Page 469 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 24 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The other thing is that the Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Bills and Subordinate Legislation has considered this Bill. We got a copy of its report last night. The committee has grave concerns about certain areas of the Bill as well. There are two or three pages of concerns. What we are saying is: Why pass this legislation with so much haste? Why is it that we have to pass it within six days of having received it in this Assembly? Why is it that the people whom it is affecting have not had a chance to have a look at it? Yet we come in here and talk about community consultation and how important it is to consult with the community. Let us have a little bit more consultation and less of this passing Bills within five or six minutes. For that reason, Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party will not be supporting this legislation.
MR LAMONT (4.47): Madam Speaker, I hope that the Liberals intend to do this each day of sitting. There appears to be an interview process for the new Leader of the Opposition, but I should not say that.
Madam Speaker, there is need for urgency in relation to the introduction of the liquor business franchise scheme which will facilitate the introduction of new liquor tax rates and general additional revenue in 1992-93. Members will be aware that on 23 June last year the Chief Minister announced the intention to introduce differential rates for low and high alcoholic beverages, to commence from 1 January 1993. It was estimated that the net effect of such changes would result in additional revenue of approximately $900,000 in 1992-93. The High Court decision, which was handed down after the Chief Minister's announcement, was an unexpected obstacle. Because of the need to examine the effects of that court decision, and in light of the New South Wales decision to defer the introduction of comparable rate scales until May 1993, the Chief Minister announced in November that the new rates would be deferred until 1 April 1993, with a revenue loss of some $300,000.
As outlined in the Chief Minister's presentation speech, the next date for payment of fees covering the 1 April to 30 June licensing period is 17 March 1993, which is before the commencement of the next sittings on 23 March 1993. Failure to pass the Business Franchise (Liquor) Bill and the Business Franchise (Liquor) (Consequential Amendments) Bill will result in either the delay by a further three months of the differential rates, resulting in a further loss of revenue, or adjustments to March payments, with considerable inconvenience for licensees and costs in the Revenue Office once the legislation has been passed. Madam Speaker, I believe that these are very good reasons to debate and resolve the fate of these Bills today.
Madam Speaker, it has been suggested that there has been undue haste in the preparation of these Bills and a lack of consultation with affected licensees. I would like to comment on each of these allegations in turn. While the Bills have been prepared speedily to meet the deadline of the February sittings, any suggestion that as a consequence they are flawed is categorically denied and discredits both the Commissioner for Revenue and Parliamentary Counsel. The only errors, as such, were typographical, as outlined in the debate on the previous Bills, and are no reflection on the very careful consideration given to the issue contained in these Bills.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .