Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Lifestyle

Get RSM on your side at tax time.

Joy Burch announces new gaming laws

By johnboy - 1 August 2012 23

Joy Burch has announced some pre-election legislating on the subject of poker machines and clubs. (Bearing in mind her Labor Party remains a major club owner):

The Government’s amendments to the Bill include provisions that would:

• Allow new or single-venue clubs to access a pool of up to 150 machines to assist them establish new venues where the Government releases land suitable for new club sites. The pool will be created by the surrender of existing machines, ensuring there is no net growth in the number of machines.

• Amend the $250 daily Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) withdrawal limit proposed in the original Bill so that it no longer apply to ATMs at the Canberra Race Club temporarily brought in for race days, venues operating 10 or fewer machines, or those only operating ‘Class B’ machines (typically pubs and taverns).

• Give more flexibility to multi-venue club groups to relocate machines between venues, by allowing the relocation of up to 10 machines or 10 per cent of the existing number of machines at the receiving club – whichever is the lesser – without automatically being required to undertake a social impact assessment. Rather, the requirement for a social impact assessment would at the discretion of the Gaming and Racing Commission.

• Allow gaming machine licensees to take up to 10 per cent of their machines ‘off the floor’ for a 12 month period. At present, clubs must keep all their machines operating, whether or not they are being fully utilised.

• The Bill’s proposed introduction of a 4000 target for the number of gaming machines in the ACT remains. However once reached, a cap would be set on a per capita basis, allowing for future growth in the ACT’s population.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
23 Responses to
Joy Burch announces new gaming laws
FreshKidIce 12:27 pm 02 Aug 12

So when exactly can I play a game of Poker at my local as opposed o heading to Eagle Hawk or *gulp* Queanbeyan?

This place does my head in sometimes…

p1 11:45 am 02 Aug 12

johnboy said :

I think if we forced the clubs to play a fair game, say return 98c in the dollar like the betting agencies, we’d see a very different approach to pokies taken by clubs.

+1. Roulette at the casino is a much better game then teh pokie at your local.

johnboy 11:23 am 02 Aug 12

I think if we forced the clubs to play a fair game, say return 98c in the dollar like the betting agencies, we’d see a very different approach to pokies taken by clubs.

chewy14 11:20 am 02 Aug 12

Thumper said :

Show some real leadership Burch and cut the pokies in this town back by half.

In fact the same should be said for the libs and greens.

Let’s see if anyone has the balls to run to the election promising a massive cut in pokies in the ACT.

Somehow I doubt it.

I don’t think many parties would ever run a campaign on limiting individual freedoms and I wouldn’t vote for them if they did.

If people want to entertain themselves by playing pokies then i’ve got no problem with it.

As long as the clubs are forced to provide large amounts of help for problem gamblers and pay for the community cost of having them then go for it.

p1 10:18 am 02 Aug 12

Thumper said :

Let’s see if anyone has the balls to run to the election promising a massive cut in pokies in the ACT.

What is the Pirate Parties policy on pokies. Pirates, generally, are in support of raping and pillaging, but since the party owns no pokies, they might be against this particular form of plunder.

davo101 10:00 am 02 Aug 12

Deref said :

“Gambling”. The word you’re looking for is “gambling”.

To quote the OED on the word gamble:

As the word is (at least in serious use) essentially a term of reproach, it would not ordinarily be applied to the action of playing for stakes of trifling amount, except by those who condemn playing for money altogether.

So gaming is the action of playing at games of chance for stakes and gambling is doing it for for unduly high stakes.

Thumper 9:54 am 02 Aug 12

Show some real leadership Burch and cut the pokies in this town back by half.

In fact the same should be said for the libs and greens.

Let’s see if anyone has the balls to run to the election promising a massive cut in pokies in the ACT.

Somehow I doubt it.

RadioVK 9:07 am 02 Aug 12

I have worked in and around clubs for many years, and at one stage I did a brief stint at a company that sells and maintains poker machines.

I have seen the tallies from the machines, of how much money is put through them. I can tell you that the numbers are, quite frankly, staggering. I would estimate that it would be roughly $1.5m per machine, per year, possibly higher. Even given that each machine must (in theory) return 87.5% I think it is, that’s still a hell of a lot of money. Can you see why the clubs scream blue murder every time someone suggests tighter controls on poker machines?

Apparently Joy Burch is “pleased with the sectors willingness to tackle problem gambling”. Where was that willingness when the mandatory pre-commitment trial was being dicussed, and the clubs were plastered with posters calling the idea “un-Australian”.

I don’t think that the social impact of poker machines can be understated. Any thing that is sucking that much money out of people can’t be good. Personally I wouldn’t care if they were banned altogether, but each to their own I suppose.

Endrey 8:16 am 02 Aug 12

Social impact assessments – wow. Could we see how the target of 4000 passed one of these?

I want to live in a community.

johnboy 8:19 pm 01 Aug 12

The government gazette is definitive

damien haas 8:17 pm 01 Aug 12

The ALP have never heard a reason for more poker machines (and more money from the Labor Clubs into the ALP pocket) that they couldnt believe.

Its like a beaten hooker justifying her pimps actions.

Deref 8:15 pm 01 Aug 12

johnboy said :

It’s been gaming in government parlance for decades

Doesn’t stop it from being incorrect and misleading.

johnboy 8:12 pm 01 Aug 12

It’s been gaming in government parlance for decades

Deref 8:03 pm 01 Aug 12

“Gambling”. The word you’re looking for is “gambling”.

Masquara 7:23 pm 01 Aug 12

Brazen, isn’t it? Only a few months after Labor’s plans for a poker machine “limit the damage” trial in this very town. Labor Club plans to move machines without a social impact statement – that’s indefensible. Joy Burch describes the planned legislation as “flexible support for the clubs industry”. What Joy Burch means is that she plans to help clubs that wish to identify emerging socially disadvantaged areas where they can empty more pockets (and starve more families). They’ll simply move more machines there, and away from areas that are becoming more affluent, and thereby housing fewer people who are vulnerable to Labor’s vulture clubs. Er, what exactly are those “Labor values” that were touted recently?
And why would you remove the $250 limit specifically at venues operating ten machines or fewer? Where’s the evidence that people gambling in those smaller venues are less vulnerable to being humbugged by the clubs? That’s Joy Burch “supporting the clubs” at the expense of the socially disadvantaged.
Guess who will pick up the tab for this scandalous subsidising of the clubs? ACT ratepayers – through hungry children, a need for more emergency housing, battered spouses. Where the hell do you think the money put through those pokies comes from? Poor people’s income – NONE of which is “discretionary spending”.
Didn’t we just see an Adelaide gambling addict facing jail, pleading for exactly that ATM-limit check on problem gamblers?
This pandering to the clubs is immoral and a disgrace.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site