Alcopop Excise To Include Kriek Etc.

[HarryB]

Not sure if this has been covered elsewhere...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...5013404,00.html

Brendan O'Sullivan, manager of Perth-based beer importer the International Beer Shop, said he might have to reprice some of the Belgian and European brews in light of the new definitions.

Beers such as lambic, kriek, framboise, berlinerweiss and gruit, which depart from standard hops recipes and can include fruit or herb flavours, would struggle to meet the minimum standards of bitterness required.

"They're very traditional, centuries-old beers -- they're not modern attempts to get into a new market," Mr O'Sullivan said.

Lachlan McOmish, owner of Canberra's Wig&Pen pub and brewery, said while his products should continue to pass muster as beers, the change removed any margin for error and could limit specialty offerings.

He said he was frustrated quality craft beers should be in any way affected by the tax change, given they were the opposite of the sweet, cheap, bulk products that contributed to alcohol abuse.

 

[peas_and_corn]

 

[Ronin]

Not sure if this has been covered elsewhere...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...5013404,00.html

At least they left it open to making amendments. The problem is how long are the amendments going to take?

A lot of these beers are already expensive enough, I'm sure they're not responsible for excess youth drinking. I'd love to drink heaps of cantillon :chug: , but it's fairly cost prohibitive really.

That reminds me, must try and find some berlinerweisse...

 

[peas_and_corn]

At least they left it open to making amendments. The problem is how long are the amendments going to take?

Well, amendments always happen in the Senate. Both houses convene next on the 10th of March, so the bill won't even be discussed let alone voted on until then. Labor is once again relying on the independents to get it through, so I hope that for this bill they finally recognise that the Senate is a house of review and push some meaningful changes. The problem is that the definitions will be so hard to push, due to the 'malternatives' or whatever they call them now. "Exclude these increases if it's made Trappist style"?

 

[joshuahardie]

Hmmmm

Some interesting inclusions on that list.
I would like to think there are not many people out there trying to get loaded on a Berliner Weisse. being a low alcohol beer and all that...

 

[sinkas]

woops

 

[kook]

Love to see the look on a kid swigging a bottle of Rose de Gambrinus instead of a Bacardi Breezer.

This is stupid legislation to begin with, seems to be a common trait at the moment. I just hope the Greens have enough common sense to support the Coalition in blocking it.

 

[brendanos]

Does anyone know where I can read the full amendment? There's a recent clarification of beer in relation to hops here:

http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.htm?dbwi...r%26c%20hops%3B

...but does not include some of the facts and figures that the reporter was quoting, such as a minimum of 4IBU's, and the prohibition of artificial sweeteners such as saccharine.

I requested a copy of the document but it never eventuated, so if anyone knows where I can find it please advise!

 

[kevo]

Here's the Health Minister's details....

Should any more 'consultation' be required.

Let her know what you think.



Contact details for The Hon Nicola Roxon MP, Minister for Health and Ageing.

Parliament House Contact
MG 50
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Tel: (02) 6277 7220
Fax: (02) 6273 4146

email: [email protected]


Electorate Office Contact
1 Thomas Holmes Street
Maribyrnong VIC 3028

Ph: (03) 9317 7077
Fax: (03) 9317 7477

 

[sinkas]

For god's sake, it will all come out in the wash, its not stupid legislation, but as part of the legislation fdevelopment process they are starting broad and gradually, even if rather irratically fine tuning it.


if you are so worried about it, or want better inof, ring melissa parke's office in fremantle, she is a labour MP with support of tghe exice releif for micro's as one of her electioneering bites.

 

[kevo]

No it's not stupid legislation, but, at present, it's knee jerk, misinformed legislation.

Kev

 

[peas_and_corn]

I quickly bashed this together-

Hello,

I am writing to express some concerns that I have regarding the bill commonly referred to as 'the alcopops bill'. There is no doubt that the bill is one that is well intentioned; the difficulty in trying to create a social consensus regarding alcohol is a difficult one, especially when the issue of alcohol consumption is a large area of grey rather than the black and white nature of the debate that surrounds smoking. However, where this bill encounters difficulty is in how exactly to define the drinks that are targeted. Since there is no hard and sharp lines that separate the different alcoholic drinks (since the line between them have been blurred by different products), making law what is perceived to be a simple issue becomes more complex. However, I am sure that you are aware of these difficult issues.

What I am interested in is the following. Firstly, what modelling and research backs your claim that increasing the price of a group of alcoholic products will reduce the problem of binge drinking? I quote The Effects of Price on Alcohol Consumption and Alcohol-Related Problems by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism-

"One consideration that must be kept in mind when interpreting price effects such as those discussed throughout this article is that these effects are not based on natural experiments. For example, no data are available comparing the amounts of alcohol consumed by individuals or groups at different prices, with all other variables held constant. Instead, researchers use cross-sectional data, which measure consumption for individuals or groups at a given moment in time, or time series of such cross-sectional analyses from more than 1 year. And although investigators in these studies attempt to control for as many confounding variables (i.e., variables that may be correlated with price and consumption) as possible, these efforts can never be complete. These caveats place limits on the ability to infer cause-and-effect relationships from the study findings"

While the NIAAA generally argues that increases in alcohol prices can have an effect on purchasing, it's difficult to quantify in the absense of fixed variables and important factors such as the elasticity of demand. Additionally, all the research is based on a broad based increase in tax, rather than a narrow increase.

Secondly, how are non-related items going to be avoided? Concern has been raised that expensive beers such as lambics will attract the higher tax rate because of their high sugar content and relatively low bitterness level, which is how recent amendments have been defined in order to target 'malternatives', as they are dubbed. Taxing those who can afford high quality alcohol will not deter people who are trying to get drunk for as low a price as possible, as they are unlikely to buy a bottle of Rose de Gambrinus.

While the bill has passed the lower house, I hope that while it undergoes examination in the Senate amendments will be considered to take the issue of collateral taxation into account. It may help get the bill through.

David

 

[peas_and_corn]

This is an automatically generated response.

Thank you for your email to Nicola Roxon MP, Federal Member for Gellibrand and Minister for Health and Ageing.

Due to the large volume of emails received, we are unable to acknowledge each email personally. However, we will reply to each email. Response times depend on the complexity of the issues raised.

If you live in the electorate of Gellibrand and have not included your name, address and any other relevant contact details in your email, please provide them.

Your email is important to us and will be dealt with in due course. However if you require any further information, please contact us on (02) 6277 7220. For electorate and local constituent matters, please telephone the Gellibrand electorate office on (03) 9687 7355.

If your email relates to an invitation or media enquiry for the Federal Member for Gellibrand and Minister for Health and Ageing it will be forwarded to the relevant staff member.

The Department of Health and Ageing have a number of National Information Lines for further information on a range of topics. They are available here - http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/pub...th-infoline.htm



Thank you again for taking the time to email Nicola Roxon MP, Federal Member for Gellibrand and Minister for Health and Ageing.

 

[brenjak]

O.k,

Where i lived last year there was already prohibition. If anyone thinks prohibition is a harsh term the charge under the Liquor Act reads "Prohobition of possession of liquor". This legislation applies to aboriginal communities. Some have a zero carriage of alcohol limit and some are allowed a certain quantity. The problem is now that surrounding towns are considered to be in what the the Govt calls a "catchment area". In these catchment area's you cannot buy fortified liquor or wine in a cask until 6pm.
The other morning i was leaving Cairns to return to Cooktown when the mother-in-law rang and asked me to pick her up 3 x 4lt casks of wine. No problem? Yes problem! Went to liquorland and was denied sale as it was not 4pm (Cairns being no cask wine until this time). I drove down the road to Smithfield. A five minute drive. No problems here. Not in the "catchment area".
People who abuse alcohol will buy whatever is available. Alco-pop (this is a term i had never heard until some govt egghead made it up to sound cool) tax is ridiculous, not that i drink that sugary swill. I dont see the Govt asking Bundy Rum to raise the price of their product, just the tax. Being in my proffession i have seen no discernable change in people's drinking habits or what they drink.
As stated, the price of "trappist" etc beers is already high according to their imported nature and i have never seen anyone lying drunk in the street or in their home with a dozen lambic beer bottles around them (I went to some of your homes this may be a different story though!!!).

Prost!

BGL

 

[trevc]

In Canada, teens would just buy a $15 bottle of vodka and mix. I know others have mentioned this before, but how could these law-makers overlook the fact that spirits are cheaper/stronger and very easy to mix in to an "alcopop"?

Alcohol is alcohol, and people that want to drink, or drink excessively will ALWAYS find a way to do so (even throughout prohibition, etc). The sheer stupidity of this type of legislation is unbelievable.

 

[brenjak]

p.s to may last,

Alcoholics and young people who binge drink will continue to do so regardless of price. If they dont have a job the Govt pays them to drink. Price is no object to most serious drinkers who NEED and WANT that drink.

 

[brendanos]

At very least the government will generate more revenue which _could_ be used to address the underlying issues. I only hope that an increase in tax on whatever alcoholic products they decide translates to spending in that area.

 

[Trent]

Love to see the look on a kid swigging a bottle of Rose de Gambrinus instead of a Bacardi Breezer.

:lol: :lol: Priceless.

 

[kook]

Alco-pop (this is a term i had never heard until some govt egghead made it up to sound cool)

It might not be common over here, but it's been in use in the UK for many years. Oxford added it to their "New English" dictionary in 1998, and their traditional dictionary as an informal term in 2003.

It's certainly not something made up by Australian politicians.

 

[brenjak]

It might not be common over here, but it's been in use in the UK for many years. Oxford added it to their "New English" dictionary in 1998, and their traditional dictionary as an informal term in 2003.

It's certainly not something made up by Australian politicians.

You learn something new everyay kook. Good to see the Empire is still influencing us is subtle ways.