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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (5 December) . . Page.. 3669 ..

MR BERRY (5.20): It is hard to imagine the growing support for this clause because it has the potential to rule out a large area of expenditure of a club from the contribution that is made to the community. How is it that 160,000 people are regarded as not being members of the community? I am told that 80 per cent of the adult population belong to a club in the ACT. That adds up to about 160,000 people in a population of 300,000 people. I find it pretty hard to draw the distinction which excludes 160,000 of them from the community. How do you do that? Eighty per cent of the adult community is excluded. They are not in the community for the purposes of this political move by the government and its supporters.

It is just ridiculous to entertain the idea that this subclause is not to be included in contribution expenditure on commercial activities, because commercial activities are also aimed at the members - it's their club - or on the social or entertainment activities of the club for its members. How can you take that out of the calculation when it is for 160,000 people? More than half the population are not regarded as community for the purposes of this legislation.

Mr Humphries was flabbergasted about something earlier, but he finds no similar sentiment for something as ridiculous as this. It is just extraordinary that 160,000 people in our community would be regarded as not being part of the community and are not entitled to be considered as such. It is extraordinary.

MR MOORE (Minister for Health, Housing and Community Care) (5.23): Mr Berry, if you had a consistent approach and said that those same people were entitled to vote as to the direction of their board there may be some consistency to your argument. It is true that 160,000 people do have memberships of clubs, as I understand it, and take some advantage of the resources of those clubs. A number of people have spoken and said what a contribution that is in the community. I do not think I have heard anybody here argue that that is not the case.

What we are saying, however, is that because of the special monopoly that clubs have on poker machines it is entirely appropriate for us to ensure that they do spend an appropriate proportion of their revenue in the broader community, dealing with broader community issues, and not just making sure that there is entertainment available for their members. That entertainment at times will be a very important part of their social wellbeing and what they enjoy, and I think that's fine. Nobody is restricting that. What we are doing is seeking to ensure that each of the clubs makes a reasonable contribution to the broader community and the broader community welfare.

Each of Mr Quinlan's amendments - not just this amendment, but the ones that he has foreshadowed in respect of the rest of this clause - is just a watering down to make sure that the clubs have to put less and less of the contribution they gain from their special monopoly on poker machines into the broader community and to focus it to within the club. The whole point of this legislation, Mr Berry, is to make sure it goes to the broader community. I am surprised that you don't understand that.

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