Page 468 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 24 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In our opinion, a media release from the Chief Minister on 23 June is by no means consultation. I must correct that, because there were a couple of phone calls from someone or other in the Revenue Office to someone that they perceived to be the then president of the Australian Hotels Association. The caller said, "Listen, you had better read the Canberra Times in a couple of weeks because you will see what is going to happen in the industry". This chap quite rightly said, "Well, listen - - -
Mr Connolly: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is Mr De Domenico addressing you or his colleagues at the back of the chamber? He seems to be facing his colleagues who have walked out and are sitting at the back of the gallery, I should say, not in the chamber.
MADAM SPEAKER: Thank you for bringing that to my attention, Mr Connolly.
MR DE DOMENICO: Yes, I thank you, Mr Connolly, for interjecting so stupidly.
Mr Moore: He raised a point of order and addressed it to the Speaker.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order! Mr De Domenico, the Speaker is here.
MR DE DOMENICO: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Hopefully, the SNAG on my right will keep quiet as well. The Government talks about proper consultation. We keep hearing about this community consultation. As Mr Stevenson said yesterday, it sounds very good when it is reiterated by the Chief Minister. She smiles when she says it and she keeps talking about social justice, community consultation and the great things that this Government does. Well, this is what community consultation is - a press release in June, a letter in November saying, "Yes, we are going to give you some more information", and a telephone call saying, "Listen, I think you had better buy the Canberra Times". This person quite rightly said, "What if I do not subscribe to the Canberra Times? How, heavens above, am I going to know what is going to happen to my industry?".
We are talking about an increase in taxation of $1.2m per year. A lot has been said about the fact that we are being charged 13 per cent on full strength alcohol and 7 per cent on low strength alcohol, in line with New South Wales. What the Chief Minister did not say is that, unlike taverns in the ACT, some in New South Wales are allowed to have various gaming machines to collect revenue, which helps make up the difference.
Let us have a look at the State-by-State situation. New South Wales, as rightly said by the Chief Minister, imposes 13 per cent on full strength and 7 per cent on low strength alcohol. However, the taverns make up any loss of income through the gaming machine situation. In Queensland it is 10 per cent on everything. In South Australia it is 13 per cent on high alcohol beers and nothing on low alcohol beers. For the Chief Minister to say or to write to people and say that the reason why we are doing this is to make them drink low alcohol beer is a bit of nonsense, because in South Australia it is 13 per cent on high alcohol beer and nothing on low alcohol beer. In Victoria it is 11 per cent on the high alcohol and nothing on the low alcohol beer. In Tasmania it is 11 per cent. I reiterate that the reason why the Liberal Party will strongly say that we are not going to support this Bill is that the people who are being affected by it - it does more than just tidy up something that the High Court said - have not even had a chance to look at it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .