ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. D.G.E. Hood:

That the Social Development Committee inquire into and report on the adequacy and appropriateness of laws and practices relating to the sale and consumption of alcohol and, in particular, with respect to—

1. Whether those laws and practices need to be modified to better deal with criminal and other anti-social behaviour arising from the consumption of alcohol;

2. The health risks of excessive consumption of alcohol, including—

(a) 'binge drinking'; and

(b) foetal alcohol syndrome;

3. The economic cost to South Australia in dealing with the consequences of alcohol abuse; and

4. Any other relevant matters.

(Continued from 18 June 2008. Page 3366.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (22:21): I think this motion is timely and relevant and, therefore, the Liberal Party will be supporting it. There has been a lot of hysteria about the issue of so-called binge drinking which is, I think, a populist term rather than one that is used in the literature, and there is a large body of literature in relation to all sorts of drug use, but especially in relation to alcohol use. I think that it is useful for us as legislators to be well-informed about the facts of this phenomenon known as binge drinking rather than indulge in knee-jerk reactions that are really aimed at being seen to be doing something rather than actually attacking the real problem.

There has been a lot of commentary in the press in recent months and I, like all other members, find the pictures and descriptions of young people, in our CBD mostly, and I think there are a few on Jetty Road, who were lying in gutters, young people who have lost control and are potentially very vulnerable—I think that we all find those sorts of images disturbing.

The Premier has described the current situation as being a pandemic. I would challenge that because I believe that binge drinking in Australia is as old as settlement. We can go back to historic events such as the Rum Rebellion to demonstrate Australia's long association with alcohol. We can look at the impact of a drinking culture where alcohol is used as a reward and the sort of drinking games that people have of downing as many as they can in a short period of time. Indeed our former prime minister Bob Hawke was renowned (and holds some sort of record) for the number of beers that he was able to consume in a certain period of time.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: And I am reminded of Kevin Rudd, our current Prime Minister. So, what does the literature say, if we are to look at that rather than indulge in knee jerk reactions? Twelve to 17-year-olds, I think, are a very important group in this whole debate, and I say that because medical evidence demonstrates that young people—in particular, adolescents—are quite vulnerable and the new recommendations that are coming out say that young people should delay the onset of alcohol consumption for as long as possible, certainly before the age of 18, and even perhaps for some years after that. Obviously, since the legal drinking age is 18, that is a decision that they need to make for themselves. Among 12 to 17 year olds there is evidence that levels of consumption declined in the 1980s, increased in the 1990s and have remained stable ever since. That reference is from the Australian Secondary Students Alcohol and Drug Survey.

Since 1990, short-term risk, which is a subcategory of risk, has doubled among some 12 to 15 year olds from 2.5 per cent to 5 per cent, and has increased among 16 to 17 year olds from 15 per cent to 20 per cent. That compares to 35 per cent of the total population of Australians aged over 14. That statistic comes from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare: Statistics on drug use in Australia 2006.

Of all age demographics, young Australians aged 18 to 24 report the highest level of risky alcohol consumption. By the age of 18 approximately 50 per cent of males and females are young risky drinkers, but two-thirds consider themselves social drinkers. I think that is an important point to make because I think a lot of people underestimate the amount of alcohol that they consume and the potential risk that they are putting themselves under.

As I mentioned, the under 18s are of particular concern. Unfortunately, the age of initiation is getting younger. That is something that I hope the committee will address. The facts are that adolescents aged 12 to 17 have no difficulty obtaining alcohol: 39 per cent obtain it from their friends and 36 per cent obtain it from their parents.

That second statistic is, I think, quite alarming because there is a lot of anecdotal information about the place, when you talk to people (teenagers), that, particularly at private parties, there is an expectation among some young people and their parents that it is okay to supply your kids with a six-pack when they go to a party.

The South Australian Network of Drug and Alcohol Services (SANDAS), which represents the peak NGO bodies for drug and alcohol services, is quite concerned because it believes that parents are actually looking for some guidance from policy makers in terms of what is acceptable for them to provide to young people who may be going to private parties and so forth.

The licensed premises have come in for, I think, an unfair slap of recent times. The council of various ministers around Australia decided that it was going to try to implement a 2am lockout across Australia and, of course, we saw in this state that the government unsuccessfully sought to implement a 3am lockout on licensed premises in the CBD, which it has since had to recant.

The AHA reports that 70 per cent of alcohol is purchased for consumption in non-licensed situations; that covers private parties or people drinking at home. It also refers to those people who, for want of a better word, load themselves up before they go out for a big night out on the town, and nobody has any control over that behaviour except the individuals who choose to consume.

We have also seen the knee-jerk reaction by the commonwealth to increase the tax on RTDs, or alcopops, as they are commonly referred to. The fairly predictable response has been that young people have simply substituted what they consume, including mixing their own spirits, in which situation they do not know what level of alcohol they are consuming, or they may even revert to illicit drugs. There has been some reports in the press about some young people reverting to illicit substances, which are cheaper on the streets for the time.

I note that the National Alcohol Strategy 2006-2009 has not been updated since the November 2007 election, so I think that the federal government could try to do something fairly comprehensive in terms of looking at this issue, rather than coming up with the odd knee-jerk reaction to make it look like it is doing something. One jurisdiction I have referred to in some interviews is New Zealand. The Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand has been running a very successful campaign which has focused on all demographics addressing all drinking behaviour. That is to address the issue that young people are often unfairly targeted, when it may be (as, I think, one of the federal government's ads shows) that it is the behaviour of the parents that influences the child to accept excessive alcohol consumption as a norm. Indeed, I think there are probably people in the older age groups—the 25-pluses—who may still have issues with excessive alcohol consumption.

With those words I indicate that the Liberal Party supports this motion. I look forward to some sensible recommendations following the taking of evidence.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (22:31): I will continue to remind members of the rankings of harms of drugs, licit and illicit, that were published two years ago by medical researchers in the UK. Just to remind members, from one to 20, from the most to the least harmful, the order was: heroin, cocaine, barbiturates, street methadone, alcohol (No. 5), ketamine, benzodiazepines, amphetamines, tobacco, buprenorphine, cannabis, solvents, 4-MTA, LSD, Ritalin, anabolic steroids, GHB, ecstasy, alkyl nitrates and khat.

It is a list that does not, and could not, include harmful drugs, but is a very useful table in that it is a tool that assists us in exposing the lack of scientific rigour in the way most countries deal with the issue of drugs. Indeed, South Australia is about to enter a brave new world based on myth and superstition about drugs, having passed the Controlled Substances (Controlled Drugs, Precursors and Cannabis) Amendment Bill. Far from taking a scientific approach, the South Australian parliament, to its shame, will be instructing our courts to ignore the evidence and sentence on the basis that all controlled drugs are very harmful—which, of course, is an absolute nonsense.

The UK research is also very useful in that it includes licit and illicit drugs, which in turn exposes the hypocrisy of most Western societies where the use of the drug ethanol (more commonly known to us as alcohol) is not just tolerated but promoted and encouraged. An analysis of that research appeared on the website of the Transform Drug Policy Foundation in the UK in March last year, and I quote from that:

…if we are being scientific here, it is imperative to separate out the harms that follow from the use of the drug per se and the health and social harms exacerbated or created specifically by the drugs' use within an illegal market.

They gave these particular harms the label 'prohibition harms'.

In relation to heroin, the prohibition harms included the risk of overdose, health risks from sharing needles, property crime and prostitution to fund the habit, and gang warfare associated with the provision of that heroin. These are some of the harms associated with street heroin, but those same harms are not there for legal heroin, which is available to a small number of registered users in Britain. Street methadone is on that list at No. 4, but legally obtained and administered methadone (which is not included in The Lancet analysis) would be lower simply because it has none of the prohibition harms. So the table has to be a little skewed from that perspective; the legal drugs will show up as creating less harm. As Transform observes in its commentary about the rankings:

The more you criminalise the drug…the more risky you make its use and more social harms you create associated with illegal supply.

That brings me to alcohol, the drug which is the subject of this motion. The world saw similar harms associated with alcohol during the prohibition era in the US. Stronger alcohol was consumed: whisky as opposed to wine. Because it was illegal, there was no regulated health standard and the alcoholic content was unpredictable. As with our illicit drug markets in Australia, there was no way that a customer could ensure that they were getting what they thought they might be purchasing. From 1920 to 1925 in the US there was a quadrupling of deaths from contaminated alcohol.

So whatever we do, we must keep this drug—ethyl alcohol—legal. It is a dangerous drug and because it is dangerous, we need to keep it above the horizon so that the radar can track it. The dangers have been known for years: direct health consequences to the body and what that means to the individual; our health system and the economy; and the outcomes in terms of behaviour such as domestic violence and road trauma. The turnaround in politics and the hypocrisy of the media on the binge-drinking issue is amazing to behold.

Two years ago, the Adelaide Advertiser—or The Dirt Adviser, as I sometimes prefer to call it—did its best to destroy my reputation when I said I felt safer at a rave party than in a bar late on Saturday night. All the current affairs and news programs highlight that same aggressive, anti-social behaviour associated with binge drinking which caused me to conclude that bars on a Saturday night were not the safest places to be. As part of a drug harm minimisation approach I have continued to argue for pill testing at rave parties, but the government has turned down my approaches on the basis of 'sending the wrong message'.

Three years ago our current health minister, who happened at that time to be acting health minister when I made yet again a call for pill testing of drugs at rave parties, publicly responded to my call by challenging me to spend an evening in the Accident and Emergency Department at the Royal Adelaide Hospital to see the carnage created by drugs, so I arranged to do that on a Saturday night from 10 until 3 o'clock the following morning. Sure, there were a couple of admissions associated with illicit drugs, but overwhelmingly the drug that had the most impact on the night—

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. I.K. Hunter): If members want to have a discussion, they had best do it out the back.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: The drug that had the most impact on the night that I was there was alcohol, and that has subsequently been confirmed by research. A year on from that visit, what is called the Designer Drug Early Warning System Report from Royal Adelaide Hospital validated my observation that alcohol was the problem. The Advertiser quoted Dr Michael Davey from the hospital as saying that on any given Saturday night 10 out of 36 general cubicles were taken up by extremely drunk patients.

The Social Development Committee will, as a consequence of this reference, have the challenging task of evaluating conflicting statistics and research. One side of that has already been demonstrated by the speech made by the Hon. Rob Lucas. From what he said, one would conclude that there is no problem of any consequence, that the patterns of alcohol consumption have not altered over decades, yet—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: I said 'one would conclude' from what you were saying.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: Have a read of what I have said. When you come into consciousness like that, you might pick things out of context. I would need a lot of hard evidence to convince me that 10 years ago 10 out of 36 emergency beds on a Saturday night were taken up by drunks. Certainly in the direct vicinity of this building, the broken glass, vomit and urine that Parliament House staff have to clean up on a Monday morning is a phenomenon that would not have been observed 20 years ago. The levels of drunkenness exhibited on the streets early on a Sunday are certainly not something we have seen in the recent past, although I recall as a child, when we still had 6 o'clock closing, being horrified to see people sitting, or even lying down, on the footpath outside hotels too drunk to get up without assistance. I am not sure that statistics were collected back then, so I do not know if we can make adequate comparisons.

The website of Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia (DASSA) partly confirms what the Hon. Rob Lucas had to say. It states:

Between 1998 and 2004, the proportion of the population drinking on a daily basis remained consistent and below 9 per cent for both South Australia and at the national level.

But then one needs to read further to ascertain that 37.1 per cent of South Australians had consumed alcohol at levels considered risky or high risk for alcohol-related harm in the short-term on at least one occasion in the preceding 12 months. That figure went up to 66.9 per cent for those in the 20 to 29 years age group. However, as we know, the NHMRC guidelines on which these judgments were made are being reviewed, with the suggestion that no more than two drinks in a session be now considered as binge drinking.

The terms of reference include, first, whether the laws and practices need to be modified. I suspect that the laws are sufficient and that the deficiencies appear to be in the practice. The statistics show that the very few of those selling alcohol across the bar comply with the legal requirement not to sell to those who are showing signs of intoxication, and there has been little enthusiasm to see that this is enforced. As we know, as at March 2008 only one person had been fined for selling to someone already intoxicated in the past six years.

Some of the more interesting aspects of this inquiry are likely to be covered under term of reference 4: 'Any other related matter'. Perhaps under this reference the committee might investigate the reasons this particular age group is using alcohol in an apparently reckless fashion. I suggest this because the mover of this motion (Hon. Dennis Hood) belongs to the Family First Party, which has advocated raising the drinking age to 20 years. That might not be a solution, given that the at-risk age group appears to be those in the 20 to 29 years group.

Professor Anne Roach, of Flinders University, is certainly one expert the committee should consult. She was present at the International Harm Reduction Association conference that I attended in May, and she spoke of the complexity of this issue in relation to youth subcultures. She mentioned how the media is using the alcohol consumption issue as a way of demonising young people, and I hope that the Social Development Committee will resist any urge to follow the dictates of the media in that regard.

Something which these terms of reference do not address is the issue of the lifestyle advertising of alcohol. We see ads on television showing that alcohol is necessary to have a good time, that it makes men more masculine or women more attractive. If the committee reaches conclusions about the danger of this drug, then I believe that we must seriously look at whether there is any justified case for the continuation of this type of advertising.

I make the observation that advertising can be very subtle. There is a form of advertising now known as 'viral marketing', and as a very good example I came across an advertisement for a beer that is made in Utah which, of course, is the home of the Mormons—80 per cent of the population in Salt Lake City in Utah are Mormons, so to set up a brewery there is quite a challenge, I suppose, to that religion. This company markets a low alcohol beer called Polygamy Porter. Reading from a website about this it says:

The beer's label is pretty hilarious. Of course, it is what you would expect from a Salt Lake City, Utah brewery that was creative enough to come up with 'Polygamy Porter'. The main label proclaims 'Why have just one?' Across the neck label it says 'Bring some home for the wives' and in small print they claim their motto has always been 'We drink our share and sell the rest.' From the brewery's online store I found a T-shirt I believe I will have to buy for Von—

Von being this man's wife—

to give me for my birthday. The shirt has the full colour label on the back and printed across the front in large letters: 'I've tried polygamy.'

Apparently when the company wanted to put up a billboard in Utah and Salt Lake City there was a bit of a reaction to it, because the label and planned billboard featured a picture of a scantily clad man, cherubs and a six pack of wives. When the brewery owner was contacted about an accusation that this was in bad taste, he said, 'We've exhibited much worse taste than this'. Among other things, the billboard would suggest, 'When enjoying our flavourful beverages, please procreate responsibly'. I did what one does under these circumstances and forwarded the email to others, and thus I have indulged in what is now known as viral marketing.

Some of the marketing is also very clever. For instance, a particular alcohol chain has a wonderful website with cocktail recipes. I bookmarked that one and let a few people know about it. There are some forms of advertising we simply will not be able to stop. Two decades ago, because of the harm associated with its use, substantial measures were put in place to prevent tobacco advertising in print, on radio or on TV. The UK study I referred to when I began my speech gave alcohol a much higher harm ranking than tobacco. Here in Australia we outlawed tobacco advertising and we know it has played a significant role in reducing tobacco consumption, so why do we allow it for a drug as harmful as alcohol? We know advertising is effective: the industry would not otherwise pour millions of dollars into it.

I came under attack from petrolheads last year when I called for the alcohol sponsorship of the Clipsal 500 to be stopped. We know that mixing fast cars and alcohol is very dangerous, and again those advertisers, the sponsors (as they call themselves, rather than advertisers) know exactly who they are targeting and why. Donations to political parties from companies associated with the manufacture and sale of alcohol might also be an interesting issue to investigate.

Another of the issues the committee might find itself investigating under the 'any other related matter' term of reference is that of accessibility—the number of outlets available for the purchase of alcohol. Four years ago the National Competition Council was critical of South Australia for not allowing the sale of alcohol in our supermarkets. I vigorously argued against bowing down to its recommendations and, fortunately, the pressure from the National Competition Council was resisted by the state government.

Lies, damned lies and statistics will be delivered to the committee and it will need to ensure any research provided is peer reviewed and not taken out of context. I certainly hope the committee will look at the existing law to determine whether it or its enforcement is inadequate. Whether or not alcohol use has increased, whether or not binge drinking has increased, we are talking about a powerful substance. It is because this legal drug is so dangerous that I am supporting this motion. I congratulate the Hon. Dennis Hood for recognising the harm associated with this particular legal drug.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (22:48): I rise today to speak in opposition to the motion moved by the Hon. Dennis Hood. Members may be aware of a motion put by the member for Fisher earlier this year in another place, which covered similar grounds to the motion currently before us. For many of us, drinking alcohol is an accepted part of the South Australian lifestyle. Many people drink moderately and enjoy the social aspects of drinking, but unfortunately some also experience the negative aspects of alcohol, either through their own misuse or through the impact of other people's intoxication. There is no doubt that the misuse of alcohol comes with a cost: a social, health and financial cost borne by the South Australian community.

We already know that approximately 85 per cent of all South Australians over 14 years of age drink alcohol, with 50 per cent of South Australians drinking at least weekly. We know that 10 per cent of South Australians drink at levels that place them at risk of long-term harm to their health and well-being. These long-term harms generally result from regular heavy consumption over an extended period of time and can include heart disease and other cardiovascular diseases, cancers—including mouth, throat, liver, stomach, bowel and breast cancer—and cirrhosis of the liver.

