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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Thursday, 24 June 2004) . . Page.. 2700 ..


Ayes 3

Noes 12

Mrs Cross

Mr Berry

Ms MacDonald

Ms Dundas

Mr Corbell

Mr Pratt

Ms Tucker

Mr Cornwell

Mr Quinlan

Ms Dunne

Mr Smyth

Ms Gallagher

Mr Stefaniak

Mr Hargreaves

Mr Wood

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment (Mrs Cross’s) agreed to.

Clause 165, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 166 agreed to.

Clause 167 agreed to.

Clause 168.

MR STEFANIAK (8.26): I move amendment No 5 circulated in my name [see schedule 4 at page 2762].

Mr Speaker, this amendment puts back into this act something that was in the previous act, and that is what is known as the dollar-for-dollar contribution. It is merely added to the start of clause 168. The amendment does nothing else in relation to the required percentages, the gross revenue and so on, which is fine by the opposition. However, the government has not included in its new bill the dollar-for-dollar community contribution related to licensed clubs that make donations to registered parties, associated entities, members of the Legislative Assembly and candidates.

As a result of this particular amendment, which was moved some years ago, and with which no-one has really had practical problems—it has not made clubs bankrupt or anything—about an extra $350,000 a year, at current yearly rates, has gone towards community contributions. I think that is a very good thing.

Mr Quinlan: It is an average of about 200, Bill. Do not pick the high year.

MR STEFANIAK: Mr Quinlan says it averages about 200. I thought the Labor Club paid the Labor Party a little bit more than that, Ted.

Mr Hargreaves: Not as much as the 250 Club did, Bill.

MR STEFANIAK: Yes, it is something that probably affects the Labor Club more than anyone else, but it does affect any contributions made to any of us. Yes, I have probably benefited on occasions, as have other members, as have other parties, as have other associated entities. However, what this means is that, if we do not put this clause back in, that extra money that has been going towards some very good community contributions may not go towards them in future.


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