PAUL TAGGART The old chestnut that there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics has been trotted out so often since it appeared in Mark Twain's autobiography that it has become a cliché.
Yet sometimes, when listening to politicians justifying the unjustifiable, it seems to have been written for the occasion.
One such example was Jim Anderton's comments last week when challenging a Hawke's Bay winemaker's claim that he had initiated a tax increase which decimated fortified wine production in New Zealand.
Alan Limmer, owner of Stonecroft winery, west of Hastings, claimed that Mr Anderton, Minister of Regional Development in the last Government, had made an executive decision in mid-2003 to increase the tax on higher-alcohol beverages, a move that pushed up prices and triggered a slide in port and sherry sales.
Mr Anderton disputed that. He said the increase in excise tax on alcoholic drinks in the 14-23 percent range had been a Cabinet decision, which he announced as then acting Minister of Customs.
"It is correct to say that it was aimed at young drinkers who were abusing drinks in the 'ready mix' range and in that regard it has been remarkably successful," Mr Anderton said.
Production of such drinks had dropped by more than 80 percent since the excise increase had been introduced, Mr Anderton said.
At the end of the day it is of little consequence whether it was Mr Anderton, or cabinet that made the ridiculous decision. However, there can be no doubt it caused headaches for numerous producers of fortified wines and strong cider.
New Zealand Winegrowers' figures show a large fall in this country's production of fortified wine following the introduction of the targeted excise tax on May 8, 2003. In the year June 2002-May 2003 it was 1.2 million litres compared with 712,000 litres for the following 12 months.
But the part of Mr Anderton's statement that is really galling is the inference that the collateral damage to the wine industry was worthwhile because the increase in tax was a huge success as it cut the production of RTDs, also known as alcopops, by more than 80 percent.
Now there's an interesting statistic. One that would, no doubt, have given Mark Twain a good laugh. Mr Anderton is probably accurate in his claim that the production volumes of RTDs with an alcohol content of more than 14 percent dropped as a consequence of the higher tax, crippling the local fortified wine industry in the process.
What he failed to mention, however, is that as soon as the law was introduced, RTD king Michael Erceg, who went missing in his helicopter on Friday, reformulated his company's drinks so they had an alcohol content of 13.9 percent, neatly side-stepping the new legislation.
The fact that the liquor baron's estimated fortune grew from $300 million in 2003 to $620 million this year indicates that his business, Independent Liquor, wasn't badly damaged by Mr Anderton's shenanigans, unlike the fortified wine industry, which wasn't the legislation's intended target.
Therefore to make Mr Anderton's statistics meaningful, as well as quoting the fall in sales of RTDs with an alcohol content in the over 14 percent range, it would be useful, in the interest of fairness, if he also quoted the corresponding rise in the sales of RTDs with an alcohol content in the 13-14 percent range.
After all, how many extra swigs does a teenager need to take to make up the missing one tenth of a percent?
Hawkes Bay Today
