Ms O’CONNOR – In an earlier answer, the secretary talked about a significant review of liquor licensing arrangements. Is it possible to have some further detail on that review, like what the objective is?
Mr ABETZ – With a previous answer, you’re referring to today?
Ms O’CONNOR – Yes.
Mr ABETZ – In recent times, I’ve written out to a number of stakeholders indicating that that is what we are doing. That’s a copy of the letter that went out and that one was, for what it’s worth, to Dr Chris Jones, the Rt Rev Dr Chris Jones of Anglicare. We’ve written out to both, if you like, industry people and those that might best be described as, if you like, in the community sector as well, so we get a balance of feedback in relation to the various aspects. For example, key changes include:
- Replacing the existing licence and permit categories to allow greater flexibility and tailoring of the authority to reflect different business and community activities.
- Risk-based application and fee structures where lower-risk activities will have a simpler application process and lower fees.
- Modernising our systems and creating an online trackable application process.
- Streamlining regulatory processes to minimise the regulatory burden on business.
- Allowing licences to be held by a business, not just an individual.
- Clarifying and naming the availability of a single permit for festivals and events with multiple vendors.
- A 10-day approval time frame for low-risk activities.
I could read out the whole letter. It might be better if I just table it.
Ms O’CONNOR – Well, if the Chair’s happy with it we can table that one out.
Mr ABETZ – It was a standard letter sent out to everybody.
Ms O’CONNOR – In the context of liquor and gaming, what is regarded as a lower-risk activity? If one of the objectives is to see whether lower-risk activities might attract lower fees, is the corollary that higher-risk activities, like pokies, for example, might attract higher fees?
Mr ABETZ – This is into liquor licencing, not gambling.
Ms O’CONNOR – Just liquor?
Mr ABETZ – Yes, not gambling.
I’m not sure, but, for example, the Huon Show, that the member for Huon may well be associated with – can I be told: does each stall holder require to have a separate liquor licence as opposed to the Huon Show getting one for the various stall holders which was for, if I might say in general terms, the tasting of alcohol and then buying at the Huon Show or somewhere like that? I don’t think, in general terms, that that would pose any community problems, but it occasions for the small vendors and operators the nuisance of having to apply. They’re the sorts of things we’re looking at.
Ms O’CONNOR – Thank you for that. Potentially, this review could lead to lesser income, for example, in fees for lower-risk activities given that there’s a revenue-raising imperative here. Is it part of the consideration that higher-risk activities would attract higher fees?
Mr ABETZ – Well, first of all, can I say that if you get rid of some of the red tape associated, there might be more applications and therefore you might actually get the same amount of revenue. We always have to balance those things up. In relation to high-risk, and where the assessment cost will be more difficult and more time-consuming to assess. That is something that we could look at as well.
Ms O’CONNOR – It doesn’t necessarily sound like you’re looking at it. What about providing the committee with an example in liquor licencing of what a higher-risk activity might be. Is that like having bottle shops in supermarkets, for example?
Mr ABETZ – I was just given a fantastic example: if alcohol were to be provided at a flower show as opposed to a festival. That would be something that’s very low risk, one would assume.
Ms O’CONNOR – The flower show?
Mr ABETZ – Yes, as opposed to the festival. We’re on the same lines here, which is a bit spooky, member for Hobart, but I think we’re –
Ms O’CONNOR – Alarming.
Mr SWAIN – Treasurer, if I could: Jonathan can talk to this with more authority and might have some other examples, but this is really being driven by modernising regulatory arrangements and licensing arrangements. Its genesis is not in cost management; it’s more about better, modernised, outcome‑focus, risk-based regulation.
Ms O’CONNOR – So, this might have come forward from, for example, the red tape reduction commissioner?
Mr ROOT – In terms of the examples, so just to give two in the licensing space, the Treasury gave some examples in the permit space which are sort of more short-term things. You might have, for example, a restaurant and the only service of liquor occurs with the consumption of a meal. That we see as at the lower end of risk; people are eating, they’re there during meal times, versus a nightclub that trades until 5 in the morning, that’s what we see as a high risk, and the regulatory cost burden is much higher for higher‑risk venues.
The example of the nightclub, that’s where we have more disciplinary matters occur. That’s where my compliance inspectors are out late at night with police doing inspections. They are more expensive to regulate, and on a principle of trying to recover the cost of regulation from the industry, licence fees are applied. Now, the art is in getting the balance right between that risk. That’s what this is looking at doing, is saying, well, are both the high-risk venues appropriately licensed and the low-risk venues appropriately licensed.
Ms O’CONNOR – That is liquor licensing. We heard in an earlier answer that – this is in relation to tax administration and revenue collection – that there’s unspent money in the gaming section, is that correct, due to the consideration of what is an appropriate harm‑minimisation response to the harm caused by gambling and that’s progressing; are we likely to see any changes in the regulation of gambling?
Mr ABETZ – If I may quickly backtrack on the liquor one, one of the key considerations, just to remove any doubt, is in relation to family violence as well and alcohol and its role. So that is factored into all the considerations.
Ms O’CONNOR – And violence towards women generally I would have thought as well.
Mr ABETZ – Yes, but at a flower show? Chances are, not so much a risk: festival possibly more so. Back to gaming, I’m currently looking at a range of potential options. I confess it’s only just been recently that I’ve got my head around both liquor and gaming licensing issues, having stepped into this portfolio and finding that I am responsible for these areas as well.
Ms O’CONNOR – Including the harm‑minimisation response within there.
Mr ABETZ – Yes, and that is something that we are looking at, and I’ve been asking questions about facial recognition technology and –
Ms O’CONNOR – Not precommitment cards?
Mr ABETZ – Well, we know about precommitment cards and what the Premier has said in relation to that. I’m looking at a few other bits and pieces including gaming care officers, as to whether that is an opportunity for us with some of the funds. That’s being used in SA, as I understand, with some benefit, but we will have a close look at the South Australian model as to how that might benefit.
Ms O’CONNOR – Final question, just on this line of questioning. Thanks, Chair. Rather than bring in mandatory precommitment cards which are demonstrated to reduce losses, we’re talking about bringing in – would they be social workers from the community sector or would they be employed, for example, by venues? What’s the model?
Mr ABETZ – I think, and remind me –
Ms O’CONNOR – Gaming care officers.
Mr ROOT – In the South Australian model, the officers are employed by the gaming corporation, which is the network of industry players. That’s the South Australian model.
Ms O’CONNOR – That sounds terrific. That sounds really good. You’d have Federal Group, for example, or pokies venues employing gaming care officers and they send them out there, presumably, to cut into their profits by removing people who are spending too much on pokies.
Mr ABETZ – I think from a long-term point of view, no venue would like to see those with problems with gambling.
Ms O’CONNOR – I think that’s a big call because it’s core to the business model.
Mr ABETZ – We have, as I understand it, the lowest rate of problem gamblers in the country. I think we’ve got the lowest penetration of these machines per head of population –
Ms O’CONNOR – It was $190 million in losses last year from some of our poorest people.
Mr ABETZ – I hear what you say.
Ms O’CONNOR – You’d hope so.
Mr ABETZ – I don’t encourage it, but people that seek to wager – back in the day they used to lose it at the racetrack –
Ms O’CONNOR – Bad analogy. These machines are designed to suck money and are addictive in a way that horses aren’t.
Mr ABETZ – People became addicted and bankrupted themselves on the racetrack as, unfortunately, some have on the EGMs. Do we want to ensure that that doesn’t occur? From my perspective, I’ve never been strong in this area as being a sort of social activity, but some people do like it and it is a day out and they do decide to spend their $20 to $30 with a meal or whatever ‑
Ms O’CONNOR – And the rest of it.
Mr ABETZ – No, a lot of people are actually disciplined and set themselves limits, but look, under the proposed model, these officers would be employed through Hospitality Tasmania. Their roles and responsibilities may include, but are not limited to: building capability in venues, cooperate with venues operating electronic gaming machines that implement strategies that help mitigate gambling harm and detect indicators of harm, strengthening referral pathways, supporting compliance and collaboration. Those letters went out, or were dated 3 November.
Ms O’CONNOR – Foxes and hen houses come to mind. Thanks, Chair.
Mr ABETZ – There’s no harm in tabling this letter as well, just so you know what we’re seeking from the community. After having got through the Budget, in the calm before the storm of delivering the Budget, I spent that week of writing out on 3 November, in relation to liquor licensing reform – in fact, on the day of the Budget, on 6 November.
CHAIR – Nothing better to do that day. It was already done.
Mr ABETZ – The Budget was locked away. The budget speech had been printed. I set myself to doing other things.
CHAIR – Are there any other questions on that line?
Ms O’CONNOR – Well, just one last one to close off on that: the foxes‑over‑the‑hen‑house policy for EGM venues, when do you expect to make a decision about that?
Mr ABETZ – Look, I don’t have a timeline fully in mind of this stage.
Ms O’CONNOR – But presumably the industry supports it; self-regulation, what’s not to like about that?
Mr ABETZ – It does help, if you would prefer no regulation. It’s at least a step in the right direction –
Ms O’CONNOR – Try harm minimisation.
Mr ABETZ – I would have thought that the graciousness of the member for Hobart would extend to saying, ‘Well, it’s a little bit good, but not good enough.’
Ms O’CONNOR – I don’t know.
