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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 3665 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (Chief Minister, Minister for Community Affairs, Attorney - General and Treasurer) (5:02): Mr Speaker, I want to make a brief foray into this. I realise that the democratic numbers are against this proposal as it stands. I have to say I am flabbergasted that members in this place would say that the membership of a club should not be able to elect the controlling board of that club. There are clubs in this territory whose members have no rights whatsoever in the management of their club, none whatsoever. Mr Speaker, that is absolutely intolerable. Clubs with thousands upon thousands of members are controlled by organisations, membership of which is not open to ordinary members of the club, and members opposite make derisory noises about that. It is fundamentally antidemocratic to argue for the retention of that privilege in the community.

We get lectured about being conservatives, about protecting privilege and the position of those with privilege in the community. What is that, I ask you, but the protection of privilege; the protection of privilege by those who think that it's all right for many, many millions of dollars to be locked up in organisations which are highly undemocratic.

Mr Speaker, I want to make one point about this thing about clubs being taken over. It is theoretically possible that members of a club could band together and, even as a minority, take over a club and subvert or change its original purpose. But two questions need to be asked about that. First of all, if it is possible for them to do that as members of the club, how do you distinguish that situation from one where the members of the club genuinely and legitimately wish to see a change in the direction of the club concerned? Supposing the club has had articles of association or incorporation or a constitution for many years which require it to be associated with a particular sport and the members of the club want some widening of the terms of that club. Why shouldn't they be able to take control of their own club and make those changes? Any club can protect itself if it has got the right kind of electoral system against minority takeover. They can do that, Mr Speaker. It's a question simply of addressing the way the club's articles of association or constitution are drawn up.

The other point to make about that is that if clubs are susceptible to that kind of predatory behaviour by minorities, why isn't it happening all over the place today, because the vast majority of clubs in the ACT at present are democratic and are controlled by their membership. Of the 71 clubs which are referred to in this report, I think fewer than a dozen, probably about eight, actually have these antidemocratic provisions in their constitutions. So if members are worried about these takeovers happening, the question is why aren't they happening today? Mr Speaker, they clearly are not happening today because it is not the kind of practice which members can get away with in clubs because members protect themselves against those things and members are able to make sure that these things do not happen in well run clubs.

This argument about clubs being vulnerable to takeovers is a sort of let's - protect - the - clubs - from - their - own - membership kind of argument. These poor members don't know what they're doing; let's make sure the clubs can't be influenced by their own membership. That is an outrageous argument. I think members in this place, who should know better, really put words into this debate which really deserve to have been put in places other than this parliament.

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