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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 3660 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

to require that a majority of the board is elected by those patrons does not respect the original purpose of the club.

I think there is a real inconsistency here in the current approach because the existing Gaming Machine Act defines clubs in a way that is really potentially challenged by this 51 per cent. The definition of an eligible club at subsection 30C (1) (c) includes the requirement that the club is conducted primarily to achieve its principal object and any other of its objects that are referred to in subsection 30B. Subsection 30B reads:

If the majority of a board of directors is no longer linked directly to the club's original purposes, then would that club meet its eligibility requirements for a licence under the Gaming Machine Act? Members who wish to be involved as more than member patrons expressing their interest in the services offered to them may join the associated organisation, but the main objection to this requirement is that it is suspiciously interfering for not much demonstrated gain or purpose, and it in fact seems to be contradictive to the Gaming Machine Act.

MR MOORE (Minister for Health, Housing and Community Care) (4.44): Ms Tucker, I understand the thought processes that have gone on and the argument that you are putting, but I think what will put the lie to those arguments is that the Southern Cross Club operates in this way at the moment, and it is one of the most prosperous clubs, one of the most effective clubs, and one of the most generous clubs in the ACT. No doubt their original purpose is still important to them. I have spoken to members of the board at various times and there is no doubt that their approach is one that does deliver what they were originally set up to do. But I also would say that it is fundamentally a democratic issue. It is a fundamental issue of democracy. If a club says, "Yes, we will attract members," then surely those members ought to be entitled to vote for the board of directors.

It seems to me, Mr Speaker, that one of the problems we have is that there are clubs that have effectively two types of membership. One type of membership says, "Yes, you can be part of our club because we don't mind you coming and gambling here." Another type of membership says, "Yes, you can have a say because we think you are a special sort of member and that suits our particular purposes." Really, when you are opening membership of a club and you are allowing someone to be a member, surely that member, in a democratic system, is entitled to vote. I cannot understand why somebody would argue against that fundamental democratic prerogative to vote. I understand that a number of sporting clubs fit in the same category as well, but others could elaborate on that. It really comes down to the fact that if you have a club in place and they have accepted members, those members should be entitled to vote. It really is as fundamental as that.

In his in - principle speech, Mr Rugendyke said he remembers the Police Club, I think it was, being taken over by others. I think we ought to have a look around at examples. The Southern Cross Club is able to do it properly. There may have been a case where a group

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