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

In the House today, the Minister for Health and Ageing attacked me. It was the subject of a personal explanation. Let me reiterate that I do not promote binge drinking—in fact, quite the contrary. I promote responsible drinking, and there is ample evidence that RTDs—or premixes as they are sometimes known, especially those based on long-standing distilled spirit drinks—deliver a measured volume of alcohol. People can pace themselves, people can drink responsibly and people can drive responsibly. For example, a can of XXXX Gold beer has an alcohol-by-volume reading of 3.5 per cent. It has the same volume of alcohol as the grey label Bundy Gold at 3.5 per cent. Why should one be taxed at 32c and one at $1.25? It is exactly the same volume of alcohol. Why then would a responsible government pick on distillers, especially when RTDs—which the Minister for Health and Ageing has made such a meal of over recent weeks—are only 10 per cent of the market whereas 50 per cent of the market is beer? RTDs are only 10 per cent of the market. Let me break that 10 per cent down even further: 75 per cent of those RTDs are dark spirits—dark spirits like Bundaberg rum, Johnnie Walker and the more responsible well-known distilled alcoholic drinks—not alcopops, as the minister would have us believe. They are consumed not by young girls but largely by men over 20 years of age. That is the nonsense we have been subjected to in this House over recent weeks. I defy the minister to come to the dispatch box and dispute that.

I will tell you what it is all about, Mr Speaker. I offended the minister by telling her that her $5 million superclinic program, which she is equivocating on day after day—‘Oh, it’s up to $5 million. It might not be a bright new building; it might be a renovation. We might have other people delivering it’—is an old rehash of the Whitlam community health schemes, which were a failure. She knows I am onto it. She knows that doctors in Bundaberg want to get their own clinics up to strength. There is no need to put another layer of health bureaucracy over Bundaberg. For the record, I have not opposed it, but I have said that the $5 million could be spent more effectively.

Bundaberg Rum has been in Bundaberg for 120 years. It is a great employer. Rum is a derivative of the sugar industry. It is a quality manufactured product. It is a major employer in my town and through its parent company, Diageo, throughout the world. Diageo, I might add, has invested $24 million in the distillery, including a state of the art multimedia tourism centre, which sees 80,000 tourists a year pass through it. It is a very important part of Bundaberg’s tourist profile. Bundaberg Rum also has great resonance in the history of Australia. The flat bottle that you see—about a quarter or a third of a bottle of rum—used to go in the saddle pack. You did not have cold wines and cold beers out on the stock routes, but you could have a product, Bundaberg Rum and sometimes Bundaberg OP Rum, that you could mix with water. It was a favourite drink of graziers, jackaroos and stockmen. It is part of our outback history. It is also part of our war history, with the Australian and British navies. It is also part of our sporting history. There is no greater promoter of sport in this country than Bundaberg Rum, with their support of rugby league and rugby union. And, for the information of the minister, who is so intent on health outcomes, it also promotes adult rugby league for male fitness. Bundaberg Rum is a big contributor, too, to surf-lifesaving. It gives $200,000 a year to Landcare. The attack was unwarranted. (Time expired)