[blml] Law 80 (Regulatory Authority)

[Reg Busch]

This may not be the most appropriate forum for this discussion, but here 
goes anyway.
On June 1st the ABF will be operating under the 2007 Laws. I believe 
that Law 80 is quite inconsistent with thestructure of bridge as it 
exists in Australia. Like the nation, we are a federation. Players are 
members of clubs. Clubs have got together and formed state bodies with 
(limited) powers to conduct state level matters (in Queensland it is the 
QBA) . States have got together to form the ABF with (limited) powers to 
conduct national level matters. At no time have the clubs ceded to the 
state the power to regulate their own events, nor have the states ceded 
to the ABF the power to regulate their events. In other words, in 
Australia power devolves upwards from the grassroots to the top, and 
this is enshrined in constitutions under Australian law. There has ben 
no problem in the past, because each jurisdiction  has been a Sponsoring 
Organisation in its own right and has had the power to regulate its own 
activities.

. Law 80 seeks to reverse this situation, so that all power resides at 
the top and devolves downwards (if at all). I contend that the ABF 
constitutionally does not have the right to act as sole RA. It has 
certainly (until now) never claimed that right, A change in the  
constitution would clear the air, but this may not be achievable.. Can 
it really be that a change in the rules of a game can override the 
constitution of an affiliate NBO set up under local law?

I've wondered why the WBF scrapped the Sponsoring Organisation 
principle, which worked well, in favour of an RA. This is not really 
about a change in the rules of a game, such as say the changes to Law 
27. It's about a change in the politics of bridge, and really has no 
place in the Laws.. It seems that the WBF has sought to impose a 
particular political  structure on its afiliates.

The ABF has resolved to assign its powers under Law 80 to the state 
associations, but only for a limited period. This is a temporary fix and 
does not solve the underlying dilemma. I foresee a problem such as this: 
a club needs to take disciplinary action against a player for a gross 
breach of regulation:
Player (or more likely his lawyer): 'You can't take action against me. 
You no longer have the right to make regulations under the Laws of Bridge'
Club:' Not so.The ABF has assigned its powers as the RA to us .'
Player's lawyer: 'But the ABF (under its own constitution) does not have 
the right to exercise authority as RA. How can it assign powers it does 
not legally have?'

Are we really in legal limbo?

I assume we are not alone. There must be other NBOs which have a federal 
structure like ours. What is happening in other jurisdictions?

Reg Busch