We also know that drinking at levels that place people at risk of short-term harm is more common, with 6.8 per cent of South Australians drinking in this way at least weekly and a further 14.7 at least monthly. Short-term harms usually occur following excessive consumption during a binge (a single drinking session) and can include accidents and injuries that result from intoxication, as well as antisocial behaviour, violence and criminal behaviour. Under-age drinking is also common, with over 90 per cent of South Australian school students aged between 12 and 17 having tried alcohol; and over a quarter of 12 to 17 year old South Australian schoolchildren surveyed in 2005 were reported to have consumed alcohol in the previous week. Of those children, 59 per cent had engaged in risky drinking behaviours within the last two weeks.

The impact of harmful levels of alcohol use on young people's brain development, wellbeing and learning outcomes, and the causal link between early initiation into alcohol use and the development of adult problematic behaviours relating to alcohol and other drugs is of concern. Other harms include: foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. This incidence and prevalence of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder in Australia, together with the risks associated with alcohol consumption during pregnancy, has resulted in significant debate amongst health professionals.

At a federal level, the Intergovernmental Committee on Drugs has formed a working party to advise the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy on the issue of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. The working party comprises experts of FASD from the Australian government and each state and territory, and includes indigenous representation. The role of the foetal alcohol spectrum disorder working party includes: the development of a national approach to reduce the incidence of FASD; the development of special initiatives to address the higher incidence of FASD in indigenous Australians; improving diagnosis and recognition of FASD; improving access to services for people with FASD; determining key priorities for research; and developing appropriate policy to address the issue of FASD.

The government is aware not only of the harms caused by alcohol but also the health and social costs of excessive drinking which are felt by the whole community. Australia-wide, the social costs of alcohol consumption have been estimated at $15.3 billion per year, when factors such as crime, violence, treatment costs, loss of productivity and premature death are taken into account. In this state, the Liquor Licensing Act currently provides a number of mechanisms to control both the sale and consumption of liquor. A key component of the Liquor Licensing Act designed to minimise the harmful and hazardous use of alcohol is, in fact, a mandatory code of practice which applies right across the industry. This code outlines the range of practices relating to minors, responsible attitudes to the consumption of liquor, intoxication and disorderly behaviour, and highlights a responsible attitude to the advertisement and promotion of liquor. It comes with some significant penalties if the code is breached.

The dry areas are also an important mechanism designed to ensure public safety as part of a broad level strategy to address public nuisance. Applications for dry zones can be for various lengths of time and, when combined with liquor licensing accords, precinct management groups and liquor management plans, can assist to promote the responsible service of alcohol and the management of the alcohol-related issues, including antisocial behaviour. All licensees must establish and maintain practices to minimise undue noise and inconvenience to people in the vicinity of licensed premises and must be vigilant in monitoring sound levels and the behaviour of their patrons. This includes monitoring patron behaviour as they make their way to and from the licensed premises.

The South Australian alcohol action plan is also currently under development and will set down strategies for reducing harm and promote the responsible consumption of alcohol. The plan will be developed in consultation with various partners from across the government and non-government sectors. An interagency working group has already been established to develop the plan and to ensure its smooth implementation and valuation. The priority areas that have been agreed to are:

to improve health outcomes among individuals and communities affected by alcohol;

to reduce the incidence of intoxication amongst drinkers;

to facilitate safer and healthier drinking cultures by developing community understanding of alcohol and through regulation of its availability; and

to enhance public safety and amenity at the times and places where alcohol is consumed.

With these factors in mind, the South Australian alcohol action plan will set out the government's commitment to minimising the harmful consumption of alcohol and its related impacts on individuals, families and the wider community. It also acknowledges the work of the new federal government and the announcement of its $53 million national binge drinking strategy. At a recent ministerial council meeting it was agreed to fast-track work on the national binge drinking strategy.

This government acknowledges that it has a role to play in encouraging reduction in the harm caused by excessive drinking to individuals, families and our communities. I agree with the honourable member that the harm caused by excessive alcohol consumption is a real concern and that is why the alcohol action plan has been developed, specifically in the South Australian context, taking into account work already being done at a national level.

This work is already well underway and is drawing on the advice of experts from across government and those with experience in the field. I see no reason to repeat the work that is being done already. I oppose the motion.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (22:56): I did not intend to speak, but I rise to speak as a result of the vicious and unprovoked attack by the Hon. Sandra Kanck on my views on this issue, as alleged or claimed by the Hon. Sandra Kanck. I will be mercifully brief to deny absolutely some of what the Hon. Sandra Kanck indicated were the inferred views of the Hon. Mr Lucas in relation to the use and abuse of alcohol.

