Senator MURPHY (9:08 PM) —The questions that I was asking about the wine equalisation tax concern the extra $147 million that the Commonwealth will collect. As it stands, the wholesale sales tax as it is applied to wine is a result of the 26 per cent Commonwealth tax and a collection of 15 per cent on behalf of the states as a result of a High Court decision, which was a state surcharge or licence fee or however it was applied in the states.

The wine industry will now be taxed a further $147 million. It is a question of whether the government plans to make any adjustment with regard to transferring that money back to the states to allow them to rebate the wine industry. That is one question. Somehow the Assistant Treasurer seems to think that the wine industry thinks it is all okay. It clearly does not. A news release of 23 April states:

Six of Australia's most prominent wine makers today launched a national protest against the increased wine tax proposed by the Federal Government, saying that it threatened wine exports, jobs and rural income.

It says, amongst other things:

Top Barossa wine maker Peter Lehmann said an unexpected tax hike of $147 million a year made a mockery of Prime Minister's Howard promise that wine prices would remain stable with the introduction of the GST.

I have not heard the Assistant Treasurer say that it is not $147 million. If it is $147 million, I have not heard any statements about whether that money will be paid back to the states so that they can in turn rebate the industry and there is a nil effect. As I understood it, it was initially announced that the WET would be revenue neutral. If it is to be revenue neutral, people say that, instead of being levied at 29 per cent, it ought to be levied at 24½ per cent.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Senator Murphy, you are now talking about the bill in particular. Your previous remarks were more general, but you are now dealing specifically with the wine equalisation tax.

Senator MURPHY —But we are dealing with the effect on the states. The effect on the states goes to the question of the economic impact. The economic impact comes by way of potential job losses et cetera. I am asking the Assistant Treasurer whether they have any plans to do anything about that.

I also asked a question about the GST on the tourism industry and its impact on the states, particularly on my state. I understood the Assistant Treasurer to have said—I thought he repeated it, although differently—that the GST the government is proposing to introduce brings into line this country's tourism industry with those in other countries. I asked him whether other countries that have a GST and—I think he said this—a thriving tourism industry have a concessional system where people are either not paying a GST or are paying it at a very concessional rate. The Assistant Treasurer outlined some issues that went to matters affecting inbound tourists. They will, of course, not pay a GST on international or domestic airfares that are purchased overseas or on continuous domestic flights. They will also get a GST rebate for goods purchased within the country on departing the country.

I ask the Assistant Treasurer about the impact on national tourists; that is, people going interstate et cetera. They form a fairly significant part of any tourist industry in any state. The GST will not be rebatable to those people. That is the fundamental question. I ask the Assistant Treasurer about his claim regarding the thriving tourist industries in these countries that have a GST. Is it not the case that they have either concessional or rebated systems? People are sometimes not paying a GST or are paying a much lesser rate of a GST, VAT or whatever the case may be. I would be interested to hear some comments on that.