Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Senator Conroy) to a question without notice asked by Senator Colbeck today, relating to taxation.

Not only are Labor not ready with some of their taxation measures but they do not even know that they are not ready. I am not sure whether we are dealing with known unknowns or unknown unknowns, but it was pleasing to see that during question time the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy scurried around to find out exactly where the government are with respect to the supporting legislation for their $3.1 billion tax grab on ready-to-drinks.

We have already heard through the Senate inquiry that this particular tax proposal is not supported by the evidence. It is not supported wholeheartedly by health officials. In fact, in today’s Canberra Times Dr Tanya Chikritzhs said:

Low-risk drinkers preferred ready-to-drink products commonly called alcopops but straight spirits were the alcoholic beverage of choice for teenagers who drank to excess.

We heard during the inquiry into alcopops that this is not a measure that on its own is going to address binge drinking. It is not a health measure, as it has been dressed up to be. It is in fact a tax revenue measure. The government have come into this place and into the other place and criticised the opposition for holding up their legislation. But in fact they did not even know themselves, when asked on two consecutive days, where their own legislation was in respect of a measure that is going to raise $3.1 billion over five years. The government have very convenient memories. They forget how many times they have referred legislation to committees themselves. They forget how many times they have referred budget measures to committees themselves, yet they come into this place and accuse the opposition of all sorts of terrible crimes against their budget. But for two days running they have not been able to answer a very simple question: where is the enabling legislation with respect to the tax on alcopops?

It really does beggar belief that they would impose a tax such as this when the decision has been taken outside all of their own decision-making processes. As we indicated during the debate on the committee report, the government have set up the Henry review to look at taxation, and yet this decision has been made with no reference to that. They have set up a process under COAG to look at the issues surrounding the misuse of alcohol, and yet this decision has been made with absolutely no reference to that. Then, when they are asked where the legislation is to support it, they have no idea. Even when they are given a day’s notice they have no idea. They come back in here for a second day running and have no concept of what is going on. They have to scurry around for an hour during question time to come up with an answer.

All the government have told us is that they may bring the legislation in within 12 months. Yet they tell us that we are economic vandals for holding up the processes with respect to the budget. This is a significant budget measure. It raises $3.1 billion. I am pleased that they have taken the appropriate legal advice to see what might happen. But I do know that the industry are saying to consumers, ‘Keep your receipts,’ because it may be that the government have to give the money back. A significant amount of money—in the hundreds of millions of dollars—will be raised in the first year, and yet it could be up to 12 months before the government decide to bring this legislation in. You just have to wonder: are they waiting until they might have a better chance? It has been interesting to note the comments of the crossbenchers in recent days that they too are having doubts about this measure. We have heard the concerns of the Democrats and the Greens in the debate and we understand quite well that others have similar concerns. (Time expired)