Did I hear right? Stanhope defending the pokies ...

bithog said :

Has anyone ever raised the issue that all the pokie subsidised cheap drinks and meals are doing to the hospitality and entertainment business in Canberra? What about all the lost business so many small Canberra bars, cafes and restaurants are loosing! Does anyone ever consider that they aren;t subsidised? Imagine how much more vibrant and lively Canberra could be if instead of all the sheep hearding back for more subsidised cheap feeds and drinks they could patronise other venues and participate in their communities in other ways?

Hey, I know I’m straying off the point a bit- but while the food is cheap it is generally awful- And it’s served in an atmosphere of people fixating on playing machines, gives me the creeps…hmm- starting to remember why I avoid these places like the plague- and I agree, Jon Stanhope should be reducing pokies in the ACT not defending them- gambling addictions should be treated not facilitated.

Canberra is already boring enough without banning the pokies, firecrackers banned, etc.

Stanhope seems to think the ALP’s interests and the community’s interests are one and the same. And the rest of the ALP don’t seem to making much noise beyond a token protest statement to the Canberra Times.

The Libs and Greens could easily join forces to do something and limit (or even ban) pokies in Canberra if they wanted.

Better not get into my car and drive on the road, I might turn into a speeding drunk driver.

Gambling isn’t a major source of goverment funding (precisely because we tax at so low a rate).
It barely rates a mention in revenue papers, actually.

Again, the depth of analysis I’ll do on the sector depends entirely on public (or RiotACT readership) interest, precisely because nobody else seems to be giving the issue coverage.
If you want it, comment here or tell John by email.
It really is like poker machine income and its related kickbacks are being hidden in plain sight in this town.

Has anyone ever raised the issue that all the pokie subsidised cheap drinks and meals are doing to the hospitality and entertainment business in Canberra? What about all the lost business so many small Canberra bars, cafes and restaurants are loosing! Does anyone ever consider that they aren;t subsidised? Imagine how much more vibrant and lively Canberra could be if instead of all the sheep hearding back for more subsidised cheap feeds and drinks they could patronise other venues and participate in their communities in other ways?

So what if the clubs are hurt. They only exist because they are subsidised. Other real businesses will emerge.

Government and Unions may have to work hard to dream up some other funding sources though. Again, so what? Its is unconscionable that gambling is such a major source of funding.

Some change and pain would be a small price to pay for the benefits and ridding ourselves and our community of this soul destroying mindlessness.

johnboy said :

Not paid as directors perhaps, but there’s a lot of sinecures and padding in club land. To say nothing of buying themselves plasma TVs and calling them community contributions.

uh o.k. then, the ones I know tend to have 20 or 30 years of volunteer service to their particular sport (AFL, Rugby Union) mainly in running junior leagues and general organisation duties. I’ve been to a few of their houses and they don’t have particularly large tv’s or grass castles and all have day jobs.

It’s not too much of an issue because the pokies are actually dying a natural death and dont hold much attraction to the young kids who prefer to sportsbet and play poker. thats why you are seeing Vikings and other clubs diversifying into shopping centres and medical centres as alternative income streams.

That said I dont know much about the non-sporting clubs but if people don’t like how the profits are being allocated you could always get involved in your local club and attend the AGM.

It’s still a better structure than pub owners taking the money.

Pokies are an example of something that is bad for a segment of the community (problem gamblers), and yet is legal. I’m not sure the current arrangements actually protect anyone except under 18s.

It would be interesting to see the social effects is they were banned outright:
* Some people might never become problem gamblers?
* Existing gamblers would find other forms of gambling?
* Less money for clubs to do their thing?
* Those who can do the right thing constrained by a ‘nanny state’?

Just some thoughts.

ACT Labour Club donated $600,000 to the Labor party. Follow the money.

What possible benefit to members is there in turning a bowls green in Woden used by members into units to be sold for profit?

and this by the club ‘for catholics and friends’ which makes so much money already they don’t know what to do with it. they have already expanded the club building so it has overtaken some roads.

and yet they have got rid of a lot of the activities which acutally benefitted the community and members – movie afternoons, cheap aerobics – bowls for the oldies etc.

Skidbladnir said :

When I have some suitably free time, I’ll do the MegaClub rundown again based on 08-09 figures if the readership is keen.
09-10 numbers are due out real soon now, it just takes a while to establish and cross-refer the data sets.

am keen

sepi said :

It is rubbish anyway that community groups benefit.

The tradies has got rid of all their holiday cottages and bike display that used to benefit community members, and the southern cross club is turning their bowls green into units.

The only people who benefit seem to be the board members.

People make up a lot of stuff on this site don’t they, Club Directors do not get paid (at least in the 3 big clubs I know of) and all profits are paid back into the community or re-invested in the club for the benefit of members.

Seems a much better set up to me than some interstae pub mogul or (as is the case in NSW) watching Woolworths buy up all the licences and pocket the money.

54-11 said :

Please do that, skid.

For an idea of the scale of operations, just google ACT Labor pokies, and you’ll get my last pokies article. Next round will be something similar.
(on my phone at the moment, so no direct link)

Just off the top of my head, based on 08-09 data:
Canberra Labor Club Belconnen alone is responsible for 5.3% of machines but 10% of ACT Gaming Tax, and outperforms every other Cub in the Territory on per-machine revenue.
The Labor Club Group owns three of the top six performing clubs on per-machine income, but contributes the least back to the Community of all Club Groups.
The Labor Club Group makes the largest contributions to political parties of all clubs, by some magnificent factor.

They are not the most highly cashflowed Group in the Territory though, falling behind Southern Cross and Vikings, though.

I also have a Ministerial Response from Andrew Barr and the Gaming Commission effectively saying that Community Contributions money can legally ‘go missing’ under certain conditions…

Well you know I’m keen as mustard to read them, skid.

Not a moment’s thought is given to the day’s worth of losers come scooping up the gold every night.

Dr Strange said :

Their Number 3 reasons was ‘Cheaper Beer’.

This is the one and only reason for pokies. There used to be the Schnitzel at Dickson tradies, but that went down hill.

Tempestas said :

The damage the damn things cause should be reason enough alone to treat them like tobacco.

The damage alcohol does should be reason enough to ban it.
I’m tired of the majority being regulated due to a minority who cannot control themselves. No, I’m not a big pokie player. I understand my limits. No, I don’t drink alcohol, just recognise the damage it does. As for treating the pokies like tobacco, once again, I will compare it to alcohol. I would love to see a proper study done on the comparisons between adverse affects of alcohol and tobacco. Including the affect on the health system and the crime statistics.

On ABC the Libs were criticising Stanhope’s conflict of interest.

Meanwhile, Stanhope is happy to impose higher operating costs on pubs (ie those who no pokie revenue stream) as part of new liquor laws.

Please do that, skid. Jeez, Jon, you could have at least made the greedy self-interest a little more subtle than that.

The damage the damn things cause should be reason enough alone to treat them like tobacco.

Given that at current rate there is only 4 or 5 clubs in the ACT (Sth Cross/Hellenic/Labor/Tradies/Eastlakes), as well as the Wilkie pre-commitment thing we should aim for 1 machine for each 1,000 population – so the clubs can fight over the 300 odd machines for the entire ACT and actually focus on getting people through the door for other reasons.

If they can’t then I’m sure that there are plenty of real community organisations that could use the facilities

Canberra Labor Club funds Canberra Labor. Are these the type of ‘community groups and clubs’ Stanhope is talking about?

When I have some suitably free time, I’ll do the MegaClub rundown again based on 08-09 figures if the readership is keen.
09-10 numbers are due out real soon now, it just takes a while to establish and cross-refer the data sets.

@I-filed:
Its not like Stanhope bothers to hide the fact that he is pro-pokie, not only is he the local Party Head for the region holding more than half the ALP asset base (pokies at the Labor Clubs, and their associated cashflow), he’s a speaker at ClubsACT conferences.

p1 said :

there is an opposition in the ACT? They sure do keep a low profile.

Didn’t they join up with Labor to form a minority government?

Was channel surfing last night and heard a spokesperson for I think Clubs NSW defending the pokies. Their Number 3 reasons was ‘Cheaper Beer’. Ban the abominations.

So Stanhope is supporting pokies while his big boss has just done a deal with a Tasmanian independent to crack down on the one-armed bandits. As Sir Joh once said “It’s very difficult having your feet on both sides of the fence. I’ve heard it can be very uncomfortable”.

there is an opposition in the ACT? They sure do keep a low profile.

“community groups and clubs will suffer if we regulate the pokies harder’

Let me translate that:

Community groups = people with a common interest that cause them to associate near poker machines

Clubs = organisations that own buildings that house poker machines

As a member of a few community groups and clubs that do not fit the above definition, I can attest that poker machines do not benefit us.

It is rubbish anyway that community groups benefit.

The tradies has got rid of all their holiday cottages and bike display that used to benefit community members, and the southern cross club is turning their bowls green into units.

The only people who benefit seem to be the board members.

All poker machines should be banned. They are specifically targetting people with gambling addiction for the majority of their revenue.