Page 1606 - Week 08 - Thursday, 28 September 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Rates (Amendment) Act, all of which had the effect of removing ministerial discretions and putting the assessment of levels of taxation into the hands of the Assembly. This amending Bill does the same thing. Before those amendments occurred, both to those previous Acts and today, the ACT was the only place in Australia where rates, payroll tax, stamp duty, tobacco, petroleum and alcohol licence fees were all altered solely by ministerial discretion. I am pleased to say that the Government has accepted that these changes need to occur.
Like my colleague Dr Kinloch, I looked originally at the question of the differing rates between clubs and other than clubs, namely hotels. I accept, however, that there is a very important difference there between clubs and hotels. Clubs in our community perform important social roles, and profits made from clubs as a rule are ploughed back into community purposes. For that reason I accept and endorse the concept of differentiating between clubs and other sorts of institutions that have poker machines and other gaming machines. The Opposition, as I have said, supports this Bill.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister), in reply (11.46): I would just like to pick up a couple of points that have been made in the debate. As Mr Humphries says, there is a very good reason for the differential rate of tax between clubs and hotels, a point which Dr Kinloch has raised, and that reason is, of course, that hotels operate purely for profit. Most of them are owned outside the ACT, and licensed clubs do make a habit of putting something back into the community that they are operating in.
I should also mention that the Licensed Clubs Association has been fully consulted on the proposed amendments and has accepted the proposed tax scale. Mr Speaker, the timing of this Bill is important, because we need to set in place the new tax arrangements on 1 October, and I very much appreciate members' understanding of the timeliness of this legislation. As Mr Humphries has said, I have an amendment, which I will be moving in the detail stage of the debate, which I think picks up his further concerns relating to the Bill. I might perhaps speak on that matter at that time.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Detail Stage
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 (Distribution of income from gaming machines)
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .