Alcopops Public Health Policy in Australia - Essay Example

Health policies guide the health practitioners to intervene in matters health. They also guide the public in matters of health. In other words, health policies inform health intervention measures. It acts as the framework that is used by the practitioners in the health sector to deal with issues pertaining to health (Squires, 2007). The practitioners are able to implement activities that are aimed at improving the health of the public. Public health sector has a myriad of policies that are aimed at safeguarding of the public health. Alcopops is such one policy that is informed by public health in Australia. In April 2008, the Australian government increased Alcopops tax by seventy percent (Squires, 2008). Ever since, the government has been collecting these taxes and withholding them from the liqueur companies. By May this year, the government had collected more than four hundred million dollars (Squires, 2008). A bill was passed by the lower house of Australian parliament that allowed the government to keep that money. The bill was passed in the month of May (Skov, 2009). This bill is highly likely to be passed by the senate. Another bill allowed the government to go on collecting those taxes until May 2010. The aim is to bring to the floor of the house a bill that aims to make this taxation a permanent feature of Australian tax revenues. This taxation aims to cut down on the production and consumption of alcohol in Australia. This will be in line with other developed countries that charge the liquor companies higher taxes. Introduction The alcopop tax was introduced to curb the consumption of ready to drink alcohol. This kind of alcohol is what is referred to as alcopop (Skov, 2009). It includes those canned beers that are sold in the supermarkets, for example Smirnoff, vodka amongst others. It is not only aimed at those canned drinks but all form of alcoholic beverages that are ready to drink, excluding the spirits. This taxation has been informed by the issues of the health of the Australian public. This was a result of the realization that “social context and the health of the community and individuals are interlinked” (Macdonald, 2005: 53). Therefore alcoholism, a social aspect, affects the health of the public. Alcopop taxation has been welcomed by the Royal Australian College of Physicians (Skov, 2009). Though it has not yet been passed by the senate, the college believes that this is a step in the right direction. This is because alcoholism has been found to be a very important public health issue (Macdonald, 2005: 55). Alcoholism has been taken over by the youths, with girls reported to be abusing alcohol more than teenage boys. For example in the year 2004, approximately three thousand people died from conditions related to this drug (Skov, 2009). This paper will look at the importance of this taxation policy as far as public health is concerned. This is because as indicated earlier, this is a public health policy that has been implemented in form of taxation. The paper will also analyze this policy and see how it has been formulated. Objectives of this policy will also be looked at. Finally, the paper will look at the factors that may lead to the successful implementation of this policy and the other factors that may hinder its implementation. This is important considering the fact that the Senate is yet to vote on this policy. Objectives of the Study The broad objective of this paper will be to look at the Alcopops tax as a form of public health policy in Australia. To this end, the paper will be guided by the following specific objectives: A description of Alcopops tax policy Importance and relevance of this policy to the public health Objectives of the Alcopops policy Which are the factors that may lead to the successful implementation of this policy? What are the factors that may hinder the implementation of Alcopops tax policy? Alcopops Tax Policy This tax policy was informed by the fact that alcoholism continues to plague the Australian society. Barraclough and Gardner (2008) are of the view that in the past years, there has been a marked increase in binge drinking among Australians. This has been looked at as a threat to the public health. According to Macdonald (2005), “addiction is a social determinant of health” (55). The government needed to come up with something to counteract this phenomenon. It introduced this tax on what has come to be referred to as Alcopops. This includes, according to Skov (2009) “pre-mixed rum and vodka-based drinks” (12). This tax was increased by $1.30 (Skov, 2009). This roughly equals to sixty pence per bottle of these drinks. Health officials came up with the idea that youths are sensitive to price hikes. As such, they will shun away from these drinks if their prices were hiked. Tax hike will inevitably lead to increase in the price of these drinks, according to Squires (2008). These drinks, according to Smith (2008), are targeted at the youth. Nicola Roxon, the Australian health minister, says that many girls below the age of fifteen years are consumers of these Alcopops (Skov, 2009). These drinks are laced with sugar. As such, it is hard to taste the alcohol that they contain. This is why they have