As Australians prepare to head to the polls, the Australian Medical Association (AMA) has released a bold pre-election wishlist that could not only transform the health landscape of the nation but also provide a significant boost to the federal budget.
Topping the list is a proposal that could change the way we think about our daily drinks. The AMA is advocating for a sugar tax on soft drinks, a move they believe could be a game-changer in the fight against chronic diseases.
The AMA’s call for action comes amidst a growing concern over Australia’s chronic disease epidemic, with sugary beverages identified as a key culprit. AMA President Dr Danielle McMullen has highlighted the strain that rising rates of chronic disease are placing on the health system, emphasising the opportunity for the incoming government to tackle obesity and related illnesses through the implementation of a sugar tax.
The ‘sickly sweet’ campaign by the AMA points out the alarming sugar content in the average 375ml can of soft drink, which contains between 8 to 12 teaspoons, or 33 to 50 grams, of sugar. This amount exceeds the daily recommended sugar intake in just one serving, offering little to no nutritional benefit. The frequent consumption of such sugary drinks is associated with a myriad of health issues, including poor dental health, obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and certain types of cancer.
The proposed tax would be a specific excise tax based on the sugar content of beverages, set at 50 cents per 100 grams of sugar per unit of product. According to AMA’s modelling, this could lead to a reduction in annual sugar consumption by 2kg per person and generate an estimated $3.6 billion in revenue over the forward estimates.
While Australia has yet to introduce a sugar tax, the concept is not novel on the global stage. Over 108 countries have already implemented excise taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages, taking a proactive stance against the sugar-induced health crisis.
The sugar tax is just one element of a broader pre-election wishlist from the AMA, which also includes a call to ‘fix’ Medicare. The AMA’s Modernise Medicare campaign proposes a new seven-tier rebate structure to encourage longer patient-GP consultations as part of a comprehensive approach to care, with a projected cost of $4.5 billion over four years. This initiative aims to create a Medicare system that provides more time, more care, and ultimately, more health for Australians.
Additionally, the AMA is advocating for a new national health reform funding agreement to address the ‘hospital logjam’ and the establishment of a private health system authority. This independent authority, with a proposed budget of $146.9 million over four years, would drive meaningful reform and ensure patients receive real value from their private health insurance. It would serve as a mechanism for continual reform, adjusting to changing demographics, introducing new models of care, and reviewing policy settings to balance the interests of all stakeholders in the private health system.
The AMA’s wishlist is a clarion call for a healthier Australia, one where preventive measures like the sugar tax could lead to a significant reduction in chronic diseases and a healthier population. As the election looms, it remains to be seen whether the political parties will heed the AMA’s call and prioritise the health of Australians in their policy platforms.
As the conversation around healthcare reforms and preventive measures like a sugar tax continues in the lead-up to the federal election, it’s a good time to reflect on what matters most to you when it comes to public health and policy priorities.
What are your thoughts on the AMA’s proposed sugar tax? Do you believe it could help improve health outcomes, or do you have concerns about its impact? Among the AMA’s pre-election wishlist items, which one resonated with you the most, and why?
If you were to create your own pre-election checklist of health or policy priorities, what would be at the top of your list? We’d love to hear your views—feel free to share your thoughts in the comment below.
Also read: Warning: This election mistake could land you in serious trouble!
A sugar tax, especially on soft drinks, is a great idea. I fully support it.
In theory it is a good idea but chronic diseases such as cardiovascular problems and lifestyle related diabetes are due to more than over consumption of sugar. If we are to be come a ‘nanny state’ and dictate what people eat so they cost less to the health system we need to find ways to better address the problem.
Chronic disease is most often due to overconsumption of all this ultra processed food ( not just fast food but packed non nutritional food)
Until, there is a way to force food manufacturers to stop turning out low nutritional, high calorie, HIGHLY ADDICTIVE packaged rubbish the chronic illness pandemic will never change.
All the health promotion in the world can’t compete with UP food which by design and intent just keeps us all coming back for more
It’s a good concept but let’s be realistic.All it will do is give the gruberment access to more money to give themselves another pay rise and import some more votes.They certainly won’t spend it on health.Its a little bit like the fuel levy that was introduced instead of road tax.It certainly doesn’t get spent on roads.
Sorry BUT a sugar tax will not in any way stop people buying what they wish AND will simply provide the government with another way to get even more money for themselves which could then be increased at will just like the beer excise.
Higher taxes aren’t the answer. Sugar products already had a higher tax imposed on them in the 90’s for this reason, it didn’t change consumption at all. Consider the tax on tobacco, the added taxes have raised the cost of cigarettes phenomenally, people still smoke.
All extra taxes achieve is raising government coffers which are then used to increase politicians wages and pensions rather than directed to the areas they are most needed.
If they were serious about the level of sugar in peoples diets they would reduce or remove it from products that don’t require it. I bought a quiche that listed sugar as an ingredient!! Why? Who puts sugar in a quiche???? Products that do require sugar, slowly reduce it so that people taste buds and expectations adjust, we have adjusted to the increases over the years, we will adjust to the decreases. And stop replacing sugar with sweeteners in everything! There is a huge population that can’t tolerate sweeteners, natural or artificial, for these people, if they want something sweet the only option is to reach for the sugar products, even with that they risk becoming seriously ill because more and more aren’t even putting “contains added sweeteners” on the labels anymore.
So, no to taxes, yes to putting sugar restriction requirements on producers.
All wonderful insights, everyone. We appreciate your honest opinions!