people as a result of
the tax hike.
While intuitively it might be tempting to assume that the excise
increase has resulted in a decrease in risky drinking among young
Australians, based on the currently available evidence this
assumption is not strongly supported. Nor is there
evidence to suggest that the alcopop excise increase has
not achieved the government’s stated objectives. The
absence of sufficient evidence means that it is not possible to
make a conclusive judgement, either way.
If risky drinking among the broader Australian population and
the problem of drink substitution are to be addressed, this signals
the need for reform of Australia’s alcohol taxation system.
The findings of the Henry Commission of Inquiry into the taxation
system, which includes an examination of alcohol excise, should
assist in any such revision.
[1].
Explanatory Memorandum, p.
8.
[2].
Australian Government, ‘Part
1: Revenue Measures’, Budget Paper No. 2, Budget Measures
2008-09, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2008 at
http://www.aph.gov.au/budget%20dummy/budget%202008-09%20mirror/2008-09/content/bp2/html/index.htm,
accessed 20 February 2009.
[3].
ibid.
[4].
Senate Standing Committee on
Community Affairs, ‘Ready-to-drink
alcohol beverages’, Commonwealth of Australia,
Canberra, June 2008, p. 1.
[5].
ibid.
[6].
While the National Drug Strategy
Household Survey contains data on alcohol consumption, because
these data are self-reported, they should be treated with a deal of
caution. These data significantly under-estimate the amount of
alcohol consumed by Australians, with the alcohol use measured in
the survey only accounting for about 60 per cent of the alcohol
that is sold. Given that response rates to the last two surveys
(2004 and 2007) have been less than 50 per cent, concerns have also
been raised as to the representativeness of the data for population
alcohol use. It should also be noted that, according to the
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, the survey data do not
lend themselves to a direct link between particular types of
alcohol and drinking consumption. All the data can really inform us
about, then, are broad patterns of preference for particular types
of alcohol at a population level.
[7].
That is, there has been no
significant increase in the number of people drinking at risky
levels and no significant shift between categories of risky
drinking (that is, ‘low’ and ‘high’ risk).
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Submission, Senate
Community Affairs Committee, Inquiry into Ready-to-Drink Alcohol
Beverages, May 2008,
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/alcohol_beverages/submissions/sub23.pdf,
accessed 20 February 2009.
[8].
V. White and J. Hayman,
Australian secondary school students’ use of alcohol in
2005 report, Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer
Control Research Institute, The Cancer Council Victoria, June 2006,
p. 29.
[9].
According to the Australian
Institute of Health and Welfare, the proportion of total treatment
episodes for which alcohol was the principal drug of concern has
increased from 15 per cent to 23 per cent among 10 to 19 year olds
in the past 5 years. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare,
Submission, Senate Community Affairs Committee, Inquiry into
Ready-To-Drink Alcohol Beverages, May 2008. See also M.
Livingston, ‘Recent trends in risky alcohol consumption and
related harm among young people in Victoria, Australia’,
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 32:
3, 2008,
http://parlinfo/parlInfo/download/library/jrnart/L1QQ6/upload_binary/l1qq62.pdf;fileType=application/pdf#search=%22Recent%20trends%20in%20risky%20alcohol%20consumption%20and%20related%20harm%20among%20young%20people%20in%20Victoria%20Australia%22;
S. Allsop, T. Chikritzhs and V. Rechichi, ‘Alcohol and
Teenagers: risky business’, Issues74, March 2006,
http://parlinfo/parlInfo/download/library/jrnart/F78N6/upload_binary/f78n62.pdf;fileType=application/pdf#search=%22Alcohol%20and%20%20risky%20business%22,
accessed 23 February 2009.
[10].
The Draft Australian Alcohol Guidelines for low
risk drinking are available at
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/_files/draft_australian_alcohol_guidelines.pdf.
