Hague Kevin: Alcohol Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hague Kevin: Alcohol Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 24 October 2012. Volume:685;Page:6184. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 I also want to speak on Supplementary Order Paper 112 which stands in the name of Maryan Street because it is one of three different approaches that are being countenanced in Supplementary Order Papers on this Alcohol Reform Bill overall to deal with the matter of price. As she says it deals with that in two ways. It provides that deterrent effect associated with I guess the standard understanding of price in microeconomics—that an increased price will reduce consumption—and that is a good thing. 
Also as she notes the levy that she proposes would provide a dedicated fund for health services. That is an important thing because what we know—and it will be interesting if the Minister of Health Tony Ryall takes a call on this part—is that our alcohol and drug treatment services are incredibly important and are under incredible stress. 
There is already much greater need and indeed demand for those treatment services than can possibly be serviced by the services that we fund at present. I am sure that Government members will have been visited by treatment service providers—as I have been—advocating for a very substantial increase in the capacity of those treatment services. Indeed the levy that Maryan Street proposes would be one method of providing a revenue source to enable the Government which of course is cash-strapped to do that. 
I want to focus a little now on the other aspect of the levy that Maryan Street proposes and that is the deterrent effect and come to those three mechanisms that have been proposed and perhaps weigh up some of the advantages and disadvantages of the three. Certainly the Law Commission in its report canvasses minimum pricing and we have heard some discussion about that. It recommends a 50 percent increase in the excise tax on alcohol and on a later part of this bill Supplementary Order Paper 130 which stands in my name seeks to implement the Law Commission’s recommendation. Then there is this third option that Maryan Street has introduced to the debate. So when we look at those three options I guess we look at which of those is going to have the biggest effect. It may be that some combination of them is appropriate. 
We use price in relation to tobacco control as a means of suppressing demand. I think it would be fair to say that I think every member of this House has recently voted for increases to the excise tax on tobacco on that basis—to reduce consumption of tobacco products. In that context it is recognised that increasing the price of tobacco is the most effective means of reducing consumption of tobacco products. When it comes to alcohol there is no reason to deal with alcoholic beverages in any different way from the way that we deal with tobacco. Actually we know that increasing the price of alcohol—and as I say there are three ways proposed for doing that but whichever way we choose—is going to be the most effective way of reducing consumption and thereby reducing the harm associated with alcohol which after all is the object of this bill. So it is perverse in fact that the Government embraces and indeed celebrates that price increase mechanism—