Ivan Dean, Speeches Index

Wednesday 20 October 2004

LIQUOR AND ACCOMMODATION AMENDMENT (FEES) BILL 2004

Mr DEAN ( Windermere ) - Mr President, I concur with the comments of most of the previous speakers and I may well repeat some of them, and for that I apologise, but I think they do need to be repeated. I have difficulty with the bill for a number of reasons. I am far from satisfied that all interested parties to the bill have been involved in the process. I think that is a very important part of any process. I am not satisfied it is necessary in the circumstances and I am not satisfied it has been well worked through.
We have been told that this matter has been on the books now for several years. That being the case, I wonder why it has not come into the Chamber before now. One could probably assume that perhaps there was not sufficient consultation previously and that is one reason it was so slow coming here but from the information we have been given, that does not appear to be the situation at all. Perhaps the Leader may be able to tell us why the matter has been hanging around for so long.
I heard the Leader in his second reading speech when he said that annual licence fees are imposed to recover the cost of regulation in many other areas. I accept that, but I just go back to a comment that I made in another area earlier this week - in fact in the area of local government. What I said there was that one size does not necessarily fit all. We need to look at each particular case on its merits and then we need to determine at the end of the day what path we should go down. But because it applies somewhere, it does not necessarily mean it should apply somewhere else. While the fee is in the range of $200 to $400 to $500 per annum, to a pub, club or restaurant on the breadline it is just another straw on the camel's back. At the present time, with all the other costs that are imposed on these venues, the back is bending and it is not going to be long before some of these premises will give way - they will not be able to proceed, they will not be able to exist.
The Leader, in the second reading speech, says that given the level of annual revenue of many hotels, clubs, restaurants, function centres and nightclubs and the cost to the community of monitoring the consumption of liquor, it is appropriate that an annual licence fee is imposed to offset these costs. I am told there are just as many pubs, clubs and restaurants, Mr President, that are on the breadline. They are having difficulty in existing, having difficulty in making a profit. So it is not all those premises out there that are doing extremely well. Certainly Wrest Point, the Country Club, Hotel Tasmania and a lot of other venues that I could mention are probably doing very well and could probably well afford to pay this amount of money. It may appear a small amount of money, but to those premises doing it hard, it is a huge amount of money.
I see the fee structure as unfair. It cannot be equitably imposed across the whole industry and that has been inferred, too, by other members. Those with a poor return in some cases will pay exactly the same fee as another establishment that is doing extremely well, Mr President. There is no way of balancing this and getting it right. I do not know what they could have done; some are saying it probably should have been done on turnover but then were saying there were difficulties in doing it by way of turnover, so I have grave -
Mr Aird - If it was based on turnover then it would be a tax.
Mr DEAN - Some people - you have used the word, Mr Leader - have referred to this as a form of tax.
Mr Aird - But it's not, I've explained that.
Mr DEAN - It is a fee.
Mr Aird - It's a fee. Of course, it's a fee but it's not a tax. If it was based on turnover it would be a tax.
Mr DEAN - Unfortunately, a lot of premises out there that I have spoken to see it as a tax - they refer to it as a tax.
Mr Aird - Yes, but they're wrong.
Mr DEAN - They certainly do not refer to it as a fee.
Mr Aird - But they're wrong.
Mr DEAN - They may be wrong but that is -
Mr Aird - Do you tell them they're wrong?
Mr DEAN - They are seeing it as a tax.
Mr Aird - Yes, they may say that but do you tell them they are making a mistake, that they're wrong?
Mr Fletcher - We refer them to the Leader.
Mr Aird - Yes, do, refer them to me.
Mr Fletcher - We say, 'If you have any doubts about it, talk to the Leader'.
Mr Aird - Exactly.
Mr DEAN - I did not refer to it as a tax, Mr Leader, you did and I will leave that there.
The problem I had with consultation - and I raised that when I commenced on this matter - is that of all the hotels in my electorate, including some of the clubs and other premises, there was only one that said they were aware of the existence of this fee. That concerns me because I wonder where this has gone wrong. Either those premises are not being up-front - and I have no reason to suspect that they are not, Mr President. This is a fee that will impact on them that they will have to pay, so one would have thought that for licensed premises it would have been advertised, they would have been brought into the equation somewhere and they would have had some input into it, but that does not appear to be the case.
I certainly saw one small press release on this some time ago and I think that was the release by the AHA, in actual fact, where they were incensed at the thought of the introduction of this fee. But it certainly, in my view, has not been dealt with as transparently as it might have been - as openly as it might have been. There appears to be some form of secrecy about the whole thing.
Mr Aird - No, we announced it in the Budget.
Mr DEAN - It was mentioned in the Budget but you do not have businesses out there reading every minute detail within a budget.
Mr Aird - There's no secrecy. The AHA put out a press release saying that they opposed it.
Mr DEAN - The fee, Mr Leader, as we have been told this morning, was set - well and truly set - before -
Mr Aird - It hasn't been set. Do you understand what this bill does?
Mr DEAN - This bill, as I understand it, is for the introduction of this fee, that is what it does. I understand it was confirmed that this fee would be introduced in the form of a bill, without any consultation at all. We were given an analogy this morning at the briefing, which I thought was quite a reasonable analogy of a nuclear plant - and I do not need to remind people of that analogy. It was set. The Government had agreed that they wanted this law so that they could bring into being these fees.
The AHA act for and support the greater majority of this industry so one would have thought that they would have been brought into the equation at the time the Government commenced talking about the introduction of this bill. I would have thought that was the appropriate time.
A comment made to me by one of the premises was that it seems to a lot of people out there that licensed premises, Mr President, are seen as a milking cow - a good way of putting it - for this Government. They see those premises as being able to pay fees, taxes or whatever you might want to call them and they are called on on a very permanent basis to make those payments.
I must say that I do not regularly inhabit hotels and clubs but I do enjoy a quiet beer from time to time.
Mr Aird - You don't like a loud beer?
Mr DEAN - I do not like the smoking, in particular.
I will defend any industry that I believe has not been properly involved in all of the processes and any industry that I believe is not being treated as fairly as they might have been, and I do not think they have in this instance.
I took the course of speaking to a suburban hotel in my area to find out what some of the costs were that they are currently paying. I will not identify the hotel in this instance. It is a hotel and it does not have gaming machines. I will approximate the figures but the approximations I give are fairly accurate. The rental on the premises is around $60 000. It is rented premises and that is what the current licensee is paying. They are currently paying a gaming licence fee of $1 000 per year for keno facilities; local government rates of some $12 000 per year are being paid on these premises; they pay a waste management fee to local government of $50 a year; an extra garbage collection amount of almost $2 000 a year; they pay wages in the region of $90 000 to $100 000; they have a superannuation bill in excess of $8 000; they pay an insurance bill of almost $12 000 - this is the one establishment we are talking about, fairly small premises. They pay a power bill of about $15 000 per year; they pay a telephone bill of about $5 000 a year; there are other associated costs that they also are required to pay. In those figures they do not refer to the cleaning of the premises and the other ancillary or sundry costs that they have to come up with for the workings of their premises and so on. In actual fact these people are so close to the breadline they say they clean the premises themselves, not because they want to but because they have to. They have no choice.
So a fee of this small amount will impact on a place like that quite harshly, Mr President. I make that point and the point has been made by other members here. Some establishments can pay it and probably will not be too concerned about it but there are others that just cannot or they might pay it but they will find it extremely hard to do so.
Ms Thorp - Maybe they should close down if they're that close to the breadline.
Mr Aird - Well, they will close down.
Mr DEAN - What was that?
Mr Finch - $201 500 was the amount without cleaning.
Mr DEAN - Was it?
Mr Finch - Yes.
Mr DEAN - I can go back into that. In fact these people were saying they have overheads in excess of $200 000.
Mr Martin - But that's the cost of doing business.
Mr DEAN - It might be. I am glad you raised that because when these existing businesses commenced - and we heard about New South Wales, didn't we - they did not know that this annual fee was likely to be imposed so they bought into these businesses, they rented the premises in the belief that the fees they would have to pay would stay similar to the ones that were there when they went into them, perhaps thinking there would a slight increase here and there. But they never ever thought that this fee would be imposed and become an annual fee. I believe they have taken a very responsible course in New South Wales. If the information we got this morning is correct, and it came from the very persons involved in the industry, they will only impose this annual fee on new businesses now coming in.
Mr Aird - Do you know the reason for that? The reason for that is it stopped new players coming into the game. It would not get past the regulatory impact statement here.
Mr DEAN - Hasn't it already been identified on a number of occasions that we probably have too many licensed premises and so on? If the Government was thinking that way, maybe -
Mr Fletcher - This is a back-door method by the Government to get rid of a lot of players in the industry. There's an ulterior motive here.
Mr Aird - Four hundred dollars to tip them over the edge.
Members laughing.
Mr DEAN - It probably is a method that the Government is looking at, that the honourable member for Murchison raised. I thank him for that contribution.
These premises are already paying a GST - well, the patrons pay it, as has quite properly been pointed out but these people collect that GST to pay to the Government. They are making a huge contribution. All the GST comes back to this State, every last penny of it. That is therefore for the benefit of the people of Tasmania, not, in my view, to have a $400 million excess stuck away in some big black hole somewhere. That was referred to yesterday as well. This is not a case of this Government being destitute, it is not a case of this Government having to impose a fee to try to get its head above water. They have never been in as good a position before, ever, and that has come out on many occasions. So it is not a fee that, in my view, needs to be imposed at this stage. That is the next point I want to make - the timing of this legislation. I do not know when the bill will be given royal assent but I would suggest that this fee will probably be payable as of the 2005 financial year - I am not quite sure when. Perhaps the Leader would tell us.
On top of that, these premises have the smoking legislation, which I supported and attempted to make earlier than it was, but there will be a lot of costs imposed on licensed establishments because of that legislation. That will need to come out of their profits at the current time.
Ms Thorp - A good thing they've got 12 months to find it.
Mr DEAN - You are right. They have 12 months now to find it. I think that was far too long because -
Mr Harriss - People will die during that period.
Mr DEAN - You are right; people will die during that period. Some members have no difficulty with accepting that. I certainly do. That is why I took the strong stance that I did in relation to that bill, and I do not apologise for it. I can sleep at night; I have no difficulty.
The other situation that I wanted to raise - and it was mentioned, I think, in our briefing this morning - was the further expenses that are going to be imposed on licensed establishments over the next two-year period. This is all on top of this fee - that is, gaming areas with keno must have full video surveillance which is to connect back to a central secure recording system. Larger venues are to have video surveillance over all coin exchange areas, as I understand it - this is the information I have been provided with. By 2006 I am told that all gaming areas are to be under full video surveillance. If that information is accurate, there will be huge costs to be accepted by a lot of the venues around this State.
I reiterate my position in relation to the timing: I think it is extremely bad timing. We know that this bill has been lying around for a number of years now and what could have been lost from this bill simply lying around for a further 12 months to two years. Let things settle down a little bit, let these premises be given a fair go.
I want to end by saying that I will need a lot of convincing. I do not know whether the Leader is able to do that when he provides answers to questions and issues that have arisen. I will need a lot of convincing before I will be supporting the bill that we have before us.

Return To Main Page.

Return To Speeches.