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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 3674 ..

MR QUINLAN (5.45): I must respond to what Mrs Carnell said. I will admit this much on conflict of interest: I am interested in the political party to which I belong, the ALP, and my activity within it being recognised as community activity. I am not talking about money at this stage. Mr Humphries clearly made the point before that the legislation as structured now, unaltered by Mr Moore at this point in time, would not strike at the ALP anyway. The point we are making is not about money; it is about the motivation for your legislation. When the report came out you found that it did not catch us, which was bad luck for you. But you have sought in here to define me and, importantly, to define yourselves outside community activities and to define everybody else in this place as not being part of community activities. I find that gratuitously insulting.

MR HUMPHRIES (Chief Minister, Minister for Community Affairs, Attorney - General and Treasurer) (5.46): I want to correct a few mistakes Mr Stanhope made in his remarks. I will be very brief. First of all, he said that we were replacing the old definition of community contribution with a new, less acceptable definition. We are not replacing any definition. There is no definition of community contribution in the present legislation. We are creating one for the first time. Secondly, he said that the clubs I cited were doing the best in terms of community contribution. The fact that I cited those two clubs and praised them should not be inferred as saying that they are, in fact, doing the best.

A perusal of the list of donations made by clubs in the report of the Gambling and Racing Commission demonstrates that, in fact, a number of clubs are doing rather better; but, since these clubs have been claimed by Mr Stanhope to be doing the best, I will quote which clubs they are. The ACT Racing Club is giving 47.68 per cent of its net profit to community organisations. The Eastern Suburbs Rugby Union Club is giving 28.05 per cent of its revenue -

Mr Stanhope: Of what?

MR HUMPHRIES: Of its profit. It has not got as much profit as you guys have, but it is giving away more of what it does have. That is rather to their credit, don't you think? They have got a smaller profit and they are giving away more of it to charity than you guys. I would be ashamed to raise that point of order in this place, if I were you, to be quite frank. The Hockey Centre is giving 116.94 per cent of its profit. That is very commendable. The National Press Club is giving 44.86 per cent of its profit. The Slovenian - Australian Club is giving 32.69 per cent. The Spanish - Australian Club is giving 64.53 per cent. The Weston Creek Football Club is giving 34.73 per cent. Some of the clubs associated with the Labor Party are doing quite well, but it is not true to say that they are doing the best.

Mr Stanhope listed a number of donors to the Liberal Party and asked why they are not donating to charity. Of course they are. He listed a number of organisations, some of which are amongst the most philanthropic in Australia, particularly in the ACT. Some are very significant donors to charity; they are already pulling their weight in that respect.

Again I say that the legislation is not designed to deny any clubs the capacity to donate to the Labor Party or any other party for that matter. I come back to the point I made earlier in this debate. Given the fact that the clubs I have cited, the ones associated with the

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