Page 4038 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 17 November 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Recommendation 38 is that, when the results of the study into leakage are received, they be tabled. The response was: “Not agreed.” They are just not going to do it. Recommendation 41 reads:
The Committee recommends that Phase One of the Government’s Clubs reform package be no shorter than three years.
The response was: “Not agreed.” There you go. It is a tripartisan committee and I think all members voted for this in the end. A tripartisan committee said, “Make it three years, give them some certainty, give them a go, let them diversify.” Not this government. There is no leadership, no direction, no plan and no ambition. They are just interested in the revenue.
Recommendation 42 reads:
The Committee recommends that the Government give no less that twelve months notice of their intention to move to Phase Two of their Clubs Reform Package.
The response again was: “Not agreed.” All they asked for was some certainty. We cannot even give the club sector and small businesses some certainty. We heard the government at question time say how interested they were in supporting small business and securing jobs. Well, they want certainty too. All of those little businesses—the bakers, the butchers and the suppliers that hang off clubs—want their club to have certainty, so that they can give certainty to their employees, and the chain goes on. But the government says, “No, we’ll change this at the drop of a hat because we won’t even give you 12 months.” Who in the modern world in the business community does less than 12 month planning? No-one. It is ridiculous. Again there is no leadership. The opportunity is blown. That is just appalling.
Recommendation 45 reads:
The Committee recommends that the Government undertake an assessment of the contribution of clubs to the ACT community.
The response was:
Noted.
The contribution of clubs to the ACT community has been acknowledged by the government, and in the PAC report itself …
But we do not know how big it is. We do not know what it genuinely is. Why wouldn’t you want to fund a study to find out what you are dealing with, how important it is and how many people it really employs? What are the knock-on effects? What are the second and third round effects? What are the contributions to tourism? What are the contributions to the wellbeing of people? What are the contributions to community safety? Wouldn’t you want to know that? Apparently not.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video