Page 3482 - Week 11 - Thursday, 15 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
over the last year by two per cent in terms of turnover. We need to start from the base that they are only obliged, by law, to contribute seven per cent of turnover. I think that is appropriate in the context of the overall taxation or charging regime that is in place in Canberra. The impost that government demands of clubs here is different from other places in Australia. We have a dual process of community contributions of seven per cent of turnover as well as a taxing regime.
It would be unfortunate if any debate or discussion around the contribution which clubs make to the community ignored the fact that they also pay gaming tax. In fact, the government picks up in excess of $30 million a year in taxation revenue from the club industry, which it then spends on the provision of services for the community. It is just not fair that the clubs are traduced in this way by suggestions that they are only providing this many dollars through their community contributions to the community sector, excluding sport—as if sport in some way is not worthy of its description and as an area of community life that is worthy of support.
You need to take account of the $31 million, I think it is, that the clubs provide to the government which the government disburses for the provision of health services, schools, community safety, services to a range of organisations and, indeed, funding to organisations such as Lifeline. It is appropriated out of the coffers—the central bank—but the money comes from the clubs. So it is just not fair, in the context of a regime that requires clubs to provide seven per cent of their take to the community as a community contribution, to say that they are not pulling their weight. In fact, because of their commitment to that particular activity within the community, as an incident of their creation they support the community.
It is unfair to all of those voluntary boards that run our clubs, and this is the other aspect of clubs and the club industry. People who run the clubs are not paid. The board is in charge. Those amongst our community that make the decisions do it because of their commitment to the community. It is almost exclusively a voluntary, non-paid commitment. They employ people, of course, to staff the clubs. Indeed, they employ over 2,000 to staff the clubs. This, of itself, is an enormous contribution to our community. But the clubs within the ACT which employ more than 2,000 people—they are a major employer—are run voluntarily. They come together as a result of a community interest.
Some people cannot resist an argy-bargy—Dr Foskey has not been able to resist it—about the fact that the Labor Party has an interest in clubs as a result of the commitment and dedication of members of the Labor Party over many years to serve the community through the creation of clubs. They provide a wonderful service. I could, with some self-interest, stand here now and reel off the list of organisations which the Labor clubs in the ACT support. The Labor Club has supported this community to the tune of millions of dollars which, but for the energy, dedication and interest of members of the Labor Party, would not have been provided in this community. Every member of every club can make the same claim.
I do not believe that clubs in the ACT have anything to explain or apologise for or defend or feel defensive about in relation to their commitment to our community. We can argue until we are blue in the face about gambling and the morality of gambling and the difficulties of problem gambling, and we do need compassionately and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .