Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

What Senator Leyonhjelm has identified here is the complexity around the taxation arrangements for alcohol. It was quite fascinating. You are looking at a tax regime which can be up to four times more depending on the type of beverage. The fact that a beer is taxed differently to a cider is strange. I want to go to the example Senator Leyonhjelm touched on. In a premium liquor establishment in Sydney—somewhere like the Baxter bar, which I am told serves whisky up to $150—after a certain time at night you cannot have a straight Scotch. It has to be mixed with another drink. Again it is logical. It makes sense. Clearly at some point in time they decided as a policy initiative that they did not want people having excessive shots of alcohol after a certain time, but the practicality of this has become ridiculous.

Again I do not think it is something that is going to be acted on quickly.

The question you have to ask yourself is: considering the egg has been so scrambled, is there a way to reasonably unscramble it and have a taxation system that achieves the goals that it wants to achieve? I think there are two goals, really. There is looking at the harm that alcohol does and can cause and how is revenue raised to counteract the services that have to be provided because of that, while giving people the freedom to be able to participate in leisurely activities? Let's not kid ourselves. Alcohol used for right or wrong—and it is mostly used for right—is certainly part of the Australian identity and Australian culture, and we should not shy away from that. However, that brings with it some very real challenges.

The question that this report raises is: if you have a taxation system that has so fundamentally failed meeting the objectives that it wants to meet, why is it that wine is being taxed differently from spirits? When you have an incredible spirit industry being built out of a place like Tasmania and when you have, in Western Sydney, in Huntingwood, most of the premium drinks being bottled and 250 people in good manufacturing jobs, how do you resolve these challenges? We are all politicians. We can be honest. We all know that the politics around an issue like the WET is very, very difficult.

Senator Leyonhjelm, unfortunately, I do not believe it is something that is going to be resolved easily or quickly, but I do think the report that the committee has done is a step in the right direction, at least in highlighting these problems. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.