Page 2942 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 15 August 2018

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

it was supposed to be so noble. This was all going to be beyond reproach. This was all going to be about maximising the benefit to the community. That is what it was supposed to be about.

History shows us that it did not work out that way at all. Indeed, history shows us that the sports rorts affair cost the federal minister her job. Ros Kelly resigned over allegations that funds were allocated for political purposes. Indeed, at the by-election the Liberals ended up winning the seat. I wonder whether we will be using a big whiteboard to list the thousands of applications for funding through this proposed new centralised fund.

What I do know is that whatever happens it is clear that nobody from this government would be stepping down or resigning over anything. There is very clearly a belief from those in this government that they can do or say whatever they like and get away with it. There are those from this government who believe that they can force these changes through by hook or by crook and that everyone who is against them will just forgive and forget. Let me tell you, Madam Assistant Speaker, that these people will not be forgiving and forgetting.

You mess with this very successful model at your own peril. Community looks after community. The clubs are owned by community; clubs are community. They should be trusted by this self-righteous Labor-Greens government. They should be trusted to keep on serving their communities as they have for many years.

I have heard Mr Ramsay talk in the public space. We have heard today about this dastardly situation: community contributions paying for coaches’ wages and paying for player wages and expenses. I have heard the inference that this is so wrong and that it is so far outside the guidelines. I think I should refer to those guidelines. Subsection 65(2) of Gaming Regulation 2004 provides the following guidance with respects to payments that promote, develop or encourage sport or sporting activities. This is what the official regulation lists:

(a) payment of a sportsperson’s wages or expenses;

(b) payment for sports uniforms and equipment;

I note that there were all these questions about a particular professional coach. These expenses are very clearly in the official guidelines; so why are we carrying on about them? My message to the government is that if you do not want these things, if you do not think they should be included as community contributions, then change the guidelines.

As the Auditor-General made clear on a number of occasions in her report, the problem was not necessarily with the conduct of the clubs; rather, the guidelines were not clear enough for those navigating the system. Why would you punish those who have complied with the rules? Why would you trash the whole system because there is some confusion over what is in or what is out?

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