The NHMRC has indicated that the draft Guidelines are to be
reviewed by the Council of the NHMRC in early February. Should the
Council approve the Guidelines, they are due for release within the
next few weeks. National Health and Medical Research Council,
‘NHMRC 2009 Draft Alcohol Guidelines Still to be
Approved’, media release, 1 February 2009,
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/media/media/rel09/090201-alcohol-guidelines.htm,
accessed 21 February 2009.
[11].
Under the current guidelines, pregnant women
(and those planning on becoming pregnant) are advised that they
should drink no more than two standard drinks a day and no more
than seven standard drinks per week. This advice is mirrored in the
National clinical guidelines for the management of drug use
during pregnancy, birth and the early development years of the
newborn. These guidelines were published by the NHMRC in March
2006.
[12].
See B. Stark, ‘Two
a day safe limit on drinks’, Sydney Morning
Herald, 13 October 2007, p. 1.
[13].
Indeed, the National Health and Medical Research
Council prefers the use of the term ‘heavy, episodic
drinking’ over ‘binge drinking’, due to the lack
of consistency and specific meaning of the latter term. It is not
clear, however, that the use of the term ‘heavy, episodic
drinking’ provides any more clarity than does the term
‘binge drinking’. The advantage of the term
‘binge drinking’ is that it has a broadly understood
and agreed upon cultural meaning, outside the field of epidemiology
and clinical practice.
[14].
P. McCarthy, What is ‘binge
drinking’? DrinkWise Australia, May 2006, p.
1.
[15].
ibid.
[16].
Drug Info Clearinghouse, The facts about binge
drinking – for young people,
http://www.druginfo.adf.org.au/article.asp?ContentID=the_facts_about_binge_drinking,
accessed 20 February 2009.
[17].
See, for example, Members of the National
Alcohol Beverage Industries Council Inc, Submission to the
National Health and Medical Research Council on the Australian
Alcohol Guidelines for low risk drinking, December 2007,
http://www.dsica.com.au/pdfs/0712SubAustAlcGuide.pdf;
Australian Medical Association, Draft Australian alcohol guidelines
for low-risk drinking, Submission by the Australian Medical
Association, December 2007, http://www.ama.com.au/node/4190,
accessed 22 February 2009.
[18].
For a critique of the National clinical
guidelines for the management of drug use during pregnancy, birth
and the early development years of the newborn that pre-empts the
changed draft Australian Alcohol Guidelines, see J. Whitehall,
‘National guidelines on alcohol use during pregnancy: a
dissenting opinion’, Medical Journal of Australia,
186: 1, 1 January 2007,
http://parlinfo/parlInfo/download/library/jrnart/6K9M6/upload_binary/6k9m62.pdf;fileType=application/pdf#search=%22National%20guidelines%20on%20alcohol%20use%20during%20pregnancy%20a%20dissenting%20opinion%22,
accessed 23 November 2009.
[19].
See Access Economics and Distilled Spirits
Industry Council of Australia, ‘Australia on the road to
flawed guidelines for alcohol consumption’, media release, 16
April 2008.
[20].
National Health and Medical Research Council,
Australian alcohol guidelines for low-risk drinking –
FAQs, p. 3,
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/_files/aust_alcohol_guidelines_faqs.pdf,
accessed 22 February 2009.
[21].
Ready-to-Drink pre-mixed products include
spirit-based, wine-based, and other than spirit- or wine-based
products. Australian Bureau of Statistics, 4307.0.55.001
– Apparent Consumption of Alcohol, Australia, 2006-07
(Reissue), 18 April 2008, at
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/4307.0.55.001Main%20Features22006-07%20(Reissue)?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=4307.0.55.001&issue=2006-07%20(Reissue)&num=&view=,
accessed 20 February 2009. The ABS draws on information provided by
government agencies such as the tax office and customs—but
not sales data from a majority of the states and
territories—to compile the annual publication, Apparent
consumption of alcohol, Australia.
[22].
C. Doran and A. Shakeshaft, ‘Using taxes
to curb drinking in Australia’, The Lancet, Vol.
372, 30 August, 2008, p. 701.
[23].
