Page 2927 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 15 August 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
the community or part of the community. These are clearly worthy principles, and regular review is needed to make sure that, in practice, the scheme lives up to those principles.
The Auditor-General’s report in 2018 found that there was a lack of guidance on how to interpret the legislation. Consequently, “a broad and diverse range of expenditure” has been approved under the scheme, to quote the report. And it is often not possible to evaluate those expenditures against the community purpose of the scheme.
Here are some examples of the way that the scheme is currently broken: one club claimed 56 separate contributions totalling $663,755 in its annual return as sports donations to a single senior sports team directly associated with the club, without giving any further information on the nature of the expenditure. Note that they were counting this as a community contribution, separate from any of their constitutional commitments to sport.
Another club counted 330 separate contributions, totalling over $360,000, related to the private sportsground owned by that club. This included payments for rates, electricity, maintenance, vehicle registration and repairs, telephone, wages, salaries, security and insurance. Again, they class this as a community contribution. Another club gave $1.5 million to its own sport and recreation, and that money included balloons for a presentation night and entertainment at a team function. These are all activities that these clubs exist to fulfil. Their community contributions should go beyond the club’s main purpose and genuinely improve the lives of the broader community.
Today Mr Parton has again managed to argue both for and against the proposition, for and against improving the scheme. Mr Parton’s approach to policy seems to be more like Schrodinger’s cat: you cannot tell whether it is one side or the other until you lift up the lid on the box. And even then we are unclear.
The facts about community contributions are clear. The club industry needs to tighten its focus on giving to community groups. It needs to be more transparent about where those funds are going. It is also clear that many organisations do benefit from the scheme, and that should continue in the most effective way possible.
I will reiterate my firm and unwavering commitment to those groups: we are working hard to keep the clubs who support you viable, sustainable and accountable. We are not going to stand for your entitlements being spent on entertainment for professional sports players or iPhones for staff. You deserve to be treated better than this.
Clubs have a special privilege. They are able to operate poker machines to serve their non-profit goals. Promoting and supporting their club purposes with their revenue is the responsibility of clubs. Community contributions money is separate from that purpose, and it belongs to the community as a whole. This review is about ensuring that the clubs live up to their obligations to support more than just their membership. It is about expanding support for community groups.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video