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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 3667 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

I think an example was given this morning when Mr Stanhope said that an outing at the Southern Cross Club was an outing that his parents - in - law enjoy each week. Quite a number of clubs, and I use the Southern Cross Club as an example, provide quite a number of activities which are genuine services to the community. They provide activities for particular groups, particularly the elderly, I think, at the Southern Cross. It is not that everybody who goes there is aged and decrepit, but I think clubs provide a very useful and compassionate service. They open their doors and have various social activities to serve those members. Those members are part of the Southern Cross Club in order that they have some communal activity, which probably would not be available to them other than through the club industry.

Although clubs have got some sort of privilege which is considered to be evil for the convenience of some argument, I think we agree, at least today, that the club industry is providing a very useful service. Clubs do provide the community with services that the community deserves. Clubs like the Southern Cross, Tuggeranong, the Hellenic Club and the Canberra Labor Club do provide such things. There is no money - making activity; they purely provide entertainment for people who would probably have no other access to entertainment and very little other access to social interaction. I think we have to make sure that that not only is allowed as a community service but is in fact encouraged. That is the reason why I oppose the inclusion of this exclusion in the act. I therefore commend my amendment to proposed new section 60A of the act.

MR HUMPHRIES (Chief Minister, Minister for Community Affairs, Attorney - General and Treasurer) (5.14): Mr Deputy Speaker, if you take out proposed new subparagraph 60A (a) you have nothing left of the bill because every club that does not wish to meet the targets we have set for community contributions will simply spend the money on social or entertainment activities for its members and that will satisfy -

Mr Hargreaves: Some of them play sport.

MR HUMPHRIES: Yes, but this is what this is all about. It can spend money on its own members and avoid the need to make contributions to the broader community. This amendment almost negates the very purpose of the bill. It is what the bill is all about. You cannot include money that clubs spend on their members as money the clubs spend on the community. It just does not gel with the debate that we are having.

It is important that the clubs be able to spend money on their members, I concede that, and for that reason we have said that 95 per cent, initially, of the clubs' net profits from poker machines should be available to spend on their members. Ninety - five per cent of that money is more than enough for large clubs to cover that requirement, but not 100 per cent. We ask that just 5 per cent be given to people outside the membership of the club. You cannot argue that offering services to club members is satisfying a broader community need, at least not in this sense.

We are talking about the clubs spending on people other than themselves, spending on organisations out there whose members don't belong to those clubs or perhaps cannot afford to belong to those clubs. The Red Cross, Lifeline and sporting organisations get no benefit necessarily from their members going and joining those clubs. They do not pay for the things that they want to do which are providing a community benefit. Even if all the members of Lifeline go and join the so - and - so club at Weston, that does not help

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