been increasingly consumed by the young people. This is a public health issue that has to be stopped (Macdonald, 2005: 55). The only way to check is to create a framework within which practitioners will formulate activities aimed at reducing alcoholism. This is because, according to Macdonald (2005) “health services play a minor role in health maintenance….it has more to do with the circumstances of the lives of the people” (54). As such, treating alcoholism is not enough to curb it. There is need to change the life of the people in the society by eliminating alcohol from their surroundings. Alcopop provides such framework. Importance of Alcopops Policy This policy will be very important as far as public health is concerned. According to Merret and Neil (2008), alcohol and tobacco are the two most abused drugs in the world. Many deaths occur from alcohol related illnesses. These deaths, says Eriksson (2006), can be greatly reduced if access to alcohol is reduced and restricted. Illnesses and complication that arise from alcohol use a lot of money of the Australian government and individuals. Martinic & Measham (2008) put this cost at around fifteen billion dollars. This was during the year 2004-2005 alone. This cost was made up of lost productivity as people soaked in alcohol have reduced productivity. It also included crime and violence that is associated with this drug. Smith (2008) says that people who are under the influence of alcohol pause a danger not only to their health, but also to the health of those around them. They are prone to motor accidents and other forms of accidents where death and injuries occur. They are also prone to violence, harming and injuring other people in the process. A case in point is that of New South Wales. Here, according to Garrow et al (2000), number of violence that is connected with this drug has more than doubled each year. This is one of the country’s most populated states. The importance of Alcopops is that it will reduce these damages. It will reduce the number of people who will be drunk in the society, thus increasing productivity and reducing deaths and injury. The Australian Drug Foundation boss, John Rogerson, was quoted by Squires (2008) as supporting this policy. He was quoted saying that it will cut on binge drinking. As a result, John continued, there will be reduced violence and damage. Public Health Association boss, Mike Dube, was quoted by Squires (2008) as saying that these drinks are consumed by more than fifty percent of teenage Australian girls. He was of the view that this policy will dent this kind of indulgence. Objectives of Alcopops Policy The major objective of this policy is to increase the price of Alcopops drinks. The seventy percent increase in the tax charged on these drinks will mean that the prices will go high (Skov, 2009). In an economy that is controlled by market forces, costs that are incurred during the production of a certain consumer good or service is promptly passed down to the consumer according to Jarvinen & Room (2007). This was the rationale behind this policy. After the prices of Alcopops increase, the second goal of this policy will be achieved. This is, according to Merret and Neil (2008), the reduction of demand. It is a fact that youths are price sensitive. This, says Gauld (2005), is because of the fact that they are not earning money but are using money probably handed out by parents. As such, they will not be able to afford these drinks, or if they can afford, it will be through after fore going many other important things, which is unlikely. The cut in demand, according to Squires (2007) will mean that the public will now reduce the incidences of alcoholism. This can be viewed as a preventive measure as far as public health is concerned. It is important to note here that this policy aims at reducing alcoholism amongst the youths. This is because these drugs were found to be consumed by many youths more than adults. The policy makers wanted to preserve the next generation from the vagaries of alcoholism. This is because, according to Martinic & Measham (2008), this policy is going to increase the age at which the children in Australian society will be introduced to alcohol. According to Skov (2009), the consumption of Alcopops reduced from last year. This shows that the youths are now not able to access it. It fell by about 35%. This was between May 2008 and early this year. This is as contrasted with the consumption of these drinks in the previous years. Factors that will make this Policy be Implemented As expected, this policy has faced a lot of opposition from the manufacturers of these drinks. This notwithstanding, there are factors that are working in favor of this bill. This section is going to look at some of those factors. The first is that the policy has already been Okayed by the lower house of the Australian parliament. This was passed in May of this year. It was a very important milestone in the implementation of this policy. The government’s legislative activities are very important as far as reforms in the health sector are concerned. This is because, says Lewis (2003), for a reform to be successful, it must enjoy the support of the government. The work of the lobbyists is made easier if they can receive