Liquor Licensing Fees

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (14:32): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question to the Treasurer, as Leader of Government Business and also as Treasurer, on the topic of the new liquor licensing risk-based fee schedule.

Leave granted.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Members would be well aware, as I'm sure the Treasurer is, we are in Adelaide a UNESCO City of Music. Indeed, our pubs and clubs are the home of live music. Members would also be well aware that recently we have heard that some of the GST shortfall will be addressed by an increase in fees and charges. One of those increases in fees and charges will be a new so-called risk-based liquor licensing fee schedule.

In that schedule currently there will be a proposed $500 charge for risk-defined activities, which would include adult entertainment on licensed premises. At present, that is defined as the current prescribed entertainment, which is, indeed, adult entertainment—stripping, as well as martial arts and boxing. However, it is noted in the government's announcement that this may change at a later stage. I also remind the Treasurer of his words, representing the shadow attorney-general in this place, and the success in this place of arguing that any liquor licensing fee schedules for increases should be tabled as separate regulations to allow for proper disallowance on a merit basis. My questions to the Treasurer are:

1. If the quantum of the proposed increases in licensing fees is not met, will the definition of 'risk' be altered accordingly or will a budget shortfall simply be accepted with these increased liquor licensing fees?

2. Will separate regulations be tabled for this proposed increase in risk-based liquor licensing fees, as was promised and promoted while the Marshall government was in opposition?

3. Will he now rule out any live music being defined as a risk activity on a licensed premises, noting again that we are a UNESCO City of Music?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (14:35): In relation to the detail of some of those questions I will need to refer them to the Attorney-General who, together with the commissioner for liquor licensing issues, Mr Soulio, has carriage of the detail of the questions. In relation to the first question, which was essentially Treasury and Finance related, our normal budgeting procedure is that we can't do anything other than estimate, to the best degree possible, at any particular budget. If, ultimately, there is either an underestimate or an overestimate in a future budget or Mid-Year Budget Review, the government would have to take a separate decision as to whether it adjusts the particular revenue line upwards or downwards.

Past experience of both Liberal and Labor governments would tend to be that these sorts of things don't generally happen during a Mid-Year Budget Review. The very earliest that I can recall that it would have ever occurred in the past might have been if, 12 months later in a subsequent budget, there was a judgement call that either it collected more money—it being the overall measure, not just an individual component of it—or less money, a government might decide to take a decision to correct for that particular factor. I have to say that does not often happen; generally governments of either persuasion have just accepted the ups and downs in terms of the estimates and have moved on.

In terms of the honourable member's first question, I think the more normal course would be if there was some under-collection–given that the total sum of money is, to my recollection, just over $3 million out of a budget of $21 billion—in terms of that aggregate line, the more common practice—and I'm not giving a commitment—would be just to accept that that is the reality of what occurred in relation to that particular set of circumstances. If in the event that it collected slightly more, again, the more normal position would be I think that it would just be accepted in subsequent budgets.

However, the specific answer to the question is that those sorts of decisions are finally taken, I would imagine, at each budget time when the budget reset is undertaken. In relation to the more specific questions about the risk-based assessments and how they might apply, I will need to refer those questions to the Attorney and the commissioner.