Volume 190 - Issue 12
Alcohol taxation policy in Australia: public health imperatives for action
Author: Niyi Awofeso
Med J Aust 2009; 190 (12): 714-716. || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2009.tb02651.x
Published online: 15 June 2009
Published online: 15 June 2009
There is nothing a government hates more than to be well informed; for it makes the process of arriving at decisions much more complicated and difficult. — John Maynard Keynes, 1938.
To the Editor: I would like to contribute to the debate raised by Skov’s timely article1 on the recently defeated “alcopops” tax legislation — the Excise Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009.2
Senator Fielding’s requirement for a ban on alcohol industry advertising during sporting events as a condition for his support of the alcopops tax legislation is rational, visionary and affordable from the additional tax raised. Many of the high-profile individual and public health incidents related to alcohol misuse have been among athletes sponsored by the alcohol industry, and around sporting arenas. As the positive outcome of banning tobacco industry sponsorship of sporting events has demonstrated, such bans have at least as strong an impact as would the increased tax on alcopops on reducing exposure of young people to alcohol.3
It is estimated that the alcohol industry contributes up to 23% ($288 million) of the $1.25 billion in annual sports sponsorship in Australia.4 If the government had agreed to Senator Fielding’s prerequisite amendment, and had also fully taken over sports sponsorship responsibilities, it would have achieved two important public health objectives — a reduction in binge drinking and banning of sports sponsorship by the alcohol industry — and would still have had at least $100 million left to address alcohol-related issues; assuming of course that the real objective of the alcopops tax policy was to prevent alcohol-related harm among youths.
Had the government agreed to simultaneously ban alcohol industry advertising in sport and maintain the new alcopops tax structure, it would then be on a moral high ground to implement other important alcohol-related public health measures that require no more than strong political will, such as mandated warnings on alcoholic products at the point of sale. In this respect, the French National Cancer Institute’s recent report that alcohol-related colorectal, breast, oesophageal and liver cancer risks increase from one glass per day, and that the consumption of alcoholic beverages of any type is not advised for anyone,5 is instructive.
References
- Skov SJ; Royal Australasian College of Physicians Alcohol Advisory Group. Alcohol taxation policy in Australia: public health imperatives for action. Med J Aust 2009; 190: 437-439. [Published online ahead of print 16 Mar 2009.] 0_CBBFFHDF
- Commonwealth of Australia. Excise Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009. Explanatory memorandum. House of Representatives. 27 Apr 2008. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/bill_em/eta2009mn1b2009344/memo_0.html (accessed Mar 2009).
- O’Brien KS, Kypri K. Alcohol industry sponsorship and hazardous drinking among sportspeople. Addiction 2008; 103: 1961-1966. 0_CBBEFIEI
- Munro G. Sporting bodies’ foul. Community Alcohol Action Network GrogWatch e-newsletter. 14 Apr 2008. http://www.caan.adf.org.au/newsletter.asp?ContentId=t20080414 (accessed Mar 2009).
- Institut National du Cancer. Alcool et risque de cancers [French]. Paris: INCa, Nov 2007. http://www.e-cancer.fr/v1/fichiers/public/rapportalcoolcancer.pdf (accessed Feb 2009).