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare,
Submission, Senate Community Affairs Committee, Inquiry into
Ready-to-Drink Alcohol Beverages, May 2008 at
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/alcohol_beverages/submissions/sub23.pdf,
accessed 20 February 2009.
[24].
V. White and J. Hayman, Australian secondary
school students’ use of alcohol in 2005 report, Centre
for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Control Research
Institute, The Cancer Council Victoria, June 2006.
[25].
J. Copeland, P. Gates, D. Stevenson and P.
Dillon, Young people and alcohol: taste perceptions, attitudes
and experiences, NDARC Technical Report No. 241, National Drug
and Alcohol Research Centre, Sydney, 2005 at
http://www.med.unsw.edu.au/NDARCWeb.nsf/resources/TR239-243/$file/TR.241.pdf,
accessed 20 February 2009. For a counter view, see the Distilled
Spirits Industry Council of Australia (DSICA), ‘The
‘Alcopop’ myth’, media release, 12 April 2005.
DSICA issued this media release in response to perceived claims
that RTDs were a key contributor to an epidemic of underage
drinking across Australia. In the release, the DSICA claimed that,
while there has indeed been a significant shift among underage
drinkers towards RTD beverages, on the basis of the best available
evidence and objective research, there is no
‘explosion’ of underage drinking in Australia, and no
demonstrable link between the growth of RTDs and underage
drinkers.
[26].
J. Copeland et al., ‘Young Australians and
alcohol: the acceptability of ready-to-drink (RTD) alcoholic
beverages among 12-30 year olds’, Addiction, Society
for the Study of
Addiction, 2007, 102, p. 1744.
[27].
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare,
Submission, Senate Community Affairs Committee, Inquiry into
Ready-to-Drink Alcohol Beverages, May 2008 at
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/alcohol_beverages/submissions/sub23.pdf,
accessed 20 February 2009.
[28].
Australian Bureau of Statistics,
4832.0.55.001 – Alcohol Consumption in Australia: A
Snapshot, 2004-05, 25 August 2006 at http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4832.0.55.001/,
accessed 20 February 2009.
[29].
A. Wagenaar, M. Salois and K. Komro,
‘Effects of beverage alcohol price and tax levels on
drinking: a meta-analysis of 1003 estimates from 112
studies’, Addiction, Vol. 104, No. 2, 2009, pp.
179–190.
[30].
ibid.
[31].
P. Anderson and B. Baumberg, Alcohol in
Europe: a public health perspective. A report for the European
Commission, Institute of Alcohol Studies, U.K., 2006,
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_determinants/life_style/alcohol/documents/alcohol_europe.pdf,
accessed 23 February 2009.
[32].
World Health Organisation, WHO Expert
Committee on problems related to alcohol consumption, WHO,
Geneva, 2007; D. Jernigan, Global Status Report: Alcohol and
Young People, World Health Organisation, Geneva, 2001, pp.
41–2, http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2001/WHO_MSD_MSB_01.1.pdf,
accessed 23 February 2009. Alcopop-specific taxes have been
introduced in France, Ireland, Germany, Austria, Switzerland and
California. The intent of these taxes is to discourage young people
and underage drinkers from consuming alcopops, and to discourage
manufacturers from targeting young people in their advertisements
and promotions of the beverages.
[33].
D. Collins and H. Lapsley, The avoidable costs
of alcohol abuse in Australia and the potential benefits of
effective policies to reduce the social costs of alcohol, National
Drug Strategy Monograph Series No. 70, 2008, p. 16,
http://www.nationaldrugstrategy.gov.au/internet/drugstrategy/publishing.nsf/Content/0A14D387E42AA201CA2574B3000028A8/$File/mono70.pdf,
accessed 23 February 2009.
[34].
C. Doran and A. Shakeshaft, op cit., p.
702.
[35]. The
availability and reliability of alcohol sales data has recently
become something of an issue. This is largely a result of the
liquor industry’s having presented what some commentators
claim to be inaccurate data in support of its arguments against the
alcopop excise increase. See The Australian Drug Foundation,
‘New data shows the alcohol industry cannot be
trusted’, media release, 3 August 2008; G. Vumbaca,
‘Why would you listen to alcohol lobbyists on health
issues?’, The Age, 29 July 2008,
http://parlinfo/parlInfo/download/media/pressclp/KB4R6/upload_binary/kb4r61.pdf;fileType=application/pdf#search=%22Why%20would%20you%20listen%20to%20alcohol%20lobbyists%20on%20health%20issues?%22,
accessed 23 February 2009.
In a recent edition
of the Medical Journal of Australia, Professor Wayne Hall
from the School of Public Health Policy at the University of
Queensland has called on the Australian Government to order liquor
retailers to provide accurate data on alcohol sales in Australia.
Hall maintains that, from a public health perspective, such data
are crucial. Data on how much alcohol is being sold and consumed is
a very strong predictor of alcohol-related problems such as liver
cirrhosis, violence, motor vehicle accidents and suicide. And,
without good data on alcohol use and alcohol-related harm in the
Australian population, it is difficult to conduct meaningful
debates about alcohol policy. Hall argues that, were sales volumes
data to be collected in ways that enable estimations at local
levels, this would allow for the evaluation of the effectiveness of
policies and initiatives to manage alcohol consumption and reduce
alcohol-related harm. W. Hall, et al., ‘Alcohol sales data
are essential for good public policies towards alcohol’,
Medical Journal of Australia, 189: 4, 18 August 2008,
http://parlinfo/parlInfo/download/library/jrnart/OPBR6/upload_binary/opbr60.pdf;fileType=application/pdf#search=%22Alcohol%20sales%20data%20are%20essential%20for%20good%20public%20policies%20towards%20alcohol%22,
accessed 23 February 2009.
[36].
As reported by Senator Ludwig in the Senate on 4
February 2009.
[37].
Commonwealth of Australia, Mid-year economic
and fiscal outlook 2008-09, 2008, http://www.budget.gov.au/2008-09/content/myefo/html/index.htm,
accessed 20 February 2009.
[38].
Australian Government, ‘Part 1: Revenue
Measures’,
Budget Paper No. 2: Budget Measures 2008–09,
Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2008, p. 22. On the reduction
in alcopop related excise see C. Kerr, ‘Alcopop revenue hopes
cut in half’, The Australian, 4 November 2008,
http://parlinfo/parlInfo/download/media/pressclp/PC0S6/upload_binary/pc0s60.pdf;fileType=application/pdf#search=%22Alcopop%20revenue%20hopes%20cut%20in%20half%22,
accessed 23 February 2009.
[39].
A. Wagenaar, M. Salois and K. Komro, op
cit.
[40].
As reported by Senator Ludwig in the Senate on 4
February 2009.
[41].
See S. Evans and J. Breusch, 'Drinkers driven to
mix own drop', Australian Financial Review, 29 May 2008,
http://parlinfo/parlInfo/download/media/pressclp/M0LQ6/upload_binary/m0lq62.pdf;fileType=application/pdf#search=%22Drinkers%20driven%20to%20mix%20own%20drop%22,
accessed 23 February 2009.
[42].
ibid.
[43].
See J. Rolfe, ‘Brewers expose Rudd’s
teen alcohol farce’, The Daily Telegraph, 19 January
2009.
[44].
Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs,
‘Ready-to-drink alcohol beverages’,
op. cit., p. ix.
[45].
ibid.
[46].
Details of the inquiry are at:
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/excise_customs_tariff/index.htm,
accessed on 23 February 2009.
[47].
R. Colbeck (Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for
Health), media release, Parliament House, Canberra, 15 May
2008.
[48].
Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs,
‘Ready-to-drink alcohol beverages’,
op.cit.
[49].
ibid., recommendation 4.21.
[50].