support from the government, opines Houghton & Roche (2001). The passage of the bills by the lower house was an indication that the policy received considerable support from the political elite. This shows that there is hope for the implementation of this policy. Another factor is the fact that this bill is likely to be supported and passed by the Senate. It is a fact that the Rudd government is a coalition one. Aggleton et al (2000) opines that coalition governments are a threat to health reforms. This is because the coalition partners are forever engaged in conflicts and disagreements such that no bills are passed. But this bill, according to Lindstom (2009) is likely to sail through, albeit in the face of stiff opposition. This is because there has been an agreement between the two partners that they will always support the bills of government on the floor of the house. As such, this policy is likely to become law within the next few days. There have been worries from some quarters that this policy will fail in the future because the Alcopops taxation policy will go on until May 2010. But the government quelled those fears when the health minister said that they were considering bringing another bill into parliament. This is according to Skov, 2009. This one will seek to make the Alcopops tax increment permanent. If this sails through parliament, Alcopops tax policy will be a permanent public health policy anchored in our constitution. This policy is enjoying a lot of support from many organizations and professional bodies. Martinic & Measham (2008) says that the Australian Psychological Society has expressed its support for this policy. It says that this is a very important measure to reduce the alcoholic nature of Australian community. Others include the Australian Medical Association. They support this policy because they feel that it is a very important counteract to alcoholism in the society, especially amongst the youths. Others are Australian Green, Australian Drug Foundation and Public Health Association amongst others. With this kind of support, it is very likely that this policy will be implemented. These organizations wield considerable influence in the society due to their activities and large membership. The policy has adopted a very effective measure to achieve its goal. McQueen (2004) is of the view that price has been a very effective tool to cut back consumption of many commodities. This is because when prices are hiked, demand falls. The harm will thus be reduced to the population. The price increase affects many facets of the alcoholic phenomenon, according to McQueen (2004). First of all, it reduces the consumption of the product. Then, the dangerous form of alcohol consumption, like binge drinking, is reduced, according to Jarvinen & Room (2007). Dependence on alcohol is also reduced. This is because many people can not afford it, thus have to do without it. The result of all this, says Lewis (2003), is the reduction of the negative effects that are associated with alcohol, for example accidents and violence. Martinic & Measham (2008) are of the view that reduction in consumption especially falls amongst the youths. They are unable or unwilling to buy alcohol at this hiked price. The relative income of the youths, especially those still in their teens, is very small. As such, they will find it impossible to support an alcoholic habit which is likely to be expensive, says Garrow et al (2000). A World Health Organizations report has supported this view, according to Martinic & Measham (2008). It was of the view that any form of health policy that increased the price of this drug led to reduced consumption amongst the youths. It slows the process whereby the young people might become full blown alcoholics. Other policies that had been designed the same way as this one had shown some measure of success. Houghton & Roche (2001) particularly identifies a program that was run for a period of nine years, from 1991 to the year 2000. It was called “Living With Alcohol”. It ran in the Northern Territory of Australia. It included taxing alcoholic drinks and was carried out by the government. There was marked reductions in alcoholism and complications and damages associated with it, this according to Jarvinen & Room (2007). Factors working against the Alcopops Policy As mentioned elsewhere in this paper. This policy has been opposed by many people and organizations. These are mainly some of the factors that may hinder its implementation. Health reforms always run into opposition as they are been implemented. Such is the nature of the human being (Merret & Neil, 2008). The first factor is that, according to Skov (2009), the failure to impose the tax on all alcoholic drinks. This tax is only applicable to the ready to drink alcohol only. As such, the demand for these drinks is falling but the consumption and demand of spirits is on the rise. This is one point that the critics of this policy keep driving home. They are of the view that to the public health, spirits are more dangerous than beers (Skov, 2009). This policy can thus be abandoned as not been holistic and all encompassing. The policy has faced stiff opposition from the Distilled Spirits Industry Council of Australia, this according to Squires (2008). They are of the view that this policy had what they were referring to as “substitute effect”, says Martinic & Measham (2008). People have opted to buy the spirits and go home to mix for themselves. This way, they can circumvent the tax increment. This policy is also likely to face legal challenges. This is because it is been taunted as been against the spirit of free market economy in Australia. The beer companies are of the view that the ready to drink alcoholic beverages are been unfairly targeted by the government (Skov, 2009). They are thus capable of taking the government to the courts. This will lead to the abandonment of this policy if it can not be supported in court of law. The companies cited studies that have been conducted by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. This study did not find any evidence that linked these drinks to the alcoholic nature of Australians (Skov, 2009). This policy is been engineered by the government. As such, it does not involve the people in its formulation and implementation. The public should embrace and own it. This is the only way that it can succeed, says Merret & Neil (2008). As this policy seems to be engineered by the government, the public are alienated. It is also more of an economic policy than a public health one. As such, it is bound to be overshadowed by economic considerations amongst the activists. They will as a result fail to note the benefits that this bill will have on the public health arena. Economic considerations may make this policy to fail in its implementation. The companies will claim that they are going to close down because of increased costs of production. This will lead to loss of jobs for the people who work in these industries. As a result, the government might opt to abandon the policy to save what they will be calling the economy. Conclusion Alcopops is one of the tax policies in the history of this country that is informed by the concern for the public health (Skov, 2009). It came as a result of the realization that the Australian community has embraced alcoholism as a form of their culture. It seeks to increase the taxes charged on the ready to drink alcoholic beverages. As a result, they will be expensive and thus not affordable by the public, especially the youths. This will reduce incidences of alcoholism amongst the Australian community. According to Macdonald (2005), “health is the total physical, psychological and social well being of the individual. It is not mere absence of diseases” (80). Alcoholism poses danger to the health of the public, if this definition is to be taken as the truth. This policy enjoys considerable support that will make it possible for it to b implemented. But it also faces some challenges that may make it impossible to implement it. All in all, this is a very important policy as far as alcoholism is concerned. References Aggleton, P., Hurry, J., & Warwick, I. (2000). Young people and mental health. John Wiley. Denver. Barraclough, S., & Gardner, H. (Eds.). (2008). Analyzing health policy: A problem-oriented approach. Marrickville, N.S.W.: Elsevier. Eriksson, G. (2006). Alcopops taxation policy in Australia. Mcguire & Borough. Sidney. Garrow, J., Ralph, A. & Trehearne, P. (2000). Human nutrition and dietetics. Elsevier Health Sciences. Melbourne. Gauld, R. (2005). Comparative health policy in the Asia Pacific. McGraw-hill International. Dallas. Houghton, E. & Roche, A. (2001). Learning about drinking. Psychology Press. Washington. Jarvinen, M., & Room, R. (2007). Youth drinking cultures: European experiences. Ashgate Publishing. Melbourne. Lewis, M. (2003). The people’s health: public health in Australia. Sidney. Lindstrom, B. (2006). Contextualizing salutogenesis and antonovsky in public health development [Electronic Version]. Health Promotion International, 21(3), 238-244. doi:10.1093/heapro/dal016 Macdonald, J. J. (2005). Environments for health: A salutogenic approach. London Earthscan Martinic, M. & Measham, F. (2008). Swimming with crocodiles: the culture of extreme drinking. CRC Press. Aspen. McQueen, H. (2004). Social sketches of Australia. University of Queensland Press. Queensland. Merret, F. & Neil, O. (2008). Australian health policies. Mcguire & Borough. New West. Putnam, S., & Galea, S. (2008). Epidemiology and the macrosocial determinants of health. Journal of Public Health Policy, 29(3), 275-289. Skov, L. (2009). Public health in Australia: the Alcopops tax policy. The Telegraph. 12th May, 2009. pp 12-13. Smith, P. (2008). Effects of alcoholism on Australian public health. Mitchell & Foucault. Texas. Squires, N. (2008). Australia raises Alcopops tax by 70%. The Telegraph.30th April, 2008. pp 23-24. Squires, P. (2007). ASBO nation: the criminalization of nuisance. The Policy Press. Paris. REVISION set on 2009-05-26 17:51: Sorry for being nuisance but I have given this paper to my professor just to have a look, and he said that references need to be added in introduction and almost the whole paper has to be referenced correctly and if there are any direct quotes please provide the pg numbers. You have also quoted my professor on several occasions and he mentioned that he doesn’t talk about policies in his book; therefore could you please revise again. Thank you Read More