NATIONAL
LIQUOR NEWS – April 2005
Evidence-based
policy making (1) by Gordon Broderick
In December DSICA’s column touched on the current rash of government
inquiries into the liquor industry. DSICA has made detailed submissions
to a number of these inquiries (see:
www.dsica.com.au under Government Affairs). Underlying DSICA’s
philosophy contained in its submissions is that “evidence-based policy
making” delivers the community the best outcomes. We strongly advocate
that policy should be based upon the best available evidence and should
include rational analysis of the evidence.
When government policy is not based on the best available evidence
and supported by rigorous analysis, taxpayers’ dollars can be wasted
on programmes that provide little net benefit for the community. Worse
still, sections of the community in genuine need can be overlooked
as the funding dollar is awarded to more high profile or headline
grabbing issues.
Let me take the issue of drink spiking. At the outset DSICA wishes
to record that this issue should be taken very seriously and as an
industry work hard to reduce the risk of it occurring. But let’s look
at the evidence.
Reading the papers, you’d think that there was a drink spiking epidemic
sweeping our hotels and clubs. Currently, there are at least two government
taskforces examining this issue, legislation planned to make drink
spiking a crime in several jurisdictions, and a government recommendation
that manufacturers examine adopting screw tops for certain beverages.
In addition, a major study, the National Project on Drink Spiking:
investigating the nature and extent of drink spiking in Australia,
estimates that between 3,000 4,000 drink spiking cases occurred
in 2002/03.
DSICA was therefore surprised to learn from a senior Victorian Police
officer that that there has never been a single proven case of drink
spiking by drugs in Victoria. Not a single case. That is, blood tests
have not revealed traces of drugs such as rohypnol, GHB or ketamine
in a person’s blood who has claimed to be a victim of drink spiking.
DSICA then examined the study cited above into the nature and extent
of drink spiking in Australia. Pages 47 49 of the report detail
how the figure of 3,000-4,000 drink spiking cases was calculated.
In my view, the methodology and uplift factors used do not provide
any credible support for the figures quoted - and hence the whole
nature and extent of the problem rests on poor foundations.
In fairness to the authors of the study, they note that the figures
are a rough guide only and highlight the difficulties in estimating
the numbers. Nevertheless, the figure of 3,000-4,000 drink spiking
victims has uncritically entered the lexicon of government departments
and the health industry.
Victoria has about a quarter Australia’s population, so based on the
report’s figures you would expect that 750-1000 cases of drink spiking
to occur each year. Let’s say that half of these are by drugs, and
of this say only 5% of the victims report to hospital. That would
result in about 20 cases per year being detected. The facts are very
different as stated, not a single drink spiking case has been detected
forensically. Clearly, more work needs to be done in this area to
reconcile the discrepancies.
DSICA is not for a moment suggesting that drink spiking does not occur
or is not a potentially serious problem, but it is important that
when governments consider policy responses to perceived problems,
policy should be based upon the best available evidence.
DSICA considers that ‘evidence based policy making’ provides the best
foundation for policy making. In its absence, valuable tax dollars
may be diverted to second order issues, or second best policies may
result in large regulatory costs to the community and liquor industry
with very little benefits to show for it. Next month I’ll examine
the issue of underage drinking.
