Joy gets her gaming laws through. Pokies dens get what they want.

johnboy 23 August 2012 52

Joy Burch is celebrating the package of her poker machine bill through the Legislative Assembly:

The amendments passed today 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 first draft of the Bill so that it no longer apply to ATMs sites operating 20 or fewer machines, or those only operating ‘Class B’ machines (typically pubs and taverns).

— Allow multi-venue club groups to relocate machines between venues; and give them more flexibility 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, this would be left to 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 up to 12 months.

— Set a medium to long-term target cap of 4000 gaming machines in the ACT. However, once reached the cap would be set on a per capita basis.


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
52 Responses to Joy gets her gaming laws through. Pokies dens get what they want.
Filter
Order
Mysteryman Mysteryman 3:00 pm 27 Aug 12

chewy14 said :

I find it mildly amusing that some of the people who can be supportive of personal freedoms in areas such as drug taking are so negative when it comes to the issue of poker machines.

Same. I find it both amusing and contradictory.

I don’t share the sense of outrage at this legislation. Is it a conflict of interest? Definitely. But should the government be banning poker machines? I don’t think so. Not unless they are going to ban alcohol, cigarettes, and anything else that we could blame in the absence of any personal responsibility.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Mordd said :

Fairly shocked by the ATM rules change, why are we making it easier for people to gamble large amounts of money in short periods of time again?

Agreed. I would like to see a ban on ATMs, or taking cash out on premises that contain pokies.

I think a limit of $200 regardless of the site, the number of machines, or the type of machine, would have been a good idea. It’s a shame our MLAs didn’t think so.

poetix poetix 2:55 pm 27 Aug 12

p1 said :

Masquara said :

JB I think you mean upper-case Catholic, not “catholic” – totally different meanings …

I don’t understand?

Small c means widely varied, open to many.
Big C means the Roman Catholic Church.

p1 p1 2:37 pm 27 Aug 12

Masquara said :

JB I think you mean upper-case Catholic, not “catholic” – totally different meanings …

I don’t understand?

Myles Peterson Myles Peterson 2:02 pm 27 Aug 12

Hmmm … missed this last week.

Kind of stuff that needs to be bookmarked and re-discussed week prior to October 20. Pretty disgusting, Victor. (Oh, and Canberra’s tiny, mate – s*** gets back.)

Masquara Masquara 12:57 pm 25 Aug 12

johnboy said :

Remember the Liberals in the Assembly are very strongly catholic and the Southern Cross Club is also a huge pokie change.

(Oh to see Jesus let loose in those pokie dens supposedly honouring his name, the money changers in the temple would consider themselves lucky by comparison)

JB I think you mean upper-case Catholic, not “catholic” – totally different meanings …

bundah bundah 12:16 pm 25 Aug 12

Jethro said :

johnboy said :

Remember the Liberals in the Assembly are very strongly catholic and the Southern Cross Club is also a huge pokie change.

(Oh to see Jesus let loose in those pokie dens supposedly honouring his name, the money changers in the temple would consider themselves lucky by comparison)

I had no idea the Southern Cross club was linked with the Catholics. Wow you learn something new everyday.

I always figured the name was just appealing to the bogans.

Although I guess that does explain their seafood-special Friday nights!

Yes indeed the Catholic Church set up the Cross back in 1972(ah yes i remember it not) and haven’t they reaped the rewards.

Now of course if we could get Jesus to transmigrate and become one with Chuck Norris then one roundhouse kick is all it would take,problem solved

pirate_taco pirate_taco 12:04 pm 25 Aug 12

Where is the evidence to support these changes?
I don’t see how lifting the $250 ATM limit on pubs and clubs with 20 or fewer machines is justified, or any other of the measures for that matter.

Glen Takkenberg
Pirate Party ACT

poetix poetix 10:33 am 25 Aug 12

johnboy said :

Remember the Liberals in the Assembly are very strongly catholic and the Southern Cross Club is also a huge pokie change.

(Oh to see Jesus let loose in those pokie dens supposedly honouring his name, the money changers in the temple would consider themselves lucky by comparison)

Here’s the Jesus for that job:
http://www.news.com.au/world-old/artist-stephen-sawyer-gives-jesus-the-chuck-norris-makeover/story-e6frfkyi-1226127197890
Turn the other cheek? I don’t think so!

Jethro Jethro 10:11 am 25 Aug 12

johnboy said :

Remember the Liberals in the Assembly are very strongly catholic and the Southern Cross Club is also a huge pokie change.