I can only assume the Hon. Sandra Kanck was referring to a contribution I made earlier in relation to the Rann government's proposed lockout policy. Regarding that issue and related matters I indicate that my view is simple. There is a problem with a minority of people, not just young people, on Friday and Saturday evenings in the city. The motion of the Hon. Mr Hood is canvassing problems right across the spectrum. It does not just relate to behaviour issues in the CBD on Friday and Saturday evenings, although it potentially canvasses that area, as well.

The view I put in relation to the issue of Friday and Saturday nights in the CBD is to tackle the problem with policies that might work and tackle the people who are causing the problem. We should not penalise the vast majority of mainly young people but also older people who happily enjoy themselves in the early hours of Friday and Saturday evenings in Adelaide because of the problems created by an unruly minority.

There are simple solutions, which I hope the committee will look at. One is a policy of a significant increased police presence on Friday and Saturday evenings between probably 10pm to 11pm and 6am on those two evenings. Certainly the evidence is there—if the committee will take the evidence—that a significantly increased police presence on the beat in Hindley Street during those hours will reduce significantly any behaviour problem in the street.

The second issue—and I have also indicated this before in public statements—is that there is an existing law under the licensing provisions which prevents or prohibits licensees from serving alcohol to clearly intoxicated people. The law is there and it needs to be policed. That requires an increased police presence and increased enforcement. I believe that those policies can work—not knee-jerk, tokenistic policies, such as a lockout policy for 2am or 3am on a particular morning.

I absolutely reject the notion that just because I object to what I believe is a particularly foolish policy and, if I can use the same inference technique that the Hon. Sandra Kanck used, I am surprised that by inference the Hon. Sandra Kanck is supporting the lockout policy from the statements she appears to have made this evening.

I would hope that the committee will look at the lockout policy and at some policies which may well work in relation to the actual problem rather than, as I said, a knee-jerk response which I do not believe will work. As I said, ultimately, I never subscribe to the view that you do nothing, as the Hon. Sandra Kanck was suggesting (or, indeed, others might have suggested), but rather that you look at some policies that might work. The only other brief comment I would make—because I know that the Hon. Sandra Kanck and the Democrats will want to support bans, prohibitions or restrictions in terms of alcohol advertising—is that if one goes back to the debate in relation to tobacco advertising in the mid 1980s one will see that we were told then that there were 16,000 deaths per year as a result of cigarette smoking and therefore we should ban tobacco advertising.

We have done that. We supported it. and I think that all sides of the parliament supported it. We listened to the argument. We asked the then minister for substance abuse (I am not sure who the latest one is but it is the last one) how many deaths from cigarette smoking occurred in 2007. It was actually more than 16,000. I forget the exact number—it was 17,000 or 18,000. What we were told 20 years ago in relation to what needed to be done to reduce the number of people who die as a result of cigarette smoking was to ban advertising. I think that, when they start to move down a similar path (as I am sure they will seek to do in relation to alcohol), the people who pull the policy levers need to demonstrate with evidence that such a policy will work.

In relation to cigarette advertising, the people who advocate that policy now have moved to the issue of the number of people who are smoking, whereas the figures with respect to the debate of the 1980s about the number of people who were dying from cigarette smoking are inconveniently unsupportive of what has occurred. So, they are jettisoned to the dust bin of history in terms of justifying what has occurred, and the people concerned move to new measures to justify what they believe to be the success of the policy. As I said, at the time it was supported I think by everyone in the parliament. I cannot think of anyone at that stage who opposed it. As this committee looks at the debate about advertising and alcohol, I would request that it ask the health advocates within the government departments who will give evidence to provide the evidence as to how it will work if they intend to propose such policy prescriptions.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (23:02): I thank all members for their contributions. I would particularly like to thank the Hon. Bob Such from the other place who, I must say, was instrumental in coming to me early on in preliminary discussions. In fact, it was largely his idea. I just want to put that on the record. He came to me with a number of thoughts and we worked on it together. He was not confident of getting the numbers in his house, so we agreed that I would move the motion here. It seems like the motion will have support, which I am thrilled about.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I am disappointed about that, and I will get to that in a moment. I thank those members who spoke to the motion, and I particularly acknowledge the contribution of the Hon. Ms Lensink, who I thought made eminent sense. Essentially her point, as I understood it, was that the point of the inquiry will be to look at the real impact and the statistics, and that sums up exactly what I was trying to do in putting this motion forward. It was deliberately broad in the sense that it would catch all. I just want to state for the record that no-one is suggesting that we make alcohol illegal. That is ridiculous. I do not think anyone would support that. We certainly would not. I just want to put that firmly on the record in case anyone might have silly thoughts to that effect.

The way in which this motion came to mind was that earlier in the year I had to drop my wife and daughter off at the airport very early on a Sunday morning. Their flight to Brisbane left at 6am. Because my wife was travelling with an infant, she had to be there at 5am. So, I dropped her off at 5 o'clock and drove home. The way I get home is to go through the city to get to Prospect, where I live. I drove down Hindley Street, because I thought, 'Well, I haven't been down Hindley Street at this hour of the morning in a long, long time.' So, I thought I would take the scenic route.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I can tell you, it was a sight for sore eyes. So, there would be no problems there.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: No, none of that, I can assure you. Anyway, I drove home via Hindley Street, and it really shocked me. What I saw in probably the two minutes it took me to drive the length of Hindley Street was two young girls literally lying in the gutter; this is at six in the morning. I am sure that those girls would have been under 20—it would not surprise me if they were under 18, and it would not shock me if they were under 16. They were literally lying in the gutter. One of them had her skirt up around her neck and the other one was semiconscious, but barely moving at all. The girl with her skirt lifted appeared to me to be knocked out. She was being attended to, so I did not feel the need to stop and I kept driving.

A few moments later, a young guy (I guess is the best way to refer to him), probably in his very early 20s, or maybe late teens, banged on my windscreen quite violently and screamed abuse at me—someone I had never met, obviously, or seen in my life before. It really left quite an impression on me. As I said, it was only a two-minute journey down that street. I had not been on that street at that hour of the morning for many years—and I would be prepared to take an oath on that if there is any doubt about that fact.

It really struck a chord with me. I got home and it was on my mind and I thought, 'What can I do about it?' One of the things that I could do about it was to ask the Social Development Committee to inquire into the cause. Obviously, I saw many drunk people. There was a feeling of violence on the streets, really, and it was an untoward situation.

The purpose of this inquiry is to examine, essentially, what can be done, what cannot be done and what should be done. A number of the things, as alluded to by the Hon. Ms Kanck, which will be looked at by this inquiry will fall outside the jurisdiction of this parliament. Federal issues, such as advertising, for example, and those sorts of things, will lie outside the parameters of this parliament. However, they are still issues upon which recommendations can be made.

I would also like to sincerely thank members of the opposition for their support. As I said, I think that the contribution by the Hon. Ms Lensink, in particular, was eminently sensible. I would also like to thank the Hon. Ms Kanck for her indication of support. I am genuinely surprised that the government would not support this motion.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Indeed. We have standing committees to inquire into just this sort of thing. The Social Development Committee is the appropriate body to hold such an inquiry. The motivation here is not to embarrass the government in any way. Frankly, I think that we would be facing the same issues whichever government was in power. When one considers that the Prime Minister at a federal level is obviously concerned about the impact that alcohol has on our society—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: It is a multi-party approach, Mr President, as you can see.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Well, I did that, and after I put her on the plane I drove down Hindley Street. I am disappointed. I just do not see what harm could be done in having a genuine look at this. As I said, it is not an attempt to embarrass the government at all. I think this is just an attempt to try to have a proper look at a very serious problem in our community.

Let me outline that problem. I am conscious of the hour, so I will not take too much time, but I would like to take a few minutes to outline the seriousness of the problem. I want to highlight in chronological order things that have come to my attention since I raised this motion in this council on 19 April this year. I would like to present a list of issues that I think are relevant and give further cause, if you like, for the holding of this inquiry. Again, all these things I am about to mention have come to my attention since 19 April this year. As I said, they are in chronological order.

The first of those is that in Queensland Premier Anna Bligh announced on the sidelines of the 2020 summit that her government would charge parents who provided under-age children with cartons of alcohol for schoolies celebrations and impose fines of up to $6,000. A couple of weeks after I moved this motion, we all read with shock the harrowing account in the Sunday Mail of cab driver Avel Aretas and his encounters with 'thousands' of binge drinkers, and in particular his observations of young women binge drinking in Adelaide and the risk they place themselves at. On 8 May, just a few weeks later, the Cancer Institute of New South Wales released a study showing that two standard drinks a day increased the risk of breast cancer by 22 per cent; two standard drinks a day increased the risk of developing mouth cancer by 75 per cent; and four standard drinks a day increased a man's risk of developing bowel cancer by 64 per cent.

