You could probably also throw in a
(d) It'd help if we could cut the volume of wine we import, particularly when it comes to cleanskin Kiwi Sauvignon blanc.
That, like the position anybody contributing to the (mass) debate is going to adopt, is pretty obvious. What's not so obvious is the actual solution that's going to need to be adopted.
There are all sorts of wild schemes that could be implemented.
We could counter the Kiwi Sav blanc flood by exporting our own wine lake to the Shakey Isles and sell it for the cost of shipping across the Tasman.
Well you could, but you’d also bet your bottom dollar that the price points such wines would usually command would tend to rise in the face of a substantial government subsidy.
Now, the easiest way might be to do nothing and see what comes out of the inevitable shakeout. Market forces will end up doing what they end up doing, so let 'em run and see which way the dice rolls, but the way the dice actually rolls will inevitably be affected by the big players and their corporate and tax strategies, so that isn't really a solution either. No, after lengthy musing on the matter it's obvious to me, at least, that the answer to all the above lies in areas of public policy that aren't wine industry-specific.
We're supposedly on the verge of a substantial redesign of the Australian tax system. Part of the redesign will involve changes to the way that wine is taxed, and those changes will inevitably have some effect on the industry-wide shakeout that's going to occur over the next few years.
From Hughesy's point of view it'd be nice to see, apart from the straight out rate of tax related to the amount of alcohol in the container that everybody’s tipping, a surcharge based on the geographic label on the front of the bottle as it heads towards the point of sale.
Bottles sold without a label at all could attract a 50% surcharge, for example. That'd raise the price of my favourite Tahbilk cleanskin from $5 to $7.50 but that'd mean filing the wine under pretty good value for money rather than extraordinary value for money.
If the label offers nothing beyond the nation of origin, slug it an extra 40%. Cop that you Kiwi buggers....
If it's from South East Australia or comes under some similar multi-regional label, you can pay an extra 30%.
All of the above, of course, are the most likely suspects when it comes to binge drinking, so I'm sure the Prim (sic) Minister would approve. After all, the price tag is a consideration when you're looking at a one way excursion fare on the Oblivion Express to Wamboland.
And if I was running things you'd be slugged successively less for bottles bearing regional and sub-regional labels.
More...
