To future-proof local sport, the ACT Greens have proposed taking control of community contributions away from Canberra clubs and placing the money in an independently administered fund.

ClubsACT has rejected the idea, warning it could leave sporting and community groups worse off.

Rebecca Vassarotti MLA, Greens gambling harm spokesperson, will move a motion in the Legislative Assembly in October calling for an Independent Community Contributions Fund.

Under this proposal, clubs would pay their entire 8 per cent community contribution in cash rather than through in-kind support such as venue hire. An independent body such as Hands Across Canberra would administer the fund.

The Greens also want the ACT Government to investigate a long-term investment framework which could fund community sport independently of gaming revenue. Clubs currently provide $6.83 million each year in community contributions: $5.25 million in cash and $1.58 million in-kind.

The Greens’ figures suggest a $154 million fund, earning 4.43 per cent annually, could generate $6.83 million each year. Clubs would continue making community contributions while the fund is established.

“That’s millions in brand new, bonus money straight into grass-roots sports, entirely separate from the agenda of profit-driven clubs,” Ms Vassarotti said.

“And better yet, this would set the groundwork for clubs to completely eliminate their reliance on pokies without taking a cent from community sport.”

Ms Vassarotti said requiring cash contributions would close what the Greens describe as a major loophole in the existing system and direct more funding to local services and sport.

The Greens say that Canberra clubs reported nearly $7 million in community contributions last year, but argue that a substantial share was in-kind rather than cash, “reducing how much real cash gets invested in our community”.

“As it stands, these highly profitable clubs can claim a $300 ‘donation’ just for letting a community group sit in an otherwise empty room for an hour,” Ms Vassarotti said.

“Meeting spaces matter, but claiming that as major financial support is taking the mickey. That isn’t backing our community, it’s just creative accounting.”

ClubsACT rejected the proposal in its current form. CEO Craig Shannon said the organisation had not been consulted, and the Greens had not demonstrated that an independent fund would provide better or more reliable community support.

“Clubs were built through the money, effort and commitment of sporting, cultural and other community groups,” Mr Shannon said. “Their constitutional purposes explain who they support and why. Taking those decisions away from member-governed organisations requires a much stronger justification than has been offered.”

Mr Shannon warned the change could weakensupport for local sport and community groups.

“Community support involves much more than grants,” Mr Shannon said. “It includes grounds, maintenance, free rooms, equipment and ongoing assistance. If clubs must replace recognised in-kind support with additional cash payments, there is a real risk they will have less capacity to keep providing those services.”

He urged the Greens to explain where the money needed to establish the investment fund would come from; publish the full figure behind the proposal; and consult clubs and beneficiaries before seeking Assembly support.

Mr Shannon said the Greens’ characterisation of community contributions as creative accounting was unfair and overlooked the support people received.

“A free meeting room can be the difference between a volunteer group operating and folding,” Mr Shannon said. “Access to equipment or a sporting facility can save an organisation money it simply does not have. A service does not become worthless because no cash changes hands.

“Moving recipients from a club relationship into a central grant process also changes who they depend on. It does not, by itself, remove that dependence or make funding more secure.”

Mr Shannon acknowledged concerns about the long-term security of community funding as gaming revenue declined, but said individual contributions should be scrutinised and corrected where they were overvalued.

ClubsACT also questioned whether the Greens’ figures added up. Mr Shannon said that, once fees were taken into account, the proposed fund would fall $539,000 short of the annual funding target, and remain about $261,000 short in the first year even after the first injection of club contributions.

He said the proposal did not explain where the initial $154 million would come from; how funding would keep pace with inflation; or who would cover losses in poor investment years.

“Those gaps may be addressed through a properly developed model,” Mr Shannon said. “Until then, the Greens cannot credibly promise that community organisations will be protected…

“The people who stand to lose should be at the centre of this discussion: junior players, volunteers, older residents, cultural groups and small charities.

“The Greens are seeking greater statutory control over the allocation of gaming revenue while supporting policies that reduce it. They need to explain how those positions translate into secure funding for the community.

“We support transparency, proper scrutiny and a sustainable transition away from gaming dependence. What we oppose is removing established support before a funded replacement is operating.

“Canberra’s community organisations should not be left carrying the risk of promises that have not been demonstrated.”