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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (5 September) . . Page.. 2858 ..

MS TUCKER (10.58): The Greens will be supporting this bill. We raised concerns when the subsidy was removed. I am delighted to see, even if it is not for the right reasons necessarily, that we are going to have this health promotion campaign supported by government with some money.

As I am concerned about the scrutiny of bills committee report that has just been tabled, I will comment on the process once again. I hear that Labor is supporting the bill. I hope there is not anything too serious in the scrutiny of bills committee report. If there is, we will have to look at this again and possibly amend the explanatory memorandum. I have not had time to look at this. Mr Osborne is nodding that the EM might need to be amended. I do not know what the government feels is a reasonable process here, but I would not mind a response.

MR HUMPHRIES (Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety) (10.59), in reply: I thank member for their support for this legislation, albeit with the qualifications that have been expressed. Let me make a general comment about the legislation first of all. Obviously, the government's view is that it is not appropriate in general to be providing subsidies in this field. It is our view that subsidies of this kind are better provided to other forms of consumption than they are to the drinking of beer, albeit low-alcohol beer.

Frankly, if we have $1 million to spend on subsidising the things that people consume, I would rather spend it on subsidising the consumption of milk or maybe the taking of exercise or something of that kind. I am not convinced that subsidising alcohol consumption is in the public interest. I also acknowledge, as I have argued on previous occasions, that it is important for us not to create-

Mr Quinlan: What an odd notion.

MR HUMPHRIES: I can see that Mr Quinlan might have difficulty with that concept, and possibly some of my colleagues on this side of the chamber as well, but we have to live with the reality that we are, as I have said many times before, an island in New South Wales and we need to ensure there are no anomalies in cross-border arrangements.

It is quite likely, not necessarily inevitable, that by the end of this financial year we should be able to come back and repeal this legislation altogether, on the basis that there is agreement between the states, the territories and the Commonwealth for there to be some kind of Commonwealth excise which effectively allows a price differential between full-strength and low-alcohol beer and possibly other alcoholic products. I would be quite content with that. Hopefully, then we can spend our money in this community on other things which I would argue are more important.

I take note of the scrutiny of bills committee report. I have had a quick flick through the issues. They seem to relate principally to the burden of proof and the rights a person has when they are making application for the subsidy to be paid to them. I can indicate to members that the arrangements for people applying for subsidies are generally ongoing arrangements, so a person does not just make a one-off application and not come back. Usually people who retail alcoholic products do so throughout the year, so if there are issues here that need to be fixed by legislation later on, then we can come back and do that and those people will have a continuing position dealt with in that way.

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