Using minimum pricing to address social behaviour problems and stop alcohol misuse is like trying to use paint to stop termites.

If this policy is implemented in WA, as has been floated by the State Government, alcohol beverage prices will rise and problem drinkers will not stop drinking.

These issues are far more complex than the availability of alcohol.

The Government’s intention to address alcohol harm and misuse is important and should be supported.

The Australian alcohol beverages industry welcomes any opportunity to work with governments and communities to ensure progress is made in this area. Unfortunately, there is much evidence that minimum pricing policies do not achieve this aim.

Most minimum pricing policy ideas are based on the Sheffield Alcohol Policy Model, which assumes that increasing prices will cause heavy drinkers to reduce their alcohol consumption. Its assumptions about the relationship between price and consumption have frequently been rejected by real-world evidence.

Your cookie settings are preventing this third party content from displaying. If you’d like to view this content, please adjust your Cookie Settings . To find out more about how we use cookies, please see our Cookie Guide.

The retail impact of minimum pricing is proved. Because it becomes a necessity to raise shelf prices to maintain the existing price differential with newly minimum-priced products, virtually all alcohol beverage prices will go up, despite the fact that Australians already pay some of the highest alcohol beverage taxes in the world — the second-highest in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

In practical terms, minimum-floor prices will mean that consumers will pay an extra $5 for every slab of beer, an extra $5 for a case of cider, and cheap wine will rise to at least $10-$12 a bottle.

The vast majority of us who drink responsibly and don’t misuse alcohol will be unfairly penalised. The cost of living will be an increased burden on those who often drink lower-priced products, such as pensioners and others with lower and fixed incomes.

Internationally, the Canadian experience with minimum unit pricing, instituted in British Columbia, is often held up as an example of a raised floor price for alcohol being beneficial in combating alcohol-related harm.

But if the aim of minimum pricing is to target the heaviest drinkers, then the expectation would be that alcohol-related deaths would decrease as a result of the introduction of such a policy, because those drinking at the heaviest levels would be most susceptible to alcohol-related death.

Minimum-floor prices will mean that consumers will pay an extra $5 for every slab of beer, an extra $5 for a case of cider, and cheap wine will rise to at least $10-$12 a bottle.

This has not occurred and, in fact, alcohol-related deaths have increased in British Columbia since minimum pricing was introduced.

Further international research has shown problem drinkers are the least responsive to aggregate changes in alcohol prices.

The same research also showed that the only evidence of worthwhile elasticity of problem drinkers to minimum pricing was from studies based on raising only the price of a single category of alcohol beverages (for example, spirits), then measuring how much the spirits sales declined, then claiming this decline would be replicated across all consumption by a minimum price on all alcohol beverages.

But this ignores a glaringly obvious flaw showing that the problem drinkers simply shifted to other categories (wine and beer).

In the Northern Territory, minimum pricing policy failed to address alcohol misuse because people who do abuse alcohol demonstrated that price rises are ineffective in altering their drinking behaviour and will pay whatever it costs to continue drinking.

Last year, researchers at James Cook University discovered that in Queensland, sly grog traders in remote indigenous communities living under alcohol-management plans instituted by government have been selling alcohol at more than 11 times its retail value, with people found to be willing to pay more than $400 a bottle.

If a minimum pricing scheme was to be implemented in WA, those who enjoy their alcohol responsibly and in moderation would be hit with unfair price increases.

Premier Mark McGowan gave an assurance that such a proposal is one option that will be considered, and the Government intends to consult with the community, health experts and the industry before making a decision.

The industry looks forward to participating in this discussion and helping develop solutions that specifically target the root causes of problem drinking without unfairly penalising those who are doing the right thing.

Fergus Taylor is executive director of Alcohol Beverages Australia