Page 6158 - Week 19 - Tuesday, 17 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MRS NOLAN (11.26): Mr Speaker, I will be very brief, but I do have to say that I do not believe that this Bill that has now been introduced in relation to liquor tax is a much better arrangement. It certainly has been accepted by the tourism industry and the restaurant industry. There were particular concerns in relation to service in restaurants because there would be a reduction in the selection of wines that a restaurant would be able to offer, and service would have suffered as a result of that.
Since the Bill was introduced I have had discussions with those in the restaurant industry, those in the tourism industry and those in the mail order business, and I understand that all those people are accepting of this particular Bill. I think it is very important that consideration be given to people who are already operating their businesses under a particular scheme. I think this Bill has done that. In relation to the introduction of new licences, those arrangements can be different. This was something that I argued on behalf of the tourism industry when the Alliance Government first looked at changing the legislation and, as I said, it is my understanding that they are much happier with these arrangements and it is representing their concerns.
MR HUMPHRIES (11.28): I indicate briefly that the Liberal Party will support these two Bills, the Liquor Tax Bill and the Liquor Tax (Consequential Provisions) Bill - not with any great conviction, I might say, if only because of the short time we have had to consider the details of what is a fairly complex package of legislation. I indicate again what I have said, I think, on several occasions in this place; that I do not believe that passing major pieces of legislation five days after they have been introduced into the house is a generally wise or sensible practice to be engaged in.
However, I have accepted the advice put to us by the manager of government business that these provisions are required urgently. They apparently result from some consultation with the industry, although we have not been able to verify that since we have not had time. For those reasons, we are prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt and see these matters passed into law today.
MR COLLAERY (11.29): Mr Speaker, I agree with Mr Duby and Mr Humphries in expressing caution about the rushed nature of these detailed amendments and the lack of time for the non-government members to renew consultation with industry on the topic. It is a vexed issue. The leader of the Government here states that it is a revenue proposal, that it is necessary, and, of course, we will support her on that basis.
We did this once before, with payroll tax in October 1989. We had pressed through on that occasion, on less than a month's notice, very detailed and complex amendments to the payroll tax law. On that occasion I also stood up and said
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .