Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Yes, probably bore water, as the honourable member for Lyons says. He is quite right.

Bundaberg rum was used by the Australian and British navies during the Second World War. It has been a major sponsor of Australian sport. It is part of the industry profile of my city and my electorate. It is a well-made product. It is now being exported extensively overseas. Do you think, honourable members and minister, that the Champagne region of France would sit idly by if some minister in the French government started attacking champagne? Do you seriously think that Scottish members of parliament would sit idly by while Scotch whisky was being attacked in the UK or Scottish parliaments? Of course not. And nor will I—nor will I put at risk the jobs that are involved in that. Rum is made from molasses, which is a tertiary product of the Australian sugar industry. It is quite central to the economic profile of my district and one of the two cities in my electorate of Hinkler. I make no apologies for doing that.

Let me make one thing clear to the minister and all here: no-one has put me under pressure. I have done this under my own volition. I have largely prepared my own material that I put to my party room—I did seek some help on research. This is really a bodgie matter. It is applying a big tax, a $1.7 billion or $1.8 billion tax, to 8½ per cent of the market. It is dressed up in the nomenclature of alcopops, emotively. They use it as nothing more than a smokescreen to mask that tax. It has not met its health objectives, it is mean in its anti-drinking campaign and quite frankly it is damaging to the people of my electorate. I will oppose the bill in whichever way possible.

See this speech in context