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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 3658 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

does he have with it? Given the buffer we have created for small clubs, I think there is no question that these arrangements are affordable and achievable by clubs in the ACT, no question whatsoever, and I urge members not to support measures in the Labor amendments which will water down the effects of this legislation.

MS TUCKER (4.34): No, the Greens will not be supporting this amendment. It is not an easy decision though, I have to say. I am really concerned about the information that has come to me quite recently about this. I do not feel I have had time to really work out exactly which report is the more credible and the different views about what the percentage should be. I will not support the amendment now, but if convincing material comes to me after this I am going to be coming back with other amendments to this legislation anyway. I am happy to look at it again, but at this point I just don't feel I can support this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 5 and 6, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 7

MR QUINLAN (4.35): Mr Speaker, the opposition will be opposing this provision and consequential provisions because we do not think there has been a particular case made that would require larger clubs to be incorporated. I have not heard one jot of evidence that says this is a problem that has occurred and needs to be redressed. It may simplify administration from the ACT administration's perspective, but that would seem to be about the end of it. It has imposed a need for the government to waive stamp duty on the transfer of property between now associations and later incorporated bodies.

Some of the clubs that we are talking about have property interstate. That property will have to be transferred and there will be stamp duty penalties involved in that. So clubs that are not incorporated and have to incorporate and do have properties for the use of their members will be hit with stamp duty interstate.

Further, the result of incorporation will mean that there are going to be whole mailouts of paper to members who would be just as happy to look at an annual report handed out at an annual general meeting, if and when they turn up, as opposed to the quite rigorous provisions of incorporation, which just means that a number of trees are going to be cut and quite an amount of paper wasted. Clubs will have to go to some expense for what has been no particular problem to solve. So we will be opposing those particular provisions that make it mandatory that clubs become incorporated bodies.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8.

MR SPEAKER: I think there is consequential opposition to this clause. Is that correct, Mr Quinlan?

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