Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Hansard source

I will be brief. I know members are keen for this debate to finish and there is one more set of amendments that need to be moved for the complementary bill, but I want to briefly comment on the issues raised by the member for Hinkler, who I know had a particular interest in this issue and who has the privilege to represent a company that has a significant history in Australia and a particular place in the heart of the member for Hinkler and probably many other members in this House.

I say to the member for Hinkler that the company whose issues he is raising here today is perfectly placed to answer a number of the questions that he has raised about substitution, because Bundaberg Rum is one of the companies that produce both premixed products and straight products. If, as he and many of those opposite are suggesting, this measure has simply moved people from drinking premixed products to drinking the straight products, I do not think Bundaberg Rum would be complaining about it, because their profits would be exactly the same. The reason that they are upset and the reason they quite rightly go to see their local member of parliament is that this has reduced the overall consumption of spirits. The decrease in alcopop sales is 34.6 per cent and the increase in full strength spirits is 17 per cent. The combined impact—remembering that they are working from a different base—is a reduction of 7.9 per cent in spirit sales. That is a big impact on any producer, and I am sure that Bundaberg Rum and others are feeling that. But if what some of the members opposite are saying is right—that this measure has just moved people from a premixed product to a straight product—Bundaberg Rum would be as happy as Larry. So I think that we really can put that issue to rest, and no doubt the business in your electorate can satisfy you on that.

I take the point that has been raised—and of course there is a much broader debate about it—about the history of how alcohol taxation is different across so many different products. But remember this is closing a loophole to ensure that spirits are all taxed consistently, and that is why the government is determined to press ahead with this measure.

See this speech in context