Page 6173 - Week 19 - Tuesday, 17 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS FOLLETT: It is the Labor Party's Bill, Mr Duby. Mr Kaine commented that this was a pretty cumbersome arrangement and I think he is probably right; nevertheless, the arrangement that has been arrived at, I believe, has been brought about in order to avoid the situation where the ACT revenue is diminished by the repayment of the annual fee to those clubs to whom it is being repaid. Obviously, our revenue would lose some interest on those large sums of money, and the temporary adjustment reflects the revenue neutrality of this proposal. So, we do not lose or gain and the clubs do not either, for the moment, except that they do gain by paying the fees on a monthly basis instead of an annual basis for the remainder of the year.
Mr Speaker, Mr Kaine also made some comments about the need to do this. I would like to say that the club industry is very much tied to a monthly cash flow rather than a sort of annualised budget. I think that charging them on a monthly basis, and on a basis that is directly related to their profits for particular months, will make their lives much easier because it means that there are some variables in their own performance and in their own tax liability from month to month rather than being faced with a single annual fee which has caused enormous difficulty, particularly to some of the major clubs, as members well know.
Finally, Mr Speaker, I would like to correct what I said about the super tax. I said that in 1994 and 1995 the super tax is 7.5 per cent; it is 27.5 per cent. I think I may have said 37.5 per cent, but 27.5 per cent is the figure applicable there. At any rate, it is well above what we charge for clubs. I would like, finally, to mention, and I am sure members are aware, that the casino will not have poker machines in it, so there will still be that separation of at least the nature of the gambling.
Mr Berry: Plus the $19m.
MS FOLLETT: As Mr Berry points out, Mr Speaker, there is also the up-front payment on behalf of the casino developer of $19m to the ACT. The clubs certainly have never been called upon for that kind of payment. Finally, Mr Speaker, Mr Collaery mentioned the situation of the ACT in comparison to New South Wales. I would like to say that the legislation that is before us today is certainly consistent with the arrangements in New South Wales. I am not aware, as I said, of the particular position of the Queanbeyan Leagues Club which Mr Collaery alluded to, but I think consistency between our two adjoining States is very important, and it is my advice that this legislation is consistent.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .