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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (4 September) . . Page.. 2984 ..

MR OSBORNE (7.51): Perhaps my situation is a little bit more clear cut than the Labor Party's. As I have said before in this house, I do not feel that I have any conflict of interest under standing orders. However, public perception is of concern to me. I play football for a leagues club. I am paid money to play football for them. On the other hand, my sponsor, West Belconnen Leagues Club, is a poker machine company, so I am in a situation where I cannot win one way or the other, and a number of months ago I made a conscious decision not to vote one way or the other on anything to do with gaming machines. During the break I had a look at the Hansard record of what I said a number of months ago and felt that I needed to be consistent on the issue.

My decision was a lot easier than the Labor Party's. They are not paid personally. I am paid by a leagues club to play football. I have been with them since 1992. I do not want there to be any perception that I am favouring them one way or the other, so I have chosen to opt out. I think the decision for the Labor Party is up to them. If they feel comfortable in voting on these issues, then I think that is fine. I do not feel comfortable and I would not like anyone to point their finger at me one way or the other on the issue of poker machines.

MS TUCKER (7.53): I am very interested in this whole debate because I know my office, for some period, was actually trying to get a real understanding of exactly what clubs were doing when we first became interested in the issue of poker machines and whether or not they should go into pubs or stay with the clubs. I also, of course, then became aware of the taxation situation, the mutuality principle and so on. It is something we have had an interest in for quite a number of months, probably close to a year now.

I think this is a very useful Bill that has been proposed by the Government. I do have concerns about Mr Berry's amendments, however. He was kind enough to give me a copy of the annual report of the Labor Club and it was quite clear from that that political donations are made. I think that is fine. Obviously, clubs make donations to whomever they want. The issue that I believe is of interest to the community is that, if clubs continue to claim under the mutuality principle an exemption from taxation to the degree that they have been, there needs to be a very clear account of why they are asking for that. We know that there are huge issues for private sector pubs, taverns and so on competing with clubs. They are finding it almost impossible to compete because of the way poker machine income can subsidise food and alcohol.

There are a lot of very serious issues. If we are going to continue to allow clubs to have a special place in our society, then it is quite appropriate that they make very clear to us exactly where their community work is and where this money is going. I do not think the way that Mr Berry is trying to broaden this Bill is in the interests of that information.

MRS CARNELL (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (7.55): The view that the Bill somehow means that sporting clubs - which, of course, have been responsible for an enormous growth in sport in the ACT, particularly in junior sport - cannot make donations is obviously wrong. Paragraph (c) of proposed section 54A(1) makes it very clear that the Minister can gazette organisations that operate for the good of the community or part of the community. Mr Moore has addressed that issue very well. Such a gazettal notice can be amended by the Assembly, so the Assembly can determine what it wants with regard to those organisations.

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