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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Thursday, 24 June 2004) . . Page.. 2686 ..

MR QUINLAN (Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Business and Tourism, and Minister for Sport, Racing and Gaming) (5.47): Mr Speaker, the government can accept this amendment. As Mr Stefaniak pointed out, this provision was slipped in rather later, certainly beyond the consultation stage. We had not consulted on this provision to any extent. I have had some more recent discussions on it, particularly in relation to the financial structure of clubs and their capacity to take out mortgages and leases. There may be room for some tightening in this area at a later stage, but I think that this provision might cause more difficulties than it would solve, so we are happy to cop this amendment.

MS TUCKER (5.48): We will not be supporting this amendment. It would delete from the bill the new requirement that clubs must have a vote of their members in support of any acquisition or disposal of land; for example, by lease or sublease. I understand from listening to Mr Quinlan that the government is withdrawing from this provision, which I think is a pity.

This new requirement, while it is only one step, does at least go to the issue of whether the boards of management of clubs are focused on what should be their main business, that business being to meet the objectives of the community purpose for which the club was originally established. While requiring a vote of voting members does not ensure that that guides the decisions, it does at least give some enforcement to a club’s claim that it is a special case because of its membership and community purposes.

We face the problem of clubs becoming big businesses. In the time I have been in the Assembly, I have been involved in several disputes about allegations of clubs or particular directors of some clubs profiting from the selling of land. Also, concerns have been raised with me about clubs acquiring property in other places. I think that it would not be interfering too much with a board to require in these major decisions the supportive vote of members.

I am informed that the voting members of clubs are not the same as the social members. It is more usual, I understand, for the voting members to be connected to the purpose of the club, so a connection to a sporting team, et cetera. Mr Stefaniak’s argument is that this provision would interfere with a board’s capacity to manage a club and that there is enough accountability within a club, in that members can vote for new board members. On such major decisions, I think it is important to ask that members of the club also support the board.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 56 to 65, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 66.

MR STEFANIAK (5.50): Mr Speaker, I will be opposing this clause. In speaking to this clause, I am also speaking to clause 67. Clause 66 relates to having a centralised monitoring system. New South Wales, which was very much behind the ACT in terms of

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