Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too commend to the House the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 4) Bill 2017, in particular schedule 1, which deals with the wine equalisation tax rebate, or the WET rebate as it is referred to in the industry. A number of people in this place seek to label me—some kindly, some less kindly; some graciously, some less generously—but the one title in this place I do revel in is 'the member for wine', not because I'm a great consumer but because my electorate produces more wine by value than the electorate of any other member in this place. Indeed, if that wasn't claim enough to the title, I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we also produce more wine by volume than the electorate of any other member in this place. In effect, I represent constituencies that span the great spectrum of the Australian wine industry: from Penfolds Grange, Henschke's Hill of Grace, other iconic brands from the Barossa Valley, from Coonawarra, from some of the newer, burgeoning wine districts all the way through—and just as importantly—to the large-volume producers of some of Australia's inland areas like the Riverland, which export large volumes of their product at a lower value.

When I was elected—and, indeed, in the lead-up to my first election in 2013—I was introduced to the concept of the wine equalisation tax. As a young lad who grew up in Mount Gambier on a horticulture, cattle and sheep property and who had ensconced himself in criminal law professionally—as an advocate; I make that clear—I had to be introduced to the concept of the wine equalisation rebate. It is a rebate that enables eligible producers to offset their wine equalisation tax rebate.

You might ask: what was so controversial about that in the lead to the 2013 election and beyond? Whilst the rebate was intended to support small wine producers, many of whom are in rural and regional Australia, during its operation a number of wine merchants—'wine tax traders', I'd like to call them—were operating in a way that circumvented the intent of the legislation. What it meant, in practical terms, what it meant to the producers in my electorate, was that there was a downward influence on the price of their fruit. That is, there was downward pressure on the value of their fruit, and that was happening because certain individuals and entities were able to, effectively, game the system and use the rebate as a value shift from this place and from the public purse to processors. So the industry, through individual constituents, came to me, as they had come to others, and I indicated I would see what I could do to work on changing this.

We went through two treasurers, a number of assistant treasurers and two prime ministers on this journey, but I am pleased to say that the day has finally come—a long time since those early discussions in 2012 with an aspiring candidate, and all the way through to 2017—when these changes will become law. That's not to overestimate my role. Ultimately, this has happened because industry came together. Industry decided that this rebate was harmful to their interests. I don't think we should brush over this. Industry came to government and said: 'You know that money you're giving back to us? We'd like less of it, because it is harming the interests of the industry.' That doesn't occur often in this place. And there was another thing that doesn't occur often in this place: industry came with a solution. Very often in this place we hear gripes from industry and from members of parliament, and it is very easy to identify the problems. It's much more difficult to identify a solution. It's even more difficult to have everyone—or, at least, a very significant majority of the industry—agree that that solution is, in fact, the solution that they would like to see legislated. So, to the industry today, I say: congratulations. Congratulations for your efforts, congratulations for your industry on this issue and congratulations for the work you have done to assist me and others in persuading the government to come to this resting point.

See this speech in context