Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer and Revenue) Share this | Hansard source

Before my time expired during the second reading debate, I was talking about the Senate Economics Legislation Committee recommendations on the alcohol taxation regime. I made the point that Labor were of the view that the recommendations and, in fact, the reference were probably outside the scope of the bill, but we certainly did not want to deny the committee the opportunity to consider those aspects of the bill and we certainly did not want to stand in the way of the Australian Democrats in their attempt to have those matters considered.

I was making the point that, while the opposition does not have any particular position on alcohol taxes, throughout the course of the inquiry some important points were made about the health impacts of the current taxation regime, the way the ad valorem system does not necessarily deliver the best health and social outcomes and whether there is merit in applying a volumetric tax to alcohols generally. This would be highly disruptive, I have to say, for the industry, which is pretty much settled and lives with the current alcohol taxation regimes. In his decision to have an inquiry into the uranium industry and how far Australia should become involved in the nuclear cycle, the Prime Minister made the point that that does not mean he has any particular position on uranium, particularly enrichment and power generation, but that there is merit in having these inquiries.

The Senate Economics Legislation Committee has called upon the government to look at whether alcohol taxes are economically efficient and deliver the best social and health outcomes, and this should be responded to by the government. When he approaches the dispatch box I expect the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer to give a short response on behalf of the government and indicate whether the government is likely to take up the Senate Economics Legislation Committee’s challenge to look at that taxation regime as it applies to alcohol to determine whether we are getting the best economic, social and health outcomes under the current regime.

I made the point during the second reading debate on this bill that certain sections of the alcohol industry were promised that there would not be any changes in isolation to the taxation regime as it applies to alcohol—in other words, it would be dealing with the industry on the whole. Some sections of the industry were quite upset that, as part of the budget, the government made some changes to the wine equalisation tax rebate, which the opposition welcomed very warmly. But that was an alcohol tax change made in isolation, and, of course, it has caused some other parts of the industry to become agitated and push for changes, particularly to ready-to-mix drinks and how excise treats them differently from some beer drinks which share the same alcohol volume but to which different tax rates apply.

Given the very public discussion about ethanol during the debate on the fuel tax bill and the consequential bills, I also expect the parliamentary secretary will pass some comment on that issue when he summarises this debate. It is well known that members of the government backbench—and indeed some members of the opposition backbench—are still pushing for some more generous treatment of the ethanol industry. I make the point that this industry still enjoys tax-free status, at least until 2011. I think the original start-up date was 2008. It still enjoys total import protection and, of course, is the recipient of a number of capital grants.

That is a very significant leg-up for the industry, but each time the government has come forward with these concessions, the opposition has backed them willingly. If the government is proposing to put forward further concessions to the ethanol industry, the opposition will be happy to hear them and consider them on their merits. So I hope the parliamentary secretary indicates to the House whether the government is reconsidering the taxation regime as it applies to ethanol. He should indicate to the House and to his own backbench whether the government is proposing any further changes. I note that there are no government backbenchers in the chamber at present. That is of great disappointment to me. They have lots to say about ethanol outside this place and today was a great opportunity for them to come into the House and put their case for further concessions for ethanol—we would have been happy to have that debate. Maybe the parliamentary secretary can give us some indication of the government’s thinking in this regard.

See this speech in context