Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (23 May) . . Page.. 1552 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

original act that deals with the subsidies for diesel use. The federal government is introducing various concessions for the use of diesel, so that part of the act has become redundant.

The Greens have already stated their strong opposition to that part of the tax reform package, because diesel is a dirty fuel, and encouragement of its use will lead to increased pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. However, I acknowledge the needs of those 137 pensioners who rely on diesel for home heating. It is unfortunate that the government did not look more at ways to help those people install environmentally friendly heating rather than just paying them off with a $300 act of grace payment and assuming they will be better off in the future under the new tax system.

The other part of the bill dealing with the subsidy on low-alcohol liquor, however, does not appear to be directly related to the new tax system. I understand also that this subsidy scheme was specifically set up in the ACT to make low-alcohol products more financially attractive than their full-alcohol counterparts. The government appears to be abandoning this scheme just because it has become too expensive and it wants to use the money on other things-I heard maybe on policing, which also seems a rather poor and inconsistent approach to policy. I would be interested to hear Mr Moore, as minister for health, address this issue.

We would want to see this decision based on an assessment of the effectiveness of this scheme in promoting the consumption of low-alcohol liquor. With the introduction of the GST, all alcohol products will now be taxed at the same rate, which illustrates a concern the Greens have had with the GST, in that it is a single, broad-based tax that takes no account of the social and environmental benefits or costs of the product being taxed. The Greens believe that taxation should be used not only as a revenue-raising measure but as a policy instrument to encourage or discourage particular consumption patterns. The federal government is already doing this in the new tax package with its favouritism towards diesel fuel and its acceptance that various services which have a public benefit should not be taxed. It is a pity that the government has not adopted this differential approach more broadly in a way that minimises environmental and social harm.

This government should have provided an assessment of the impact of product price on the consumption of low-alcohol liquor as part of the presentation of this bill so that the Assembly could have been able to judge for itself whether this subsidy scheme should be abandoned. In principle, I would support low-alcohol liquor being cheaper than full-strength liquor, but I would be very interested to see an analysis which supports what this government is apparently attempting to do here.

I will certainly support Labor's move to adjourn this debate, because this is not a clear case at all. The government has not shown us good reason for this change in public policy, and we need more time to look at how we can amend this bill so that we can disentangle these two separate issues.

MR HUMPHRIES (Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety): I want to make a few comments before we adjourn this debate today. Therefore, I seek leave to speak without closing the debate.

Leave granted.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .