News

On 14 May, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Disability published the final report from its Inquiry into the health impacts of alcohol and other drugs in Australia. 

The IBA made a submission to the first round of this inquiry back in November 2024.  

From the perspective of small Australian-owned breweries, there are some good solutions to reduce harm. Then other areas where it’s likely that the sledgehammer of regulation is going to come down on us.  

Firstly, while this was an important inquiry into the harm of alcohol and other drugs. The inquiry and report seemed to be very much focused on demonising alcohol. With no balance to the positive aspects of culture and wellbeing that sharing a beer can bring.  

Prohibition is not what Australians want 

The position of the Cancer Council and many of the health lobbyists referenced in the report is that there is no safe level of drinking.  They are advocating for positions much more akin to prohibition by using exorbitant taxation and over-regulation.  

It is out of step with what the average Australian wants.  Right now, in a cost-of-living crisis and with mental health outstripping cancer as the number one global health concern, Australians want to get together over a beer at their local.  But the average working-class Australian can no longer afford it.  

Nowhere in the report is there a discussion about the health benefits of people having community in third-places where they can feel connected to their neighbours. An independent report commissioned by the British Beer and Pub Association found that pubs are more than venues for alcohol consumption. That report demonstrates how these embedded social institutions generate measurable wellbeing benefits for millions of people.   Remember that British pubs are far more akin to independent breweries because they are not filled with pokies! Independent Breweries provide social infrastructure. A place where, in an ever-fracturing world, neighbours and communities can connect over a meal and a beer.

We agree that Australians should make informed choices for their health and base their decisions on evidence. But is it only fair for one issue group to have their thumb on the scale deciding which harms reasonable adults should choose?  We accept this report wasn’t about the harm of social isolation and living in an increasingly fractious society. But if we are making recommendations that intend to become policy, why are we artificially drawing the line around the conversation in a way that only suits a particular narrative? 

A product made under rigorous food standards is less harmful than an illicit drug made anywhere, by anyone 

Nowhere in the report is there a discussion about the associated harm with a Government policy that makes a highly regulated product, produced under food safety standards, less affordable than illicit unknown drugs.   

Ask any university student why they are choosing illicit drugs over a 3.5% naturally fermented product made under strict food standards.  It’s because our taxation regime has made a moderate beer comparatively unaffordable compared to cocaine.  Australians are now the highest per-capita users of cocaine.  

It doesn’t take someone with a PHD to observe that if one product is made in a factory under mandated food safety standards and the other product is made in an illegal drug den – consumers know exactly what they are putting in their body with product A and can only guess when it comes to product B.   

And yet this whole inquiry equates those products as if they are contributing the same overall harm to society.  

We’ve demonised alcohol so much that there is now a genuinely held belief amongst young people that malt, water, hops and yeast naturally fermented (and ingredients that have been combined for centuries) are somehow more harmful than sugar-laden flavoured ethanol or illicit drugs.  

The data shows that the majority of Australians are drinking responsibly, and the beer industry has led the way toward moderation 

The report also failed to acknowledge, in any meaningful way, that the Government’s own data shows that alcohol consumption and risky drinking have trended significantly downward, with underage drinking being cut in half in the last two decades.  

The majority of Australians are drinking responsibly. But the report writers have gone to great lengths not to acknowledge that the industry itself has helped to drive the change in drinking culture in Australia. While simultaneously saying the industry should play a key role.  

Independent economist Professor Kym Anderson has found that “Beer moderation has been a key contributor to Australia’s reduction in per capita alcohol consumption over the past half-century”. 

Independent breweries led the craft beer revolution that supported a shift to premiumisation and drove the consumer trend of no and low alcohol options.  

It is the rise of independent craft beer (as a premium, higher-priced, artisanal product) that has changed consumer behaviour towards choosing to consume lower amounts of a higher quality product. Independent breweries are leading the way in the production of ‘no’ and low alcohol beers. 

Uniform Taxation is the only way forward 

The IBA has said this now on many occasions; the failure to address the current inequitable alcohol taxation regime means that at this point the Government is simply gaslighting us that they designed the system to address harm.  

The Report concludes that “Treasury undertake modelling of alcohol taxation and then advises on whether reforms are needed to ensure that it remains fit for purpose from an economic and public health standpoint.”   

“The Committee noted with interest during the inquiry that there are considerable concerns that the current taxation system does not provide adequate safeguards to those at greatest risk of alcohol harm, due to the continued availability of cheap alcohol products. This is undoubtedly a result of the non-uniform taxation of alcohol in Australia, leading to the production of cheaper products that attract a lesser tax. The predominant example of this is the Wine Equalisation Tax, where products such as cask wine can be produced and sold at lower prices.” 

Why is wine such a sacred cow?  As was reported to us recently, one politician said: “fuck off, no one is going to do anything to the wine industry.” 

Unlike the brewing industry (which has never received a cent in direct Federal Government funding), the wine industry has received hundreds of millions of dollars from Federal and State Governments since the 70s. So is it any wonder they have the high-paid lobbyists and fancy campaigns convincing decision makers to keep the benefits flowing?  If you’re an industry that has become used to government propping you up, you are going to fight tooth and nail to make sure that the market is not fair and you retain your state-sponsored premium position.

And before we say this is not a class issue – the neo-prohibitionist doctors at the Cancer Council earning well over the national average income don’t care how much their bottle of premium wine is. They can afford whatever tax and regulatory costs the Government throws at them. It’s the nurse, teacher, coach, or tradie who finishes work on a Friday. Who wants to take the family to their local brewery for dinner that cannot afford to buy a round.   

If Government were serious about using taxation as a tool for harm minimisation, they would incentivise consumers to choose ‘low’ and ‘no’ alcohol products.  We know that isn’t what the prohibitionists want. But it is the solution that addresses the data about where the actual health risks are. And it keeps the social round at your local brewery affordable for the average Aussie worker. And just maybe, it helps sustain some social infrastructure that makes it possible for disparate groups to get together and helps knit our country back together again.

Sabrina Kunz
CEO