Mr MARTIN(10.38 a.m.) —Yesterday in the Main Committee in the debate on Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1997 I told the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs (Mr Truss) that we would welcome the opportunity to have discussions with and get the point of view of the customs minister—I was referring to the three customs ministers, including himself, who have occupied that position in the last seven months since I have been the shadow minister—on issues arising from that portfolio responsibility. Regrettably, Minister, this is one of those times when I have to say that we are bitterly disappointed about what has happened. It is not through any fault of your own; rather it is the fault of the Treasurer (Mr Costello) for failing to provide costings on the effect that this particular amendment is likely to have. Clearly this is an issue which will guide the way in which the opposition will deal with this matter.

I should say at the outset that the opposition will not support the government on this issue at this stage. I point out to the minister that for a number of reasons we support the amendment that was moved in the Senate. Many of these reasons are outlined in the dissenting report by Senator Jacinta Collins and go to issues which I will elaborate on in a minute. The simple facts are this: the government has delayed debate on this bill for almost three months, and like us, I am sure, has been lobbied heavily by various interest groups about this particular Senate amendment. As I understand it, some of those lobbyists are disappointed because they have not been able to get to see relevant ministers to put a point of view to them. In this lobbying exercise, information about the claims of potential revenue loss and the impact that this might have on the government's bottom line has not been forthcoming. Certainly we have not been provided by the government with any costings.

We have tried to get those costings—we wanted to get some sort of detailing of the financial impact of the Senate amendment—but nothing has come forward. We under stand, having been in government for a period of time, that when there is a delay in something like this it is generally because a department, probably Treasury, has its hands all over it and is playing delaying tactics because they have not done the costings which normally would be required.

We would like to get a detailed costing from Treasury to clarify the exact revenue implications, assuming the changes in prices will lead changes in the volume of sales. There is an assumption in a lot of the information we have been given that those sales volumes will be exactly the same. Some of the lobbyists are arguing, `No, that will not be the case. If you equate spirituous beverages along with beer, you're going to find that there will be a switching between the products.'

What has to be taken into consideration in this debate is the preference of consumers. People are eligible to go into pubs only when they are 18. Amongst 18-year-olds up to, say, 24-year-olds these days there is a preference for spirit based drinks. They like mixed drinks; they like Jim Beam and all the rest of it in preference to beer. This is one of the issues that the major beer producers are concerned about. They are worried that, if an additional price advantage is given, their production, their sales and, therefore, their profitability will be affected. That is a legitimate concern.

We are not convinced—nor could we be convinced—of the merits of the arguments in this particular matter because we have not been provided with the costings that Treasury should have done for the government. Accordingly, we believe it is only fair that we reserve our right to deliberate further on the issue of changing the taxation levels on alcoholic beverages pending costings from Treasury.

There are a couple of other issues that I want to raise in this respect. Firstly, keeping in mind the absence of Treasury costings, the opposition recognises that the Senate amendments that have been moved strongly adhere to the government's own taxation philosophy of cutting off emerging loopholes, broadening the base and lowering the rate, making taxation appear to be fairer and more equitable for all Australians. So, if you were a consumer, you would probably think you were getting a reasonable deal. (Extension of time granted) As a consequence, an argument could be sustained that making it fairer and equitable for all Australians will achieve an underlying government objective.

But in that argument we need to see one or two hooks. Currently, ready to drink alcoholic beverages are taxed at the same rate as spirits regardless of the alcoholic content of the drink in question. Whether the beverage is four per cent alcohol or 25 per cent alcohol, it is taxed at the same rate. Spirits are currently taxed at approximately twice the rate as is beer. We see this as fundamentally unfair. The Senate amendments to the bill will allow the tax on ready to drink alcoholic beverages to be the same as on beer, providing the alcoholic content is less than five per cent.

I know that a number of beer manufacturers will argue that in that case people would simply start a manufacturing process to get under that five per cent level and attract a cheaper tax rate and a cheaper excise rate as well. They will argue that this is a way of getting around that particular issue. Again, this is a problem that Treasury needs to look at and discuss with your department to see whether we can come up with a situation which will alleviate those sorts of concerns.

Of course, as ready to drink beverages compete in the same market as beer, making the taxation levels equal will be a lot fairer for them, according to some in the industry at least. Competitive pricing regimes for the same class of alcoholic beverage will also give Australian consumers more choice.

A favourable taxation regime for less alcohol in ready to drink beverages will inevitably lead to a general lowering of the level of alcohol in those beverages. This could very well have positive social outcomes in view of the number of times domestic violence is related to alcohol—and a very famous case involving a footballer in this town recently indicates that. So the lowering of the alcohol level could have very positive social outcomes.

Lowering the amount of alcohol in beverages will lead to less alcohol in people's bodies and have a positive effect on the long-term health of Australians. Encouraging the alcoholic beverage industry to lower alcohol levels can only be a step in the right direction. We recognise that that is the fact. We recognise that that really is an issue that needs to be addressed.

The opposition believes it is the federal government's responsibility to structure the taxation regime to encourage the alcoholic beverage industry to lower the level of alcohol present in the drinks on the market. Accordingly, we believe that the Senate amendment which is aimed at doing that is a step in the right direction.

I go back to where I started and indicate that, in the absence of a view about the way in which the taxation regime as proposed here in this legislation and knocking off the Senate amendment will impact on the industry from a costings point of view, we reserve our right in respect of this total matter. At this stage the opposition is predisposed towards supporting the amendment that was moved in the Senate. But we believe that both the minister at the table, the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs, and also the Treasurer need to address that absolute issue about the implications for the industry in a revenue sense, the implications for the government in a revenue sense and the costs associated with this proposal because, as I said, there is an absolute absence of them.

At the end of the day the simple fact is that something that has been hidden away for three months and is suddenly brought back now is of concern. The lobbyists from both sides—those that are in the spirits industry and those that are in the beer industry that have been going around and trying to talk to people on both sides of the parliament—are a touch confused about this. They are a bit annoyed as well that this has been brought on now when they are still trying to see ministers to put a point of view and it is here before the parliament today. I am sure they will take that up individually with the government.

It is not up to the opposition to get them out of a problem that they have with this government. It is not up to us to save their bacon. It is up to them to take their fight direct to this government to argue a case with them. I can recall one of these lobbyists—whose name will remain confidential—came to see me and I said, `Have you spoken to the government and the government ministers?' They said, `Oh, no. Should we?' I said, `Well, they're the government. We're the opposition. But by all means go and talk to the government ministers and put a point of view to them. It is their legislation that they are introducing. So go and have a chat to them.' I hope they have taken that seriously on board. I indicate again that we are predisposed to support the amendments. (Time expired)