Page 2444 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 13 August 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The real prize is the 50-year licences at zero tax on tote earnings and less than 1 per cent on the sports bookmaking licence.
In NSW, the TAB pays 19 per cent and 10 per cent respectively, while the tax hit in Victoria is 7.5 and 4.5 per cent. In this sort of market the acquisition of low-cost, long-life optionality is every boss’s dream deal and Attenborough looks to have achieved that.
If there is a question here that Tabcorp is getting such a good deal, does that mean that the taxpayer of the ACT did not get the best deal? The answer is that we do not know, because the government will not release its financial analysis. And if the government will not release its financial analysis, you have to ask the question: what are they hiding? You have to look at this. Go through these numbers, members. The article says:
The real prize is the 50-year licences at zero tax on tote earnings and less than 1 per cent on the sports bookmaking licence.
In New South Wales, the tax on sports bookmaking licences is 10 per cent; we have got a tenth of that. In Victoria it is 4.5 per cent. We have got one per cent. You have to ask why Tabcorp are willing to pay the $105 million. The answer is: because they got the better deal. They have got a very good deal. They know that for 50 years they will pay no tax on tote and only one per cent on the sports betting.
I think it behoves the government to make that information public—to make their analysis public. I am not asking for the deal that Tabcorp put to them, although given that you are selling a government asset it would not be unreasonable to know that detail. But the government surely did its homework, and the government is in a position to release its work on what the revenue forgone in the outyears will mean. If there really is a case that can be made that yes, we have got what seems like a good deal today, it is a question of whether we have denied taxpayers over the next 50 years the benefit of the sale for a quick grab today. The government needs to consider that.
It is interesting that the estimates committee was charged with looking at the budget. This was on the table. We did not have any detail. The detail emerged after the committee had finished its process. I ask members to look at the recommendations the committee made. Recommendation 61—and this is with two Labor and two Liberal members—says:
The Committee recommends that the Legislative Assembly refer the sale process of ACTTAB Ltd to the ACT Auditor‐General to consider a review of the sale.
There is bipartisan support for this, and I hope that that is what happens today. But I notice the minister has an amendment which will remove the referral. You have to ask: if this is such a good deal, we have had such a good process and we are getting such a good outcome, why would you not have the Auditor-General validate this process? The government’s refusal to support this motion today, through the amendment that the Treasurer has circulated, clearly shows that they do not want this discussed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video