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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (4 September) . . Page.. 2991 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

Mrs Carnell said - Ms Tucker should listen to this - that clubs can do what they like; that they can spend as much money as they like on their members. But they will be spending less on their members if they are required to make contributions to hold on to their privileged position with poker machines and so on. The money has to come from somewhere, Mrs Carnell. It is not like your health budget. They do not own the Treasury. They are going to have to find it somewhere. It will have to come out of the benefits that would otherwise go to the workers. If you think a pensioner member of a club who uses a flat provided by the club down the coast does not think that that is a benefit to the community, I think you have a pretty funny view of the ACT community. If it is not a flat down the coast, it is something else. It might be bigger or smaller. For example, for community organisations, many of whom need cheap accommodation - - -

MR SPEAKER: You are revisiting the previous debate, Mr Berry.

MR BERRY: I am entitled to do that, Mr Speaker.

MR SPEAKER: You lost that one, if you remember.

MR BERRY: I am entitled to do that, Mr Speaker. I am also entitled to deal with the amendment, which goes to the financial affairs of the clubs. If the Chief Minister thinks that cheap accommodation, say meeting rooms for community organisations, is not a benefit to the community, then - - -

Mrs Carnell: I said "function rooms".

MR BERRY: If the Chief Minister thinks a function room for a community organisation is not a contribution to the organisation, she has another think coming. You might say, "That is covered by the legislation, because it says that `contribution' means `any money, benefit, valuable consideration or security'. That is a benefit covered by the Act, so what are you worried about, Mr Berry?". What I am worried about, as I said earlier, is that it applies only if the organisation is declared by the Minister.

This piece of legislation is discriminatory in more ways than one. If you are not going to police it in respect of hotels - and that is what seems to be the suggestion - we have an in-built discrimination where only the clubs will be targeted. They will have a right to scream - and so will everybody else in this place - to require you to provide the necessary policing for this legislation. In fact, it seems to me that there might be a legal action against hotels that do not comply with the legislation. There are significant penalties for people who do not comply with this legislation. My recollection is that a penalty unit is about $100. Fines of $2,000 to $10,000 could be imposed on people who had been told, "Do not bother about it. We will not police it". That is until the inspector turns up on their doorstep.

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