Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (23 May) . . Page.. 1551 ..
That this bill be agreed to in principle.
MR QUINLAN (10.40): We have had a look at this bill, and I have had a full and comprehensive briefing on it through the Finance and Public Administration Committee. It is a bill that repeals an act. It repeals a diesel subsidy. We have been briefed and assured that there will be a one-off payment to those few people who receive a rebate for diesel used for residential heating. We can see no major problem with the repeal of that subsidy, given the manner in which the government intends to repeal it.
On the other hand, we do not have quite the same attitude to the repeal of the subsidy on low-alcohol drinks, in particular beer, although it also embraces some of the more exotic mixes that are available to young people today. The problem with wishing to amend this bill is that it has to be divided completely down the middle. The bill is structured to cater for two subsidies. Quite a considerable amount of work needs to be done. We have a preference for the debate on the bill to be adjourned until at least Thursday so that we can cobble together some amendments. We would be seeking some assistance from the government in that regard. We are certainly happy to support the repeal of the diesel subsidy and the process that government wishes to undertake.
We think it is a whole different question of principle in relation to low-alcohol products. I am not convinced that price is much of a factor in the marketing of low-alcohol products, but I have seen no evidence one way or the other. There are no statistics, there is no market research and there is no empirical evidence to define whether or not price is a factor. It is not just that price is a factor in marketing and encouraging people to choose between low-alcohol beer or low-alcohol drink mixes and full-strength beer or drink mixes or high-alcohol drink mixes; it is also a case of the signals that this Assembly wants to send to the community about whether or not people should seriously consider using the low-alcohol product, as opposed to full-strength, and therefore possibly remaining sober to be in control of their actions, particularly to be in control of motor vehicles towards the end of whatever particular event they might have been participating in.
We support repeal of the diesel subsidy. We cannot support repeal of the liquor subsidy. I understand that the government at one stage was trying to tie together the repeal of this subsidy and some extra funding for police. We will have to look at the budget later today to work out exactly what we are doing with police, given that the number seems to be getting bigger with all the budget leaks that have come out. We have already seen in the draft budget a spurious claim in relation to additional funding for police. Whether today's claim is no less spurious or not we will find out a bit later as we pore over the budget. As I said, we support half of this bill, and I expect Mr Berry to rise and call for an adjournment of this debate.
MS TUCKER
(10.46): I would like to take the opportunity to speak now because I want to support the concerns Labor have raised about this bill tying the repeal of subsidy to two quite different products. The government states that this bill is part of the implementation of the national tax reform package. I can accept this for that part of the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .