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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 3619 ..

MR RUGENDYKE (continuing):

so someone is making up for my share. That means that there are children in our neighbourhoods going without because their parents are hooked on this expensive habit.

Clubs are not doing enough to offset the social damage. This bill is one way of putting in place a mechanism that will make it clear that all clubs will have to pull their weight. At the moment an honour system prevails. I acknowledge that some clubs do do their bit, but others do not and it is time that they stopped taking their privileged position for granted.

There is one aspect of this proposal that I am not prepared to accept, and that relates to the membership rules. I have been approached by clubs who hold serious fears that they could be subject to takeover if a minimum of 51 per cent of elected board positions are free positions. I accept these concerns and agree that the initial purpose of a club has to be preserved and protected.

Well before my time in the police force, the ACT Police Association owned a ski lodge. I recall the story that at one stage the annual general meeting was stacked and the ski lodge was taken over by the solicitors - lost forever to the Police Association. We certainly do not want to see football clubs such as Wests, the Magpies, West Belconnen and others taken over by the crochet clubs.

I also have concerns about the definition of community contributions. I am pleased that the government has been prepared to answer my queries on this issue and share information on the progress of draft guidelines which have been formulated with a view to being introduced as regulations. Mr Osborne has sought similar conditions to remove the uncertainty and the ambiguity of the definitions. I note that in discussions this morning off court the government has made a commitment to Clubs ACT that once this bill has been passed, in whatever form it takes by the end of the debate, where there are discrepancies between the bill and the guidelines under the regulations, the bill will be further amended to reflect the intent of the guidelines.

One problem which has been identified in the assessment and calculation of the most recent report on community contributions is that valid donations to sport and other recreational activities have not been recognised. The government has provided assurances on a range of issues, including a clear definition of charitable, sporting, non - profit organisations, public assets and associated organisations. For example, public assets include infrastructure owned by clubs and provided to the general public.

Contribution amounts include expenses to build, upgrade and maintain public assets such as museums, gymnasiums, ovals, fields and sporting facilities which are used by the general public and not restricted by membership of a club. This would means that excellent playing fields like those built and maintained by the Ainslie Football Club and the West Belconnen Leagues Club would be recognised.

Such regulations would certainly remove much of the ambiguity. I would like to make it clear that my support of this bill is conditional on the implementation of the proposed guidelines. I have discussed these guidelines with Clubs ACT this morning, and I am aware that individual clubs have also been briefed on these developments. The reaction has been positive or, at least, it has been accepted that the spirit of the guidelines is a step in a workable direction.

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