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.
Clare Valley Riesling? Certtainly, sir. Cost you an extra 20%....
Or perhaps one from Watervale? Much better buying. Surcharge is only 10% there. But if you're really looking for value, how about this Individual Vineyard wine? No surcharge at al....
Now before you dismiss the idea out of hand, remember you're already paying for the amount of alcohol in the bottle, and that individual vineyard wine's going to be sitting around the upper echelon when it comes to the price point involved.
Under this regime, as stated, my Tahbilk cleanskin would go from $5 to $7.50. A Kiwi cleanskin that now sets you back $7 would then be a tad under $10.
That South East Australian Cab Merlot you're partial to would move from $7 to a tad over $9, same price you'd pay for a Sav Blanc labelled Marlborough rather than New Zealand.
While I wouldn't be thrilled about my $15 Clare Riesling going up to $18, some of the pain would be lessened as I realised that the extra slug on that wine from Watervale's only going to set me back another $2 and that simply wonderful Individual Vineyard wine ain't going up at all....
Well, I guess we can all dream.
Seriously, though, if you look at these things from a wine industry perspective, you draw one set of conclusions. Look at it as a drinker, and you've got a whole different kettle of fish.
Much of the current over-supply is the result of the massive investment in vineyards through the Managed Investment Schemes that were promoted before the GFC as more or less the greatest thing since sliced bread. Changes in the tax system will also, hopefully, make vineyards a less attractive proposition for people looking at a tax advantage rather than a commercial investment.
Going back to points (a) and (b) above, you've got some interesting options when it comes to water policy. If governments are serious about reducing or buying back water allocations in the Murray-Darling system, inevitably, some vineyards are going to have to go, but it would need to be done as an across the board rather than an industry-specific thing.
Fat chance of that, of course.
For a start, in the current political environment you're not going to get anything through the Senate without concessions being made in negotiations with the Greens and the independents, so don't be holding your breath.