Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1870 ..

MS TUCKER: Mr Speaker, I seek leave to speak again on this bill.

Leave granted.

MS TUCKER: On Tuesday, I made some comments in opposition to the bill and Mr Humphries responded that I had not done my homework on the liquor subsidy aspect of it. I would like the minister to know that I have looked again at this bill and my concerns have not lessened.

Mr Humphries suggested that the information I needed to show my why the government is proposing this bill is available. He indicated that he had already told the Assembly that the federal government was maintaining a price differential between full-strength and low-alcohol liquor through tiered excise charges and that therefore this subsidy was redundant. I point out to the minister that there was no mention of that in his presentation speech. He only pointed out that the cost of providing the subsidy was steadily increasing and that there was no justification for keeping the subsidy.

I also raised the issue of the government's lack of assessment of the impacts of the subsidy. My office was contacted subsequently by the Commissioner for Revenue with an offer to provide a briefing. At that briefing, we were given the government's assessment. It was a study done in 1984 of regular drinkers at two football clubs in Weston Creek. The study involved a 10 cent drop in the price of low-alcohol beer over about five weeks, an examination of changes in beer sales in the clubs and a survey of the attitudes of the drinkers over that time. Given the artificial nature of the study, it was not surprising that there was no real change in low-alcohol sales.

It was pointed out in the study that it would be very difficult to make regular drinkers change instantly from their preferred beer, even if it was cheaper, because of attitudinal factors and that strategies to promote low-alcohol beer would be better targeted at young drinkers. How young drinkers would respond to price signals is unknown. I am therefore very worried that the government is basing its policy on an outdated and very narrow study, particularly when there is overwhelming evidence that excessive alcohol consumption is a major social and health issue. I would have expected more analysis than that.

It is true that after 1 July there will still be a price differential between full-strength and low-alcohol liquor, but the differential will be less than currently exists. I understand that with the subsidy there is a $7 a carton difference between high and low-strength beer, but under the new federal arrangements there will be only a $4 a carton difference. That is certainly not an encouragement for drinkers to choose low-alcohol liquor.

I would have been much more supportive if the government had said that it is redirecting the money saved on abolishing the liquor subsidy to other programs to promote less alcohol consumption, but it appears that the government just wants to pocket the money and hand over responsibility for regulation of liquor sales to the federal government. It does not look like an example of building social capital to me.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .