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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 3600 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

these clubs are run only for the benefit of the Labor Party and unions - a convenient definition which leads to distortion in the public forum.

Many clubs have been created to support local sport. Others support associated local sporting bodies because sometimes banks require the social club, the central club, to be a separate entity from the sporting club. I know of a couple of those examples. However, contributions to associated sporting bodies are not regarded as being contributions to sport.

We have a government in this town that is prepared to spend tens of millions of dollars providing facilities for our elite sports, that gives direct grants for training facilities to elite sporting bodies with very highly paid professional players and that bails out sports where there might be a photo opportunity or two. But at the same time we have a government that has a begrudging attitude in relation to middle - level sport right down to junior sport. These are the sports bodies that are the feeder areas for the elite clubs. But obviously there are not enough photo opportunities there. These clubs are to be penalised. The contributions that are made to the Tuggeranong Vikings by their social club are to be excluded. The government may be changing its position on this but these contributions are certainly excluded from the public pronouncements made by people on that side of the house when they are denigrating the club industry.

This is the government that talks about a healthy Canberra. This is the government that crows about the level of participation in sport in the ACT. In demonising the club industry in order to make a point, the government has understated the position severely. Its statements, which have been over the top, have denigrated the work of so many people associated with clubs who work for nothing.

I am associated with a couple of clubs and all of the board members get paid nothing. One of the clubs, which makes nothing and is running at a loss, supports an ACTAFL side, a first grade cricket side and junior cricket and junior football. It also supports lawn bowls, which gives citizens of all ages, including retired people, the opportunity to exercise and live in a healthy city. But all of the money that is paid to an associated body, called the football club, is not eligible for inclusion under this legislation. The efforts of the board members, who have to meet with the bank about once a month in order to beat off the creditors, mean nothing to this government.

As I said earlier, I think unnecessary costs are imposed by the requirements in this legislation relating to incorporation in order to enable this government to make a minor administrative saving. Notwithstanding that, we are happy with the removal of penal provisions.

I want to address the appointment of boards. This legislation provides that club members are to appoint 51 per cent of board. To the naive, this seems a fair enough provision. However, many of the clubs, whether they be ethnically based clubs or sporting clubs - and, generally speaking, the founders of those clubs worked very hard over an extended period to get the bricks and mortar together - have structured constitutions to ensure that their original purpose is not taken over by a cluster of social members.

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