Rache, I'd be interested to see your stats about the rising incidence of binge drinking. When I went looking at stats 12 months ago, this is what I found http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/002775.html.

I'd also be interested to see whether there were any stats kept while the alcopops tax was in effect to show whether the tax was effective. My suspicion is that there would have been a substitution effect with drinkers moving to more lightly taxed alternatives.

Which is why cigarettes is not an apt comparison. As far as I know all cigarettes are taxed at similar levels. There isn't one tax for menthols, another for filters and a third for Camels. If the government was serious about restricting alcohol consumption then it would tax drinks on the basis of their alcoholic content.

Instead, alcopops are to be taxed at a higher rate than their constituent parts. Which makes unmixed drinks, wine and beer cheaper per hit of alcohol.

But if they taxed all alcohol at the same rate they'd end-up picking a fight with too many drinkers and too many vested interests, so they impose an ineffective one on just one segment of the market, to fight a problem that as far as I can see, is no worse than anywhere else.

At the end of the day, does anyone really think that you are going to stop binge drinking?

RobP,

I don't say anything whatsoever about 'vetoing' of legislation by the Governor-General as a means of holding the government to account. No legislation in this respect has yet been passed by the Senate, and the suggestion is that the proposed legislation may face rejection a second time. Should this happen, the Constitution provides a means whereby this disagreement between the two Houses may be resolved, the first step of which is a double dissolution and new elections, SHOULD THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL GRANT ONE. The Constitution also permits her to withhold one.

Should she do so, there would be no question of Quentin Bryce becoming a martyr. The Prime Minister would not be having his commission withdrawn, and the House of Representatives would not be being dissolved. There would be no Constitutional crisis.

All the Governor-General would be seen to be doing would be withholding reward, in the form of the grant of a for other reasons convenient double dissolution, for an impropriety committed with respect to the imposition of a tax. Such refusal would constitute a perhaps overdue reminder to politicians in general that they are but representatives, not rulers, of the community, and that when appointed as Ministers of State they remain as obligated as anyone else to work within the law.

The government would remain free to frame alternative proposals with respect to taxation in general, or indeed, with respect to alcohol taxation in particular, that may get to be passed by the Senate. The government cannot claim to have been frustrated so far with respect to governing, because it has, although unlawfully, in actuality collected, and is still collecting, the revenue in question. It could only claim to be being frustrated if, after having the current Bill rejected a second time, it thereupon submitted new legislation that TOO was twice rejected by the Senate.

It could well then be that by the time that process has been gone through, the time within which the Constitution permits the granting of a double dissolution may have elapsed.

This government is hoist on its own petard.

Forrest,

Whether your interpretation of the situation is right or mine is, is dependent on political factors outside of my or your control. It all depends on how the Government sees itself politically. If, by the Governor-General not granting this alcopops legislation, the Government feels that its executive power is being usurped, it may take it as a hostile act by the GG. And whether she actually meant it as a just lesson for the Government, will be a moot point. It all depends on things like how much the Government has got riding on getting the legislation through and how constrained it feels.

Forrest,

A retraction is in order - I didn't read your post closely enough the first time. OK, I understand you're saying she has the power to not grant a double dissolution election (not the legislation itself).

Even so, presumably the Government is not going to like this too much either, particularly if they're going to look embarrassed or impotent. I don't suppose it's beyond the realms of possibility for the Government to put loads of pressure on her behind the scenes in such a scenario?

RobP,

Most gracious of you, that retraction. I must admit I was puzzled by your earlier apparent thinking that the Governor-General could, or conventionally would, veto legislation after it had passed both Houses. Withholding of assent, or the slightly less final act of reservation of legislation for Her Majesty's pleasure, is not technically a veto, and in any case is most unusual, although provided for in the Constitution.

This discussion has proven most useful. It has made it possible to reveal that the term of office of this government is now very much, within the constraints as to term imposed by the Constitution, 'at the Governor-General's pleasure', as the expression goes. A situation that has been brought about entirely at the government's own hand, and one that, short of resignation, is incapable of remedy on its part.

The Governor-General is now possessed of a Ministry that, from the time that it first (wrongly) purported to be able to collect the alcopops tax by regulatory authority, has been countenancing the conduct of the business of government outside the law. It is continuing in that conduct while it continues to collect the unrefundable impost it unlawfully made upon the public before legislation passed the Parliament, and has shown not the slightest contrition. By both actions and attitude, it has placed its fate, with respect as to just when it will have to face the people at elections, entirely within the Governor-General's hands. For the Governor-General is charged with the execution and maintenance of the Constitution, and by its premature levying and collection of this tax the government is operating outside the law of the Constitution.

Whether those who have aspired to rule by decree will seek to place pressure upon the Governor-General once they realize the position they have placed themselves in, I cannot say. Perhaps they could be so foolish. From the general public, who know that politicians are just as much subjects of the Crown as they are, I suspect the Governor-General would receive largely support, whatever her decision.

GrahamY,
I confess that haven't looked at statistics on the incidence of binge drinking because these things can be misleading.

For example, while there are claims that increasing cigarette taxes has decreased the smoking rate, the overwhelming number of ex-smokers cite health and family concerns rather than cost as their motivation to quit. In this case the tax factor may be a fortunate coincidence but is given almost all the credit.

Increased cost however may result in a lower take-up rate and is probably the best you can hope for.

Would increasing the cost of fast-food cure obesity? Does increasing traffic fines stop speeding? Does the occassional narcotics supplier bust cure addication?

Binge drinking is more a peer issue than a social or cultural one.

My point was really that the significance of the reintroduction of the legislation is being overblown, with talk of double disillusions.

The legislation wasn't defeated because it was somehow administratively faulty.
Fielding voted no mainly because he wanted Rudd to go even further and put warning labels on alcohol and look at sports sponsorship issues.

Politics is more about perceptions than reality.

Being seen to address an issue is politically as important than the issue itself and to block the legislation is also an exercise in posturing. Reducing the cost isn't going to improve the situation either.