Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health Administration) Share this | Hansard source

At the outset, I note that the government did not actually explain why they rejected all of the amendments requested by the Senate yesterday. What Senator McLucas has just put to the chamber is the government’s case, which we have previously heard, as to why the government thinks the legislation should be supported. I will not hold up the Senate by going through the argument again. Clearly the Senate would well understand that the coalition is of the view that this was never anything but a tax measure dressed up as a health measure for political reasons. It is a measure that was not based on evidence when it was introduced and the government has not been able to present any evidence whatsoever that it has been effective in reducing binge drinking, risky levels of drinking or alcohol abuse related harm in the community.

Specifically on the motion before us, Liberal and National Party senators will be voting against this motion, and the reason we will is that we think it is an irresponsible motion. It is a reckless motion. Let’s remind ourselves what the Senate requested by way of amendments from the government. We requested essentially two things in a series of amendments. The first thing we requested was that the government agree to validate the revenue collected from 27 April up until royal assent—to validate the revenue collected so far. I really urge senators on the crossbenches to listen very carefully to the implications of what the government are proposing to do with this motion. The government have said to us today that they will vote against validating the revenue collected between 27 April and the date of royal assent. That is for starters. I can understand that the government would have some problems with the second part of our requested amendments, because we requested in the second series of amendments that the increased tax would essentially be made redundant, that the levels of excise as they apply to RTDs would go back down to the levels they would have been if the 70 per cent increase had not been implemented in the first place.

But let us focus on the government’s refusal to support our request for an amendment to validate the revenue collected so far. Why is the government doing this? Is the government taking the Senate’s vote for granted? Is the government assuming that the Senate will support the substantive legislation? It is possible the Senate will not support this legislation, and the government rejects the amendments that we have quite sensibly put forward to help it out of a spot of bother. Nobody in this chamber wants the $300 million collected so far to be returned to the liquor industry. There is unanimous support in this chamber for ensuring that the revenue collected so far, even though it was collected through a bad tax that was never able to be justified on health grounds, does not return to the liquor industry. We have said it is not practical to return the funds raised through the measure over the last 12 months to the liquor industry, so we have quite sensibly and quite constructively offered a way out for the government to ensure that the $300 million does not have to be returned to the liquor industry should this legislation be defeated. The government have said: ‘No, we’re not going to have any of this. We’re just going to put all our eggs in one basket. We’ve got to take the risk.’

I assume that the reason the government has done that is to put the Senate under maximum pressure—in fact, to put Senator Fielding under maximum pressure. Here we are, not at the eleventh hour but at two minutes to midnight and the government is dealing with legislation we have been debating since Monday lunchtime, legislation that seeks to validate a tax increase that was implemented on 27 April last year. So why is the government not supporting our very sensible, very constructive proposition to validate the revenue collected so far? If this legislation is to be defeated, it is going to be on the government’s head. It will be the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and the Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, who will have to justify to the Australian people why the $300 million which will have been collected without legal foundation—