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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 4654 ..

MS TUCKER (5.39): The Greens are rather reluctant to support this Bill, but we are aware that it does have support in the Assembly. I would like to make some brief comments about the legislation. What we are doing through this Bill is setting up a lower tax threshold, to enable the casino to attract so-called high rollers to Canberra. I have my doubts about whether this is really going to work if the competition that is there from the Sydney and Melbourne casinos is as extreme as we have been led to believe. The casino has convinced the Government that they will be able to attract high-stake players to Canberra, and the Government has agreed to continue the lower rate of tax on profits from the so-called junket operation.

While we are not moving a sunset clause to this legislation today, we do believe it is appropriate that this is closely monitored. It is a rather disturbing fact that when businesses are offered a concession or assistance of any kind there is rarely an evaluation to see whether the projected number of jobs or turnover or other benefit to the local economy actually eventuates. We acknowledge that the ACT is not forgoing any revenue, or so it has been argued, through this Bill; but I think it is fair to say that it is an example of States bidding with each other once again to attract businesses to their jurisdictions. Other States offer a lower rate on these profits, so the ACT follows. Mr Speaker, all around Australia governments are seeking to outbid each other in offering concessions to business. While the short-term arguments for this activity are sometimes compelling, with promises of more jobs, more revenue and so on, in the longer term we can only all lose out by these bidding wars. I remember that we have had this discussion in the Assembly before regarding the CRA business.

The issue has been raised by the Australasian Council of Public Accounts Committees, but the Greens believe that a much more proactive stance could be taken to tackle this very important issue. We urge Mrs Carnell to argue for this issue to be put on the agenda of future meetings of the Council of Australian Governments and also to argue for Federal Government intervention in an appropriate forum. Mr Speaker, there is a classic statement on this. It is, "If everybody stands on tiptoes nobody sees any better".

MR MOORE (5.41): Mr Speaker, I think it is appropriate to follow Ms Tucker's speech. The fundamental principle that she is talking about is one that I have raised in the Assembly before, and I am keen to hear Mrs Carnell's response to the very good suggestion that Ms Tucker has made - that you take this issue of bidding wars to COAG.

Mrs Carnell: It is already there. It is already in COAG.

MR MOORE: I hear the interjection that it is already there. I am pleased about that. You should pursue it with vigour. It applies not just to casinos and other issues, but right across the issue of these bidding wars. I think the statement Ms Tucker made was appropriate. The quote she presented at the end about standing on tiptoes, I think, sets the image very well. In this case, Mr Speaker, I think there are two things to be achieved by this legislation. The first one is to extend the trial period beyond the sunset clause. I think that is appropriate and I do not have a problem in supporting that. The second is to extend a little because I think the competition is real. While we are in the circumstances that Ms Tucker appropriately wants to change, I think we have very little choice but to allow the casino to keep competing.

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