Page 1199 - Week 04 - Thursday, 26 March 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
very trying, with a number disappearing and others being taken over by larger clubs who then have to assess whether they carry that burden and run that club at a loss or they amalgamate that club or move the facility, as has happened in some cases.
We need a committee to look at the long-term future of the clubs sector in the ACT, and that is what the Canberra Liberals are proposing today. The clubs want certainty; what they have had over the last decade is nothing but uncertainty. Indeed, they have seen one plan quickly overturned by another plan, which has led in some cases to financial loss for the clubs and in other cases to further development not going ahead because the sector did not know what was going to happen. For instance, clubs were first told they had to ventilate better to allow smoking, and then smoking was banned. Many clubs made investments on plant they were never able to recoup, which, of course, hurt their bottom line. Other clubs were told to build dams and become self-sufficient on their golf courses, which they did. Then, of course, the government decided to tax them on the use of the water out of the dams it had told them to build. This cannot continue. The clubs sector need and deserve some certainty, and they are certainly not getting that from the government at this stage.
Members should look at the announcement by the Chief Minister on the first sitting day that he was going to have a bipartisan approach to this and set up a bipartisan select committee. Unfortunately, the bipartisan bit was never addressed—nobody was involved in the process and there was no correspondence or contact from the government on what they sought to achieve and how they sought to achieve it. I do not know whether the Chief Minister expected his gaming and racing minister to make that contact and have those discussions, but it never happened. Pronouncements by the Chief Minister do not make things bipartisan. If you want something to be bipartisan, the best way to do that is actually to have the discussion. There is a lack of coordination from those opposite, and the victim has been the clubs sector.
Ms Burch has had a motion on the notice paper for some time now that, for reasons unknown, she has chosen not to move. We have just now seen tabled an amendment to my motion. It is curious that when the government wanted to look at a very limited issue—aspects of poker machine regulation in the ACT—they wanted a select committee. I now see that this will all be referred to PAC. The inconsistency from those opposite continues, and it is not what the clubs sector needs. We have been talking to the clubs sector. Those on this side have been very supportive of the clubs sector for a long, long time and always will be, valuing what it brings. But what the clubs want now is to know what their future will be. They want to know what environment they will operate in. They want that environment to be certain for much longer periods of time, instead of the backflips that we have seen from those opposite, where one day the magic figure of 4,000 poker machines was announced and then the next minister got rid of it.
How do clubs operate with this lack of certainty? They do not operate as effectively as they could, and they actually deserve better. The boards are voluntary. In the early days when groups like the Vikings, the Southern Cross Club, the Hellenic Club, the Tradies and the Labor Club were all setting up, they were run by people who put a whole lot of effort into them as volunteers. They have built up substantial holdings in the community. People want those efforts to be rewarded with the continuance of the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video