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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 3659 ..

Mr Quinlan: Yes.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9.

MR QUINLAN (4.39): Mr Speaker, the opposition strongly objects to this provision because it effectively overrides the constitutions of many of the clubs that have been formed for a specific purpose, and does lay open those clubs to possible takeover by a well - organised group of social members. A particular cultural club, ethnic club or sporting club could be taken over. I think Mr Rugendyke gave the example earlier of a ski lodge virtually being purloined from one group and taken over to another because they just happened to be on the ball and the other members were quite trusting of that group.

The consequences of this provision could not only allow an internal group to take over. If other groups were significantly smart or predatory enough they could quite easily take over some of the smaller clubs that support sport or support particular ethnic groups because they have taken in a range of members and thrown the doors open to those members. The origin of the club or the purpose of the club was to support the particular ethnic group or to support a given sporting activity, and I think this is very important.

I know it is quite easy to glibly say, "Oh well, this is democracy, and 51 per cent of members should be allowed voting rights and appointment to the board", but I rather think that there is a certain naivete involved in framing this. I guess it goes back to some of the things I said this morning about being in touch with the community and precisely how it does operate. It may be worthwhile, I think, in a couple of cases in the territory to look again at the way clubs are structured and maybe say, "Well, that is just too restrictive." Passing this provision at this stage will create a very dangerous situation in relation to the existence of some of the clubs in the ACT, and I strongly recommend to the Assembly that they vote this one down.

MS TUCKER (4.42): We will be opposing this clause as well. Basically this clause is imposing an extraordinary requirement that the majority of a club's governing body is to be nominated only by voting members of the club. While on the surface this is democratic in that it is calling for elections, this is in fact another means by which this government is seeking to change fundamentally the way that clubs are structured and their purposes.

Currently many clubs are run for the benefit, to a large degree, of an associated organisation. The associated organisation was responsible for establishing the club, and accordingly the constitutions establish that those organisations appoint some or, in a few instances, all of the board of the club.

This association is recognised in the legislation and in the original reasoning for clubs being granted exclusive access to poker machine licences. It was evidence of a community - based interest. Members who have joined for entertainment alone are in fact a different group of patrons from members. While there is an argument for member patrons to have a say in what is offered at the club and how it is run, for the government

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