Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (4 September) . . Page.. 2990 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

Members, you have just supported, it appears, elements of legislation which will apply to the licensed hotels in the ACT and which, if pursued, will ensure that a bureaucratic layer is laid over licensed hotels and licensed clubs which they will not be very thankful for. When I raised this with officers last evening, there was some question about whether it applies to the hotels; but, of course, it does.

My amendment relates to the audit of records. It is important to keep in mind that proposed section 54B on page 4 of the legislation talks about the obligations of a licensee and the penalty units if such records are not maintained. I was surprised to receive the hint that the department, by administrative action, might not pursue hotels. My view about it is that, if this Assembly passes legislation which applies to hotels, then it applies to everybody. In respect of hotels, "a licensee shall, within 1 month after the end of the financial year, give the Commissioner a copy of the record kept under subsection 54A(1)". If he does not, the penalty for a natural person is 20 penalty units and for a body corporate 100 penalty units.

Members, that is what you are setting out to do. This piece of legislation has been badly drafted. I have warned you about it from the word go, since I first stood up in this place. This is dud legislation. Do not be misled by any other comments. The Bill does apply that layer to the hotel industry as well. They are not going to be terribly happy about this. They are not going to be terribly happy with some sort of misty promise which says, "We are not going to pursue this. We are not going to go after you. We are not going to police it in respect of hotels". If you pass this legislation, as far as I am concerned, you will be policing it. I will make sure that you police it, so far as I can in this place. What I am saying to you is that the legislation is crook. My amendment creates a level playing field for the reporting requirements by making clause 9 read:

Section 56 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from paragraph (1)(b) all the words after `statement' and substituting `for that year relating to the financial operations of the licensee'.

The purpose of that is to make sure that the licensee, whether of a club or a hotel, has to provide a statement relating to its financial operations. If it is the purpose of the Government to get a complete picture of what licensed clubs do across the ACT, then this will give you a complete picture, not only of the club industry but also of the hotel industry, unless you do not want a complete picture of the hotel industry, but your legislation says that you do. Here I am trying to confirm that your legislation should give you a complete picture. It will be interesting to see what the Government's response is. If they want to apply this legislation, it applies to the hotel industry as well. If you do not police it, it will be discrimination against the clubs. That is what you will be setting out to do. Saying that you will not police it in respect of hotels is a clear discriminatory act. You do not deny that the legislation applies to hotels as well.

This unnecessary dud legislation will not only apply to both the hotels and the clubs but also discriminate against the clubs. People might think that is pretty funny and think it is not worth worrying about, but I do not. That is why I have moved the amendment which I have put before you this evening. This will ensure that the legislation will apply across the board and require similar reporting arrangements for both clubs and the hotel industry, if the Government is fair dinkum about what it is saying it is setting out to do.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .