HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-06-22 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTES AMENDMENT (BUDGET 2011) BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 21 June 2011.)

Clause 4.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: For the clarity of the committee, there are four elements to this budget bill, and I think the Treasurer and I have agreed that we will ask questions on the four elements because then the four sets of different advisers can come and go and make it a simpler procedure. The first element, which is under clause 4, which we are dealing with as from yesterday, is the First Home Owner Grant scheme. The Treasurer mentioned that the $7,000 scheme would still remain, and I think he said yesterday that that was all state money. Is that right, or is that money transferred from the commonwealth for this particular purpose?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I will double-check, but my understanding is it is state money. But it is money that we do under an agreement with the commonwealth. When the GST was introduced part of the IGA with the GST was to have this First Home Owner Grant, the $7,000, to basically offset the GST. I will double-check but we do not get specific-purpose grants from the commonwealth to do it; it is part of the GST agreement.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The $7,000 figure is not capped: there could be 1,000 homes or one million homes eligible for that, it just depends on the market conditions in any particular year, and we get reimbursed through the GST for the $7,000 contribution, so it is cyclic in that sense. Is that how the system works? It is not capped at 10,000 homes or 5,000 homes a year?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Any first homebuyer buying a home under $575,000 gets the $7,000 grant, regardless of whether it is a new home or an existing home. There is no cap on that. Regardless of how many first homebuyers there are in any particular year they will get that $7,000 grant and they will continue to get that $7,000 grant.

Mr GRIFFITHS: If it is part of the IGA is there a consistent approach by every state in the nation so that it is $7,000 for each?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes. Each state will have its own terms for bonus grants, which is what we are talking about here—the states differ.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Is the $575,000 figure that you mentioned a figure set by the commonwealth as part of the conditions of the IGA or is that a level set by the state? Who sets the rules around the eligibility for the $7,000? Does the state have any discretion to change the rules or are the rules solely at the discretion of the commonwealth?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: This is aside from the bill, but I am happy to answer questions and I will double-check that what I am saying to you is correct. My understanding is that all of the provisions for that $7,000 grant are set out in the IGA, the intergovernmental agreement that the states and the commonwealth have as part of the GST. So, no, we do not have any discretion; we could not unilaterally change it. Any changes we had to make would have to be by renegotiating the IGA with the commonwealth.

Clause passed.

Clauses 5 to 10 passed.

Clause 11.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Clause 11 deals with changes to the Liquor Licensing Act. As I understand it, the government seeks to impose an annual licence fee for premises and events covered by liquor licensing. The current provision is that there is an application fee for a liquor licence but not an ongoing annual fee for pubs and clubs. This legislation introduces an annual fee for what I will call pubs and clubs, those premises that are licensed.

It also introduces a different fee structure for events such as the Clipsal 500 and the Big Day Out. I will question the minister in due course about whether it covers events such as Glendi and other big community festivals.

The government says that this will collect—from memory, it was around $15 million over the forward estimates. I think it is about $3 million or $4 million per year, and it is to do with the compliance of Consumer Affairs and their inspectors, etc., to do with liquor licensing. That is the background to it.

I have some questions for the minister in relation to clause 11 and the principle of the liquor licensing. So, it may well be not only clause 11 but also the other clauses, but on this topic of liquor licensing. What is the current cost of compliance for the government, and is the government seeking full cost recovery or will this fee only be partial cost recovery?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: What I have is the 2011-12 budget for regulation of the sector. It is $4.548 million for the 2011-12 financial year, so this annual fee will basically recover that $4.548 million. That is the intention. There are some additional costs that this will not recover. There is some investing expenditure of $972,000 for the 2011-12 financial year that will not be recovered as part of this fee. SA Police also have their own Licensing Enforcement Branch that this will not cover the cost of, which has a budget of $3.6 million. I beg your pardon, we will recover part of the investing expenditure of $972,000. So, the amount that is not recovered is $599,000, plus the $3.6 million that SAPOL spend on the Licensing Enforcement Branch.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: On what basis did the government decide what to charge in and what not to charge in? What is the delineation and how do clubs and pubs know they are only getting charged for the administration of their section?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It is the operating expenditure for the liquor regulatory services, so that is what we are attempting to recover through this. It is the operating expenditure of liquor regulatory services undertaken by the Attorney-General's Department.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: One assumes these licence fees will apply to not only clubs and pubs but also restaurants.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: There will be a different fee structure. My understanding is that clubs that operate late at night will have a higher fee structure than clubs or pubs that do not trade late at night. I know some of my country electorate members will want to know the fee structure that is proposed for small country pubs and community clubs. So, can the Treasurer please outline what is the actual fee structure proposed?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: We have not finalised the fee structure, but what I envisage is basically this: the licensed premises that will pay the bulk of the fee will be the bigger licensed pubs, particularly those that trade late. The restaurants and smaller clubs will pay a relatively nominal fee, but we are in talks with Clubs SA and the Australian Hotels Association.

We are aware of the issue with country pubs, and the regulations under this act will provide the commissioner with the power to grant an exemption to small country hotels. So, depending on the circumstances of the individual hotel, they will either pay a reduced fee or nothing at all.

With regard to clubs, there are restricted and unrestricted clubs. Anyone can go into unrestricted clubs and they will probably pay a higher fee, because there are some clubs that are quite profitable. The smaller clubs, the restricted clubs, will, again, pay a rather nominal fee.

We are structuring the fees so that the greatest burden will be imposed on those licensed premises that cost us the most to regulate by virtue of their size, ability to pay and the fact that they trade late. Restaurants, restricted clubs and country hotels will pay a relatively small fee, in fact a nominal fee, if they end up paying anything at all.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: It sounds to me as if it is being designed as we speak.

The Hon. J.J. Snelling: Well, it is.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Then I am not sure how we can legitimately vote on something for which the structure we do not know, or even the size of the fee we do not know. The way the second reading explanation is written, it states that the only criteria which the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner will have to reduce or exempt from the annual licence is hardship provisions. Is that right? Is the only criteria to reduce the fee or have the pub or club exempt from the fee under hardship provisions? If not, then what other provisions is the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner going to take into consideration for a reduction in or exemption from the fee?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I will clarify what I said earlier: restricted clubs will in fact be exempt; they will not have to pay anything at all. So, the small restricted clubs which only provide a service to members will be exempt from the fee entirely.

With regard to the powers of the commissioner to grant exemption from or a reduction in the fee, what the member for Davenport says is not correct. The commissioner will have a wider discretion to provide an exemption from or a reduction in the fee. That will be done. Hardship is one of them, but, also, upon application, a licensee will be able to apply to the commissioner for an exemption or for a reduction in the fee, and the criterion that the commissioner will use is basically the risk of noncompliance on the part of the licensee. The commissioner will be able to have a look at the application; if it is the sort of premises where you are not likely to get problems with compliance under the liquor laws, the commissioner will be able to grant an exemption or a reduction in the fee—so, a far broader discretion to the commissioner than just hardship.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Will that apply to the clubs and pubs that trade past 4am, or the late night? Will a club or pub that has an exemplary record be able to get an exemption on the basis that, over the last two or three years, they have had no breach of their liquor licensing provisions and therefore get a reduction or exemption, or is that only going to apply to smaller clubs and pubs or country clubs and pubs? How is this system actually going to work?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I do not envisage that there would be circumstances where a licensee who was trading until 4 o'clock in the morning would be given an exemption simply by virtue of trading until 4am. That puts that premises as a high-risk premises with regard to noncompliance. I think it highly unlikely under those circumstances; nor would I envisage that the commissioner would give an exemption to a licensed premises that, on a regular basis, was trading until 4am.

The sort of premises where I expect the commissioner would either reduce the fee or provide an exemption would be a small country hotel, bowling club or a golf club. They are the sorts of circumstances where I envisage the commissioner would use his or her powers to grant an exemption. I do not see that it would happen for even the most exemplary licensed premises trading until 4am. Just by virtue of being a licensed premises trading until 4am puts that licensed premises at high risk.

As well as that, I should say that the government still incurs a cost with respect to the managed taxi ranks, and all those sorts of services, which we are expected to provide by virtue of that premises trading until 4am.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Could I seek some clarification from the minister? As a regional MP who has a vast number of communities that have small clubs (bowls, basketball, cricket, footy, all those sorts of things), which generally do not trade beyond midnight (there are some exceptions beyond that), are the exemption criteria then that the commissioner will use be based upon hours of operation, turnover or profitability? I know that I will get people coming to me, saying, 'We've received this bill in the first instance. Okay, it might say underneath that we have got the opportunity to apply for an exemption,' but they need a bit more clarification on the detail.

Most of these premises would be closed by 1 o'clock at the latest. Most, certainly, would not operate 12 months of the year; they would have seasons in which they operate. They also rely upon volunteer staff who have undergone, I think, responsible officer training and all those sorts of things that are involved. They are a major driver of the economic opportunity for that club; so, is this going to be an impost that will affect them, or are they going to be exempt from it?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Most of these clubs you are talking about would be restricted clubs, so they would be exempt in any case. The small clubs that you are talking about would generally be restricted clubs, so they would be exempt from the fee in any case. You may have some larger clubs in your electorate. I would envisage that they would be charged either no fee or a very nominal fee indeed, because they would be at such low risk. The government is in talks with Clubs SA at the moment to exactly work out the structure.

This is certainly not designed to hit up clubs in any significant way. What we want to do is cost recover from those licensed premises which have the greatest cost to government to regulate, by virtue of them being in the night strip, trading until the early hours of the morning. So, I can provide comfort to those country clubs in your electorate that, if they are a restricted club, they are exempt, they will not pay anything at all. You may have a few clubs that have an unrestricted licence, and those clubs would pay either a very nominal fee or no fee at all.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Thank you, Treasurer, for that explanation. I apologise for the fact that I am a bit vague on the definition of restricted clubs. Does that relate to hours of operation or, indeed, who is able to be served? These clubs are membership-based, but certainly they invite guests there who do not have to sign in, as I understand it, but are normally brought in by either people who might be members, or just visit by their own choice. Are they able to be served, and does that impact upon the restriction classification?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The restriction refers to who they are serving and whether people can just come in off the street, or whether it is just for members and guests. I suspect some of your clubs do not strictly adhere to the rules and people are coming in off the street, but, nonetheless, they still have a restricted licence; they would still be exempt.

Mr WHETSTONE: In the seat of Chaffey, every community has a club, a community club, where members and guests are required to sign in. How might they be impacted on? Also, we have small tourist centres up there that have restricted liquor licences and cellar doors, in particular, at small niche wineries that might have a very small number of tourists pass by. I ask whether they will be impacted on. There are also a number of commercial houseboat operators up there that have a liquor licence for their guests. Will they be impacted on?

Mr VENNING: Before the minister answers that, can I also just add that, in the Barossa Valley, the same question applies in relation particularly to the Tanunda Club. We have many—

The CHAIR: Member for Schubert, this is probably not the right time to add in that question or make that comment. We will gain an answer for the—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Perhaps we will come back to you, member for Schubert.

Members interjecting:

Mr VENNING: A similar situation would apply to the Barossa Valley in relation to the—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Don't be so disrespectful.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: I would like to remind all people in this chamber, leader, that you will have a certain amount of respect for the chair. I am not 'she', it is not a 'nonsense ruling'. I respect the procedures of this house, as do you.

Mrs REDMOND: Madam Chair—

The CHAIR: Is this a point of order? Are you making a point of order?

Mrs REDMOND: No, it is a point of clarification. I seek clarification as to why you would seek to interfere in the asking of a question when the member got up, clearly making it obvious that he was merely trying to add in the question so that the minister would not have to answer the same question twice, saving time and effort for the minister. But, you took it upon yourself to interrupt that, and my suggestion is simply that, therefore, it is entirely appropriate for the minister to answer the question and then have the member for Schubert ask the question in his form again, and not save the time.

The CHAIR: Thank you, member for Heysen, Leader of the Opposition. I would remind you that you do not run this chamber. I would remind you that the question came initially from the member for Chaffey, it went to the Treasurer, the Treasurer began to answer that, and he was then interrupted by the member for Schubert—

Mr Venning: No, he wasn't on his feet.

The CHAIR: He was then interrupted by the member for Schubert, and I am sure that if the Treasurer does wish, as he has indicated, to answer that interrupted question, he may do so. I would like to say that I do take some exception towards your attitude towards the chair, okay? It is not a 'nonsense ruling', and I am not 'she'. I hope that clarifies matters for you.

Mrs Redmond: Not at all.

The CHAIR: Not at all? Did you require any further clarification?

Mrs Redmond: Yes, please.

The CHAIR: Upon what? I have explained myself quite thoroughly. What do you not understand?

Mrs Redmond: I don't get your ruling.

The CHAIR: Well, yes. That would appear to be the problem. The member for Schubert.

Mr VENNING: In relation to the question that the member for Chaffey asked, the same would apply in the Barossa particularly in relation to the Tanunda Club, and I am very concerned about these extra costs. That club had been teetering pretty close to the line. In fact, it did close for some time and the community put their hands in their pockets and got it open again. Some members of the community dug very deep to keep that open because it is highly valued.

I am just very concerned what that is going to do to that in relation to the extra costs. It is all very well to levy them. This is a community club run by the community for the community. The profit line is pretty narrow and all the profits that are made therein go to the community. It is not a multinationally-owned company. Is there any way that you are able to single out those that are private, commercial operations versus the genuine community club?

Also, as the member for Chaffey said, in relation to the many cellar doors that we have out there—and there are many variations of them in many different categories—they too are going to feel the pinch because it is pretty poor timing, minister, to be putting extra imposts into the wine industry. You know, as we all know, it is going through pretty shocking financial times, probably the worst I think it has ever had since it was set up here in South Australia 145 years ago.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I will just say at the outset that there are 5,941 licensed premises in this state from which we are seeking to recover about $3.6 million a year, spread across just under 4,000 licensed premises, so even for those licensed premises that are going to be hit the hardest, it is still going to be a very minor fee relative to the profits they make. I appreciate and I am certainly aware of the issues that the member for Schubert raises about certain clubs—and I have had discussions with Cameron Taylor and Clubs SA about clubs in this state—where even a very nominal impost is going to potentially cause hardship, and that is certainly not the intention of what we are trying to achieve here.

I do not know the particular circumstances of the Tanunda Club, whether they have a restricted or unrestricted licence. If they have a restricted licence then they will not have to pay anything so they will be exempt from this. If they have an unrestricted licence, chances are that the fee that they would pay would be nominal but, from what the member for Schubert has said, I would think they would probably have a restricted licence and would be exempt from this fee.

I would be happy to go away and get my officers to check. I do acknowledge that there are even some clubs with unrestricted licences for whom, as well, any sort of impost might cause them particular hardship. I can reassure the member for Schubert about the clubs in his electorate. I need to check the circumstances of the Tanunda Club really to be able to give him specific information.

With regard to producers—cellar doors and so on—they will pay the nominal fee, the lowest fee. We envisage that will be around the $100 mark, unless of course they are trading after 2am. I do not know if you have any cellar doors that are trading after 2am. I doubt it, but just normal cellar door operations will pay the nominal fee of approximately $100 a year.

In regard to the houseboats, I would need to come back and check. I do not know what sort of licence is issued by houseboats. I will double-check this for the member for Chaffey, but again I would expect, and I am almost certain, that they would either pay nothing or the nominal fee. I am not aware what sort of licence category houseboats are issued with; I just need to qualify that. I would need to come back and double-check that, but I am certain it would be either no fee or, at best, the nominal fee.

Just to go back to the clubs, we are working very closely with Clubs SA to make sure that the fee structure does not impose any burdens on those smaller clubs which are least able to absorb any sort of impost.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Treasurer, the second reading speech, and the legislation, mentions a different fee structure for major festivals. It raises Clipsal and the Big Day Out, which to my mind then raises festivals such as the Glendi Festival and the Schutzenfest—

An honourable member: The gourmet weekends.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: —and the gourmet weekends. What are the criteria for the new fee on events to kick in, and what is the proposed fee?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: At the moment, the fee for a special event licence is $39, so big events, multimillion dollar events like the Clipsal, pay $39 for their special event liquor licence. I think everyone here would agree that that is a fairly paltry amount for an event of that size and complexity and the compliance effort that has to be made on the part of government to look after them. It is a $39 fee and, likewise, the Big Day Out, which is again another big event with a big compliance effort on the part of government. Certainly for those big events—such as the Big Day Out, Clipsal, Garden of Unearthly Delights—we would look at increasing the fee somewhat to reflect the real cost to government of compliance of that.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Well, it would be substantially more than $39. We have not set that yet, but we are talking about events that are big on scale, where the turnover is hundreds of thousands of dollars. I do not think that there is anyone here who would think that $39 was a sufficient fee for a special event liquor licence for an event like the Big Day Out or Clipsal. For smaller events, such as school fetes and so on, under the regulations the commissioner will have the discretion to continue to charge a reduced fee, and I envisage for those small community events, like fetes and things like that that have a one-off liquor licence, the fee would continue to be $39.

I should clarify that. At the moment they could be charged $39, but the commissioner uses his discretion to waive that fee. Those small events pay nothing at all at the moment, and we would envisage that they would continue to pay nothing at all under the powers that the commissioner would have to use his discretion.

For those middle range events, the commissioner would have a look at what compliance effort is needed on the part of government and at the nature of the event, and the commissioner would use his or her discretion accordingly and determine what is a reasonable fee, given the nature of the event and the compliance effort that needs to be put towards the event. Certainly, for those great big events like Clipsal, the Big Day Out and so on, we would be looking at charging a larger fee than $39.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: What is the current cost of compliance for Clipsal or the Big Day Out? Has someone in government actually done that costing? I assume you have, otherwise on what basis is the commissioner going to make the judgement about what is a fair recovery of cost for that compliance effort? Even though they are paying $39 now, what is the actual cost of compliance to government? Secondly, you still have not clarified for me at what point one of these events—the Schutzenfest, Glendi—gets roped into the higher fee, or will they not know until they apply? I am wondering if there is going to be a regulated structure, or do they just apply and the commissioner will make up a number and then you cannot appeal it—that is the number, and that is what you are going to pay?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: With regard to the grounds on which the commissioner would make a decision, there would be guidelines that the commissioner would issue which would be available to applicants. An applicant applying for a one-off licence for an event would be able to access these guidelines from the commissioner, so they would have some idea about what sort of fee they would be charged according to the nature of the event so there would be some predictability. It is not just about how the commissioner is feeling on a particular day.

To give members an idea about how big the fee would be, we envisage that for a city pub trading standard, not extended, trading hours, the fee is likely to be about $700 a year that a normal licensed pub would be charged. For one of these big events—Clipsal 500, Big Day Out—seeking a one-off licence for a particular period of time would be a fraction of that $700 given the nature of the event, so that is the sort of scale we are looking at. A fraction of $700 would be the sort of amount that you would expect one of these big events to be charged.

With regard to the commissioner using his discretion, guidelines would be issued which would give event organisers some idea of the size of the fee they would be likely to be charged given the nature of their event.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: How are the rules around the fee going to be restricted? I assume it is only going to be restricted to licensing and inspection costs and not to the policing costs of having police on the beat at 3am—extra police going to the Clipsal 500 or extra police security. It is purely going to be liquor licensing inspecting. Gambling inspecting? No, that is separate again.

Where is the discipline on the office not to say, 'Now that we have this levy that we can cost recover against we will have another 20 or 30 inspectors and what does it matter because it is no cost to government, it is all going to go full cost recovery onto the fee.' How can the industry have any confidence that once the bureaucrat gets their foot in the door on this levy that it is not simply going to be ramped up on the basis of the whim of the government of the day?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The agency would have no individual discretion about how many inspectors it employs. If they decided to increase the number of inspectors, they would have to go through the normal budget processes and the government would have to make a decision about whether it was worthwhile having the additional inspectors, given that it would result in an increase in the licensing fee.

It is exactly the same as decisions governments make all the time. Agencies come to government and Treasury wanting to increase the number of resources that they have, and governments make decisions about whether to grant them that increase or not. The member for Davenport seems to be implying that what this might mean is that the Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner might have discretion about how many officers it employs under this scheme and it would then be able to jack up the licensing fees to increase the cost. That is not the case.

If the Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner wanted to increase the number of inspectors, it would have to do that using the normal process. It would have to put in a budget bid, essentially, to do that and to be assessed as part of the budget. The government would then have to make a decision about whether to do that and, as a result, whether to increase the cost of the fee, so the government would be under the normal political pressures about not upping the size of the fee to increase the number of inspectors.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: This is my last question on this provision. The Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner did a review, as I understand it, into this particular measure and presented a final report to government. Is it the government's intention to release the final report? If not, why not?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I am not sure if the member for Davenport is referring to the 'A Safer Night Out' report that was done. The Liquor and Gambling Commissioner did a report to government about the issue of late-night trading and the social problems. The proposal for annual liquor licensing fees came out of that report, but it was an all-encompassing report. It did not deal just with annual liquor licensing fees, it dealt with mandatory closing, managed taxi ranks, how to deal with the general social issues associated with 24-hour trading, and problems particularly in the West End of the city associated with 24-hour trading. That is what the report was about. I am not sure whether or not the report was released, but I would be happy to get back to the member for Davenport; if it has not been released, I will find out why.

Mrs REDMOND: Minister, I would like to clarify a couple of the things that you have just been canvassing with the member for Davenport, particularly in relation to the liquor licensing commissioner's discretion in terms of the fees payable by organisations that may be holding events. I understand that the minister said that basically there is a $39 fee on most special event licences at the moment, but I also took it from some of his comments that perhaps that fee is waived.

First of all, can you clarify whether that currently occurs, and if it only occurs upon a request, or whether it is the habit of the liquor licensing commissioner to simply waive that fee if an organisation is holding a one-off event—wine and food events often happen in my electorate. If there is a one-off event like that where someone applies, is it a matter where the organisation applies, pays their fee and the liquor licensing commissioner says it, but if someone is in the know they can ask for a discretionary exercise of the authority of the commissioner to waive that fee? That is the first part of the question.

The second part is in terms of what you said about being able to go onto a website and figure out what the fee will be. What will be the criteria for assessing that? I assume from what you have said that it will be a fee of up to $700 at the moment, and that would be for the highest level of event, but is it taken to be on the basis of the turnover of an event? On what basis will people be expected to make that assessment? Most of the organisations that I know running those sorts of events are incorporated bodies and not for profit. If they do make any profit, it is extremely minimal, and they then reinvest that, in any event, into their running of the organisation to put on the event next year, or whatever they are going to do.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I will correct something that the Leader of the Opposition said, which was that I said it would be up to $700. I said a fraction of $700. So, the most that anyone is going to pay is a fraction of $700, not up to $700.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: It could be $699.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Indeed, it could be, but that is certainly not what we envisage. So, even the biggest events with the biggest turnover would pay substantially less than $700, which is what we envisage will be the—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Indeed, and that is only right because if you are expecting businesses with hotel licences to pay a $700 fee, it is unfair on those businesses to then have someone set up across the road a big event and only pay a one-off fee of $39. So, for the purposes of equity, it is reasonable to expect that these big events with turnover in the tens of thousands of dollars to have to pay more than a one-off fee of $39.

With regard to the waiving of the fee and what happens at the moment, I will get back to the Leader of the Opposition. I do not know whether that is done on the initiative of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner or whether it is done upon application, I would need to check. However, the regulations currently provide for an exemption for a licence which is for charitable purposes. So, under the regulations there is an existing exemption. The $39 fee is waived if the purpose of the function is a charitable purpose.

Essentially, the first criteria upon which the regulations will be made will be one of risk. So, as I explained to the member for Davenport, what is the risk of non-compliance at a particular event? The commissioner will come up with guidelines that will inform the commissioner and the applicant on the sort of things that are likely to contribute to risk.

The Liquor and Gambling Commissioner is far better informed on what sort of things are likely to be factors regarding risk, but obviously hours of operation is one. If you have a special function that is going to be open until the early hours of the morning there is a far higher risk associated with such a function than a school fete that finishes at 5 o'clock in the afternoon.

So, it would be those sort of things that the commissioner would use as criteria in determining the risk of noncompliance. These matters will also be dealt with in the regulations. The detail of this will be fleshed out in the regulations, which will be done under the bill as well.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.


[Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00]


PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT