Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 7 Hansard (4 June) . . Page.. 1871 ..
MS DUNDAS (continuing):
Whilst Mr Humphries addressed the issue of ensuring that all clubs will continue to contribute the whole of their minimum legislative contribution, I still have concerns that it will erode the provision of social welfare contributions further than the government's bill already does.
In addition, it further entrenches the idea that some groups in our community are more deserving than others. Furthermore, it will mean that every club-even those who would not normally contribute to any sport and have little knowledge of sporting issues-will be forced to contribute money to women's sport. This is likely to lead to poor targeting of funds and the possibility that funds will be funnelled into high profile, elite sporting organisations.
So whilst I think Mr Humphries' amendments highlight the problems with the government's bill, I believe that, on balance, they create more problems than they solve, and hence I cannot support them.
MS TUCKER (5.07): The Greens will not be supporting this amendment. By specifying an amount, Mr Humphries increases the possible skewing. Specifying an amount for women's sport without specifying an amount for problem gambling services, for instance, accentuates the potential negative effects of the government's proposal.
I understand Mr Humphries' argument-that leaving it as an incentive rather than a requirement may not achieve anything-but it is no good taking a mandatory approach if you are undermining other objectives. While perhaps we could just require that equal amounts of dollars go to women's sport and men's sport, as I have said, I believe that the incentive for scrutiny, by requiring clear reporting on funding for women's sports, could have some effect, just by itself.
MR QUINLAN (Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Business and Tourism, Minister for Sport, Racing and Gaming and Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Corrections) (5.08): Mr Speaker, quite obviously, I am not going to support this. The presumption that it might affect the quantum of contribution has been negated already. I think that, when almost three times the required contribution is made by the club industry, this is simply a nonsense. I believe that, if the bill were changed to Mr Humphries' specification, it would probably empower the government to do what it is already empowered to do.
That Mr Humphries' amendment be agreed to.