See, for example, The Australian Drug
Foundation, ‘Crunch time – increase alcopop tax
now’, media release, 11 February 2009; The Alcohol and other
Drugs Council of Australia, ‘Alcopop tax supported by
evidence and must be passed says ADCA’, media release, 11
February 2009; The Alcohol Education Rehabilitation Foundation
(AER), ‘AER welcomes the government’s introduction of
RTD excise’, media release, 11 February 2009; Public Health
Association of Australia, ‘Alcopops: Public Health welcomes
tax introduction’, media release, 11 February 2009;
Australian Medical Association, Submission to Senate Community
Affairs Committee inquiry regarding Ready to Drink Alcohol
Beverages, May 2008, Australian General Practice Network,
Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Committee Inquiry into
Ready-to-Drink Alcohol Beverages, May 2008, Alcohol and the Other
Drugs Council of Australia on behalf of the alcohol and other drugs
sector, Submission, Senate Inquiry into Ready-to-Drink Alcohol
Beverages, May 2008.
[51].
In this respect, they are in agreement with both
Independent Distillers Australia and the Distilled Spirits Industry
Council of Australia (DSICA).
[52].
Australian Medical Association, Submission
to Senate Community Affairs Committee inquiry regarding Ready to
Drink Alcohol Beverages,
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/alcohol_beverages/submissions/sub33.pdf,
accessed 21 February 2009; Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation
Foundation, ‘AER welcome alcopop tax as first step towards a
fairer alcohol taxation system’, media release, 27 April
2008. The introduction of a volumetric system would likely see a
reduction in the price of alcopops. As such, if the intent of the
alcopop excise increase were to be realised, this would demand that
a ‘sin tax’ be imposed on alcopops in order to reduce
their appeal to young drinkers.
[53].
Distilled Spirits Industry Council of Australia,
‘Unfair, Unworkable, Dishonest. Alcopop tax failure campaign
confronts returning politicians’, media release, 2 February
2009.
[54].
See Distilled Spirits Industry Council of
Australia Inc (DSCIA), Submission to the Senate Standing
Committee on Community Affairs Inquiry into Ready to Drink Alcohol
Beverages (RTDs) June 2008,
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/alcohol_beverages/submissions/sub27.PDF;
Independent Distillers Australia, Senate Inquiry into Ready to
Drink (RTD) Alcoholic Beverages, Submission from Independent
Distillers Australia, 30 May 2008,
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/alcohol_beverages/submissions/sub22.pdf,
accessed 21 February 2009.
[55].
‘Alcopops
tax gets grab wrap’, Herald Sun, 15 May 2008, p.
7.
[56].
See R. Siewert, ‘Alcopops legislation must
be comprehensive: Greens’, media release, 11 February 2009;
R. Siewert, ‘Additional Comments by the Australian
Greens’, Senate Community Affairs Committee, Inquiry into
Ready-to-Drink Alcohol Beverages, May 2008 at
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/alcohol_beverages/submissions/sub23.pdf,
accessed 20 February 2009.
[57].
C. Kerr, ‘Alcopop revenue hopes cut in
half’, The Australian, 4 November 2008,
http://parlinfo/parlInfo/download/media/pressclp/PC0S6/upload_binary/pc0s60.pdf;fileType=application/pdf#search=%22Alcopop%20revenue%20hopes%20cut%20in%20half%22,
accessed 23 February 2009; A. Tillett, ‘Alcopops tax a
winner, says Roxon’, The West Australian, 12
February 2009,
http://parlinfo/parlInfo/download/media/pressclp/6KRS6/upload_binary/6krs60.pdf;fileType=application/pdf#search=%22Alcopops%20tax%20a%20winner%20says%20Roxon%22,
accessed 23 February 2009.
[58].
A. Tillett, ‘Alcopop deal tied to liquor
ad crackdown’, The West Australian, 23 January 2009,
http://parlinfo/parlInfo/download/media/pressclp/VXLS6/upload_binary/vxls60.pdf;fileType=application/pdf#search=%22Alcopop%20deal%20tied%20to%20liquor%20ad%20crackdown%22,
accessed 23 February 2009.
[59].
