The Australian Government’s decision to raise taxes on ready-to-drink spirit-based beverages (RTDs; “alcopops”) in 2008 caused great controversy. Interest groups have selectively cited evidence to support their points of view.
The alcohol industry cited Victorian data from the Australian Secondary Students’ Alcohol and Drug Survey (ASSADS) as evidence that the tax had failed, but closer examination of the data suggests that fewer students are drinking, and fewer are drinking at risky or high-risk levels.
Excise data from the first full year after the tax came into effect showed a more than 30% reduction in RTD sales and a 1.5% reduction in total pure alcohol sold in Australia.
Although understanding the impact of the alcopops tax will require critical analysis of a range of evidence, sales and ASSADS data suggest that the tax has resulted in reduced consumption of RTDs and total alcohol.
The most effective and cost-effective measures for reducing consumption and harm are a comprehensive graduated volumetric alcohol taxation system, a minimum price per standard drink, and special measures for particular products that may cause disproportionate harm.
While welcoming the alcopops tax, public health advocates have consistently argued for a comprehensive package of reform that covers pricing, availability and promotion of alcohol, as well as education and treatment services.
- 1. White V, Smith G. Victorian secondary school students’ use of licit and illicit substances in 2008. Results from the 2008 Australian Secondary Students’ Alcohol and Drug Survey. Melbourne: Victorian Government Department of Health, 2010.
- 2. Fyfe M. Alcopops tax fails to curb teenage drinkers. The Age (Melbourne) 2010; 26 Oct.
- 3. Stockwell T, Zhao J, Chikritzhs T, Greenfield TK. What did you drink yesterday? Public health relevance of a recent recall method used in the 2004 Australian National Drug Strategy Household Survey. Addiction 2008; 103: 919-928.
- 4. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Apparent consumption of alcohol, Australia, 2009–10. Canberra: ABS, 2011. (ABS Cat. No. 4307.0.55.001.) http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4307.0.55.001 (accessed Jun 2011).
- 5. Chikritzhs TN, Dietze PM, Allsop SJ, et al. The “alcopops” tax: heading in the right direction [editorial]. Med J Aust 2009; 190: 294-295. <MJA full text>
- 6. Northern Territory Licensing Commission. Trial restrictions on the sale of liquor in Alice Springs: decision on licence conditions following evaluation of the trial. 10 July 2003. http://www.nt.gov.au/justice/commission/decisions/Alice_Springs_Post-Evaluation_Trial_Restrictions_0703.pdf (accessed Jun 2011).
- 7. Anderson P, Chisholm D, Fuhr DC. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of policies and programmes to reduce the harm caused by alcohol. Lancet 2009; 373: 2234-2246.
- 8. Babor T, Caetano R, Casswell S, et al. Alcohol: no ordinary commodity. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
- 9. Wagenaar AC, Salois MJ, Komro KA. Effects of beverage alcohol price and tax levels on drinking: a meta-analysis of 1003 estimates from 112 studies. Addiction 2009; 104: 179-190.
- 10. Purshouse RC, Meier PS, Brennan A, et al. Estimated effect of alcohol pricing policies on health and health economic outcomes in England: an epidemiological model. Lancet 2010; 375: 1355-1364.
- 11. National Drug Research Institute. The public health, safety and economic benefits of the Northern Territory’s Living With Alcohol Program 1992/3 to 1995/6. Perth: National Drug Research Institute, Curtin University of Technology, 1999.
- 12. Gray D, Chikritzhs T, Stockwell T. The Northern Territory’s cask wine levy: health and taxation policy implications. Aust N Z J Public Health 1999; 23: 651-653.
- 13. Stockwell T, Chikritzhs T, Hendrie D, et al. The public health and safety benefits of the Northern Territory’s Living With Alcohol Program. Drug Alcohol Rev 2001; 20: 176-180.
- 14. Public Health Association of Australia. Submission from the Public Health Association of Australia to the Senate Community Affairs Committee Inquiry into ‘Ready to Drink’ Alcohol (Alcopops). 2008. http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/alcohol_beverages/submissions/sub24.pdf (accessed Jun 2011).
- 15. Royal Australasian College of Physicians. The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) submission for the Inquiry into Ready-to-Drink Alcohol Beverages. 2008. http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/alcohol_beverages/submissions/sub25.pdf (accessed Jun 2011).
- 16. 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. <MJA full text>
- 17. Public Health Association of Australia. PHAA - support alcopops tax to reduce harm [media release]. 22 Jun 2009. http://www.phaa.net.au/documents/mediaRelease/MediaReleaseSupportalcopopstaxtoreduceharm.pdf (accessed Jun 2011).
- 18. Royal Australasian College of Physicians. Physicians applaud the passing of the alcopops tax in the Senate today [media release]. 13 Aug 2009. http://www.racp.edu.au/index.cfm?objectid=D7FAA694-E371-4AB9-BE41B937879A52E1 (accessed Jun 2011).
- 19. Public Health Association of Australia. Alcohol Policy. 2008. http://www.phaa.net.au/documents/policy/20081006revisedAlcohol.pdf (accessed Jun 2011).
- 20. Royal Australasian College of Physicians. Alcohol policy: using evidence for better outcomes. Sydney: RACP, 2005.
- 21. Royal Australasian College of Physicians. Consultation paper: Australia’s future tax system. Submission on behalf of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians. 2009. http://www.racp.edu.au/page/policy-and-advocacy/college-submissions (accessed Jun 2011).
- 22. National Preventative Health Taskforce. Australia: the healthiest country by 2020. National Preventative Health Strategy — the roadmap for action. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2009. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/preventativehealth/publishing.nsf/Content/nphs-roadmap (accessed Jun 2011).
- 23. Collins DJ, Lapsley HM. The costs of tobacco, alcohol and illicit drug abuse to Australian society in 2004/05. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2008. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/drugstrategy/publishing.nsf/Content/34F55AF632F67B70CA2573F60005D42B/$File/mono64.pdf (accessed Jun 2011).
Publication of your online response is subject to the Medical Journal of Australia's editorial discretion. You will be notified by email within five working days should your response be accepted.