On 11 May, just three days later, the Ceduna council proposed new licensing conditions at Yalata and Oak Valley to limit alcohol sales to light beer only, to reduce binge drinking, with the Mayor, Alan Souter, saying the community's police and local hoteliers all supported the move but that the licensing commissioner was not interested.

The very day after that, Dolly magazine's Youth Monitor surveyed 600 teenagers between the ages of 10 and 17 in findings released on 12 May. The findings were compared with attitudes in 1992. Results showed that 80 per cent of 10 to 17 year olds think that regular drinking is acceptable, compared with 64 per cent in 1992—a significant increase in just a few years. However, 42 per cent think it is acceptable to smoke tobacco, compared with 56 per cent in 1992. So, clearly, the advertising campaign against tobacco has resulted in people of that age group thinking of tobacco as less acceptable. Why we are not doing the same with alcohol is a valid question.

On the question of government involvement, governments of both persuasions have been aware of this problem for some time. Over 20 years ago, in a media release, the former minister for health, Dr Cornwall, referred to a DASC (as DASSA was then called) survey—

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: —of some 699 teenagers aged 12 to 17 and 472 adults aged 18 to 23. They found that over 40 per cent of 15 to 17 year olds had engaged in binge drinking (then defined as five or more drinks in a row) at least twice in the two weeks before the survey. Nearly 50 per cent of those aged 12 to 17 believed it should be harder for them to obtain alcohol. The report also shows that an alarming proportion of people aged 12 to 23 believe that drinking wine coolers (the drink of choice amongst young people in those days, or the RTDs of that generation) believe that 'drinking wine coolers or beer is safe if they do not want to get drunk'.

A few days later, a paper presented by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians at its annual congress (starting on 13 May) had the results of a telephone survey of 1,103 Australian women aged between 18 and 45, which showed that 34 per cent consumed alcohol during their last pregnancy; 32 per cent said they would drink if planning, or during, a future pregnancy; 93 per cent knew alcohol affects unborn children; and 81 per cent agreed that pregnant women should not drink alcohol during pregnancy, despite the fact that 34 per cent of them did.

Also, on 13 May (the very same day) the Northern Territory police pulled over a man near Alice Springs, who had a five-year old boy unrestrained in his vehicle but his slab of beer was buckled up alongside of him on the seat. On 15 May we heard that Queensland schoolgirls had formed an 'exclusive' club called Club 21, in which girls are ranked between one and 21 based on their thinness, good looks, binge drinking escapades, popularity with boys, etc. On 16 May the University of Tasmania released study of findings showing that 13 per cent of teenagers said they got 'blind drunk' regularly, while 43 per cent said they did so occasionally.

On 18 May we heard that, at its 61^st assembly, which began on 19 May, the World Health Organisation was under pressure to take action against binge drinking. Also, on 18 May we heard that a young man admired by many of our young people—singer Shannon Noll—admitted that he had been engaged in rampant drug and alcohol abuse. On 23 May the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy decided to fast track the federal government's $53.5 million national binge drinking strategy in response to the community's concern about binge drinking.

On 28 May we heard, through the former consumer affairs minister, that the state government was taking legal action against the Shenanigans Hotel at the Marion Shopping Centre for encouraging women to drink heavily—as was alleged.

We saw an instant change in drinking behaviour after the federal government's introduction of its alcopops tax, which some observers say has driven young binge drinkers to drink spirits rather than RTDs. Shortly after that, Britain launched a campaign aimed at women, its slogan being, 'If you drink like a man, then you'll look like one', and it demonstrated how long-term excessive consumption can affect a woman's appearance.

Data revealed at Senate estimates in early June indicated that 9.1 per cent of young people aged 14 to 19 years of age drink at risky or high-risk levels at least once a week. Submissions to the Senate ready-to-drink tax inquiry found that 20,000 girls in Australia aged 12 to 15 have a weekly drinking habit.

As I said, all this data has come into the public arena since I moved this motion on 19 April this year. So, in just a few short months all those things have come to light. Clearly, we have a problem that needs investigation. I state for the record that this is not an attempt to introduce draconian laws under some veil of secrecy or anything of that nature. As members here know, I enjoy an occasional drink. There is nothing wrong with that, but we need to look at what impact this issue is having on our society in a proper and informed way.

The PRESIDENT: It seems a very good argument for 10 o'clock closing.

Motion carried.