These included a requirement for health
information labels on all alcohol products, a requirement for all
alcohol advertisements to be approved by a government body and the
banning of alcohol advertisements that are aimed at children or
that link drinking to personal, business, social, sporting, sexual
or other success in life. Alcohol Toll Reduction Bill 2007 [2008],
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/s602_first/toc_pdf/0719220.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22alcohol%20toll%20reduction%20bill%20alcohol%20toll%20reduction%20bill%202007%22,
accessed 20 February 2009; Standing Committee on Community Affairs,
Alcohol Toll Reduction Bill 2007 [2008], June 2008,
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/alcohol_reduction/report/index.htm,
accessed 20 February 2009.
[60].
C. Kerr, op cit.
[61].
Senator Nick Xenophon, Senate, Debates,
5 February 2009, p. 49.
[62].
D. Smeaton, ‘Close tax loopholes to fight
rise in risky drinking’, The Canberra Times, 31 July
2008. For a historical description of how inconsistencies have
arisen in Australia’s alcohol taxation system, see D. James,
‘Beer and Cigs Up!’: A recent History of Excise in
Australia’, Parliamentary Library background paper no. 5,
1995-96.
[63].
Hon. Nicola Roxon MP, Minister for Health and
Ageing, ‘Keeping
People Well—Focus on Prevention’, Media
Release, 13 May 2008.
[64].
Hon Wayne Swan MP, Treasurer and Hon. Nicola
Roxon MP, Minister for Health and Ageing, ‘Increased
Tax on ‘Ready to Drink’ Alcoholic
Beverages’, Joint Press Release, 13 May
2008.
[65].
Such legislation has retrospective effect from
the date the tariff proposal itself applied.
[66].
J. R Odgers, Australian Senate
Practice, 12th edition, Department of the Senate,
Canberra, 2008, p. 302.
[67].
I. C. Harris, House of Representatives
Practice, 5th edition, House of Representatives,
Canberra, 2005, p. 428.
[68].
Hon. Nicola Roxon, Minister for Health and
Ageing, ‘Tariff Proposals: Excise Tariff Proposal (No. 1)
2008 and Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2008’,
House Hansard, 13 May 2008, p. 2613.
[69].
Gazetted as S87.
[70].
Gazetted as S88.
[71].
Simon Daley and R A Kenway, ‘Customs and
Excise’, Laws of Australia, Lawbook Co., March 2001,
Chapter 24.1, paragraph 233.
[72].
See Sargood Brothers v Commonwealth
(1910) 11 CLR 258, per O’Connor J at 276, cited in Simon
Daley and R A Kenway, ibid.
[73].
Simon Daley and R A Kenway, op. cit.
[74].
J. R. Odgers, op. cit.
[75].
The bills were the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill
(No. 2) 2001 and the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No.1)
2001. As passed, the bills only validated the controversial
aspect of the tariff during the period 1 July 2000 to 3 April
2001.
[76].
Hon. Nicola Roxon MP, Minister for Health and
Ageing, House of Representatives, Debates, 25 February
2009, p. 86.
[77].
Laurie Oakes, ‘Sobering
stats for Libs on alcopops’, Daily Telegraph, 2
August 2008, p. 20.
[78].
Explanatory Memorandum, p. 8.
Dr Matthew Thomas, Paula Pyburne
3 March 2009
Bills Digest Service
Parliamentary Library
© Commonwealth of Australia
This work is copyright. Except to the extent of uses permitted
by the Copyright Act 1968, no person may reproduce or transmit any
part of this work by any process without the prior written consent
of the Parliamentary Librarian. This requirement does not apply to
members of the Parliament of Australia acting in the course of
their official duties.
This work has been prepared to support the work of the Australian
Parliament using information available at the time of production.
The views expressed do not reflect an official position of the
Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal
opinion.
Feedback is welcome and may be provided to: web.library@aph.gov.au. Any
concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary
Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the
contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff.
To access this service, clients may contact the author or the
Library’s Central Entry Point for referral.
Back to top