Senator McLUCAS (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) (1:52 PM) —I acknowledge that I did say I would answer those questions. Minister Roxon has committed publicly to determining if there will be any unintended consequences from the proposed changes to the taxation definitions of beer and wine. As a consequence, over the last two weeks Treasury has consulted with around 100 beer and wine importers and some domestic microbrewers on the proposals. Those who have responded to date have been supportive of tightening the beer and wine definitions and they consider that they are robust.

The government will continue to consult on the issue. We must ensure that we do not create further loopholes that would undermine the intent of the legislation. Given your background, Senator Birmingham, I think you would agree that in developing legislative definitions you can unintentionally cause more confusion.

The consultations have indicated that one ginger beer product that is currently taxed as a beer may be taxed as an alcopop under the revised definition of beer. The producer of this product claims the proposed definition should be altered to allow the product to continue to qualify as a beer. I note that the product has a sugar content of around 10 per cent, which accords with the sugar content of many alcopops. The producer is asking for an eight per cent international bitterness unit comparator for beers that have a dominant presence of ginger. Any change to allow ginger beer to have a higher sugar content or a lower international bitterness unit requirement could open the opportunity for ginger based alternatives, which is something we are not keen to encourage. But I understand the producer is concerned that the changes to the taxation definition of beer may prevent the product from being called a beer. I can assure the producer that the way in which it is labelled or classified under the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code does not depend on whether a beverage is taxed as beer for the purposes of excise law.

We are in continuing discussions with your constituent. We are very keen that we do not open up a loophole. We understand that he is producing a product legitimately and it is a quality product. He is not trying to get through a loophole as some of the other producers have tried to do. But we are very keen not to produce an unintended consequence that becomes another loophole that less-respectable manufacturers could slip through.