So Chauvel is saying, that the Minister will pick and choose which ‘brands’ should have a minimum price… I see the lawyers having a field-day with that one…
Chauvel clarified things a bit via email but confirmed the open ended ability of ‚Äėthe Minister‚Äô to set an unrestricted¬†minimum¬†price.
A minimum pricing regime could simply target that product, say by providing for a ceiling or cap of say $12 per bottle of wine so that other beverages were not affected. That would still double the price of the cheapest existing wine which can be bought at the moment for $6. Or it could be more complex.
So ‚Äėit could be double‚Äô.
Obviously it would need not to create unintended incentives to purchase other products in lieu of cheap wine on which to preload, or to penalize responsible drinkers.
I don‚Äôt know how doubling the price of bottles of cheaper wine would not create all sorts of ‚Äėunintended‚Äô incentives and disincentives.
And any increase would penalise responsible drinkers. This sounds like trying to reassure responsible drinkers to their faces ‚Äď while whacking them in the back pocket.
All this SOP would do is allow price to go into the mix.
With wide ministerial powers, no limitations, and unknown intentions.
Alcohol abuse is a complex and difficult problem to address, but much more effort needs to aim at the problems rather than catching everyone in the crossfire.