Page 4182 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 29 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
perfectly possible to harmonise our laws with those of New South Wales? Secondly, does the Chief Minister not see an advantage in encouraging people to consume wine with an alcohol content of less than 6.5 per cent, as opposed to wine with the usual content of something in the order of 12 per cent?
MS FOLLETT: Madam Speaker, it is entirely possible, as Mr Humphries suggests, that we could have harmonised with New South Wales on this issue. But I maintain that, in giving people a price incentive, the motivation was to get them to drink low-alcohol products; that is, products containing 3.5 per cent or less ethanol by volume. One that contains 6.5 per cent is not a low-alcohol product. It is lower; but it is not a low-alcohol product, and you cannot pretend that it is. If people were to drink so-called low-alcohol wine in much the same quantities as they drink low-alcohol beer, they would be very badly affected.
Madam Speaker, could I also say to Mr Humphries, in case he is not a wine drinker, that you do not actually have a standard price for wine. There is not a price per bottle, per middy or per schooner. In fact, even if you buy it by the glass, there is enormous variation in what you will pay for a glass of wine. So, it is not possible to make the same direct relationship on cost and alcohol content as it is generally with beer. It has been my experience, Madam Speaker - I have bought low-alcohol wine myself; indeed, I have bought no-alcohol wine - that it is an expensive product. The possibility of getting people - - -
Mr De Domenico: Because you have a tax on it that is higher than that of New South Wales.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order! Mr De Domenico, just let the Chief Minister finish.
MS FOLLETT: The possibility of getting people to switch to drinking it, with or without a tax break - on price grounds alone - I think, is so remote as to be not worth considering.
Dual Occupancies - Banks
MR MOORE: Madam Speaker, my question is not to do with Clayton's wines. Instead, I would like to ask a question of Mr Wood, as Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning. On what basis was the decision made to allow dual occupancies to go ahead in Banks, and is he satisfied that an appropriate process was followed leading to the appeals tribunal overturning those objections?
MR WOOD: Madam Speaker, the Planning Authority believed that any further dual occupancies in Banks would not be consistent with the maintenance of the amenity that was desirable in that area; hence it declined approval on a number of them. As Mr Moore knows, they were then appealed, with the Appeals Board upholding three of the appeals and rejecting two. I think it has one in abeyance. I said at the time that I was surprised by the decision, because I thought it was a fairly clear case. But I have established the Appeals Board, and I respect the rulings that it makes. I have not yet read its decision. I will consider further action, if any, after reading that decision.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .