It’s my party, I’ll drink if I want to

Troy Bramston
June 03, 2013
The Australian

THE temperance movement reached its apogee in Australia during World War I when it was successful in pressuring several state governments to introduce early closing times for pubs.

While these groups helped to educate the public about the dangers of alcohol abuse and preached teetotalism, they failed to win support for the prohibition of alcohol.

A century later, there are signs the ideological fervour of the temperance movement is being revived. But not by well-meaning Christian or women’s groups.

Government-funded political activists are mounting a moral war on alcohol, targeting the most minimal levels of alcohol consumption.

It is appropriate that government, community organisations and the alcohol industry support research, advertising and treatment to reduce alcohol abuse. While research shows alcohol consumption and related violence is declining, there are still far too many incidents of alcohol-fuelled assault, drink-driving, abuse in indigenous communities and binge-drinking.

National strategies developed by government in partnership with industry and community groups can be effective in limiting alcohol abuse. But a powerful alliance of health professionals, consumer groups, charities, academics and public servants is working to increase dramatically restrictions on the right to drink in moderation.

A secret report prepared for the Brewers Association last year reveals the industry is being targeted by an anti-alcohol network successful in being appointed to government bodies and which has received millions of dollars in taxpayer funding.

“The real agenda of the anti-industry groups borders on prohibitionist and has little mainstream support within the community,” the report by Endeavour consulting says.

They subscribe to a nanny-state philosophy. Plain packaging of cigarettes and the alcopops tax (which failed to reduce the consumption of sugary alcoholic drinks) are examples of the interventionist response they are encouraging. Now there’s talk of a tax on fatty foods.

They use their publicly funded jobs to push a radical reform agenda in the media. They want alcohol consumption to be seen as “a social and economic abnormality”.

“Any industry attempt to educate the public about the danger of excessive consumption is severely criticised and then used as a springboard for ever increasing demands for more taxation, less consumption and advertising, and reduced access,” the report says.

These modern-day temperance advocates want all drinkers to pay more for it, restrict the times they can consume it and the places where they can buy it.

They want the public to believe that alcohol consumption is at a “crisis point”. Yet over the past five years, there have been fewer alcohol-related assaults and assaults on police in NSW; down from 32,895 in 2008-09 to 26,038 in 2011-12.

ABS data shows that the proportion of adults who consumed more than two standard drinks per day on average has declined from 20.9 per cent in 2007-08 to 19.5 per cent in 2011-12.

Rather than target anybody who drinks, these activists should target abuse among young people, in domestic situations and in indigenous communities. This is where the real policy challenges are.

The report for the Brewers Association suggests that alcohol policy in the Department of Health and Ageing has been hijacked. It recommends evidence gathering and greater scrutiny of grant programs and the work of government advisory bodies. But the industry is reluctant to fight back. It did not adopt the recommendations.

Brewers Association head Denita Warn acknowledges that anti-alcohol political activists are slowly taking over supposedly impartial policy-making bodies.

“We have been concerned about conflicts of interest within government about alcohol policy,” she says.

“There are some individuals who sit on government advisory boards that we believe have a bias against the industry and should not be providing expert advice to government.”

One example of how a government-funded body has become a political advocate is the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education.

Previously known as the Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation, it was allocated $115 million from the Howard government to run alcohol abuse programs and fund research. The government had collected this amount in excess beer tax during the transition to the GST and decided to return it to drinkers by setting up the AERF.

In 2005, it persuaded the government to keep $36m it had made in earnings from that original allocation and it became a private charity. In 2011, it transformed into a political lobby group. FARE’s core mission is to secure “significant policy change”. It advocates new taxes on alcohol, new government regulations on advertising, restricting sales of alcohol and reducing the hours of licensed venues such as pubs and clubs.

It has prompted Clubs Australia to write to Health Minister Tanya Plibersek arguing that FARE has breached the principles of its funding agreement with government.

“FARE should no longer be considered a charitable organisation, but rather a political advocacy group that applies a deeply ideological approach to alcohol policy,” the letter says.

FARE chief executive Michael Thorn rejected the accusations made by Clubs Australia, pointing out that the organisation properly discharged its legal responsibilities regarding its funding.

Thorn is unrepentant about his “war on alcohol”. He is a passionate man with deep convictions.

“Alcohol should be seen in the same way as tobacco and gambling, only more dangerous,” he says. “It is the greatest public health challenge we face.”

His passion and his policy solutions echo the temperance movement that burst into existence in the 19th century.

The difference is that these modern anti-alcohol advocates believe they have the apparatus of government working to achieve their aims.