Junk food manufacturers would be restricted from advertising to children and hit with a levy based on the sugar content of their products in a range of measures put forward by federal MPs to tackle the diabetes epidemic gripping Australia’s health system.
But the sugar tax proposal has split the committee making the recommendations, with Coalition members arguing the levy lacks evidence and would hit low-income families the hardest during a cost-of-living crisis.
Liberal MP Julian Leeser says he wasn’t convinced a tax on sugary drinks would change people’s behaviour. Credit: Alex Ellinghausen
Tabling the final report on Wednesday night, Labor MP and committee chair Mike Freelander said the inquiry had heard “harrowing and emotional” testimonies from people with diabetes, and it was clear the government should focus on preventing children in particular from developing the condition in the first place.
“The environments we live in promote unhealthy habits … we need to restrict the availability of marketing of unhealthy food and beverages, especially to children,” he said. “More also needs to be done to ensure that all Australian communities have access to healthy food.”
Deputy chair Julian Leeser, the Liberal member for Berowra, said the tax proposal would “cause financial harm disproportionately to those who can least afford it”.
“People are doing it tough and struggling to pay bills and put food on the table,” said Leeser, who is deputy chair of the committee making the recommendations. “There’s also a real issue about whether a sugar tax would change behaviour.”
Loading
The report argued that, by taxing drinks with the most sugar the highest, the “reconstitution levy” would encourage manufacturers to make their drinks healthier and therefore pay less tax.
But the committee also acknowledged the effectiveness of the taxation approach “remains contentious”, despite the World Health Organisation (WHO) encouraging countries to introduce or expand levies on sugary drinks in 2022, and health department officials telling the inquiry there was “strong evidence” it would have benefits for dental health.