(Oh to see Jesus let loose in those pokie dens supposedly honouring his name, the money changers in the temple would consider themselves lucky by comparison)

I had no idea the Southern Cross club was linked with the Catholics. Wow you learn something new everyday.

I always figured the name was just appealing to the bogans.

Although I guess that does explain their seafood-special Friday nights!

Gungahlin Al Gungahlin Al 9:37 am 25 Aug 12

Jethro said :

Masquara said :

How did the Greens vote? Wouldn’t they have needed Greens support to get this up?

I was trying to work that out myself.

Surely the Greens would vote no on moral grounds, and the Libs would vote no because the changes will financially benefit Labor?

It was the Liberals and Labor voting together that got this through. The Greens opposed the changes.

    johnboy johnboy 9:39 am 25 Aug 12

    Remember the Liberals in the Assembly are very strongly catholic and the Southern Cross Club is also a huge pokie change.

    (Oh to see Jesus let loose in those pokie dens supposedly honouring his name, the money changers in the temple would consider themselves lucky by comparison)

Jethro Jethro 7:02 am 25 Aug 12

Masquara said :

How did the Greens vote? Wouldn’t they have needed Greens support to get this up?

I was trying to work that out myself.

Surely the Greens would vote no on moral grounds, and the Libs would vote no because the changes will financially benefit Labor?

drfelonious drfelonious 10:17 pm 24 Aug 12

Having read through the comments, the only surprising thing to me is that people are still surprised that ACT Labor is pushing through self serving policies with nary a thought to the social consequences.

Urgent Coffee required! Wake up and smell time please!

What about the fact that in the last decade ACT Labor has engineered a situation whereby the ACT has gone from one of the most affordable to the least affordable cities in Australia to buy a house? The social consequences have been profound – the old (relatively egalitarian) Canberra is gone and in its place we have a real estate agent and land developer haven built and paid for from the pockets of the working poor. The pokies policy is entirely consistent with the ACT Labor housing policy and therefore utterly unsurprising to me.

Masquara Masquara 8:49 pm 24 Aug 12

How did the Greens vote? Wouldn’t they have needed Greens support to get this up?

cranky cranky 6:53 pm 24 Aug 12

p1 said :

chewy14 said :

I don’t see anything in that legislation that’s particularly bad. In fact it looks like sensible regulation of the industry.

It just seems to me that there is very little in this announcement to benefit the community (if you believe that pokies are generally “bad” for the community). On the other hand, most of these things are good for the people who own and operate the pokies.

Alcohol and tobacco are also pretty heavily regulated. I see this announcement as the same as if Joy put out a release announcing that you no longer needed to check IDs before selling fags, or reducing RSA to “if they can stand up un-aided they can keep drinking…”.

[ok, so I exaggerated a little….]

I’m not sure you have exagerated.

Minister Burch has a vested interest in maximising the take from pokies, both from a Labor Club and Govco interest.

ACT Labor seem to have no interest in dispelling conflict of interest appearances from owning the pokie palaces, and receiving income from this source.

There is a clear conflict of interest, and it should probably be investigated by a Federal body.

Jethro Jethro 6:47 pm 24 Aug 12

p1 said :

Alcohol and tobacco are also pretty heavily regulated. I see this announcement as the same as if Joy put out a release announcing that you no longer needed to check IDs before selling fags, or reducing RSA to “if they can stand up un-aided they can keep drinking…”.

[ok, so I exaggerated a little….]

If you wonder around civic after midnight on a Friday or Saturday you will find that this is pretty much the way things operate now anyways.

Thumper Thumper 6:18 pm 24 Aug 12

p1 said :

chewy14 said :

I don’t see anything in that legislation that’s particularly bad. In fact it looks like sensible regulation of the industry.

It just seems to me that there is very little in this announcement to benefit the community (if you believe that pokies are generally “bad” for the community). On the other hand, most of these things are good for the people who own and operate the pokies.

Alcohol and tobacco are also pretty heavily regulated. I see this announcement as the same as if Joy put out a release announcing that you no longer needed to check IDs before selling fags, or reducing RSA to “if they can stand up un-aided they can keep drinking…”.

[ok, so I exaggerated a little….]

Puffin’ Billy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_gCY1qhUoE

chewy14 chewy14 4:45 pm 24 Aug 12

p1 said :

reducing RSA to “if they can stand up un-aided they can keep drinking…”.

I’m fully supportive of your policy aims.

chewy14 chewy14 4:44 pm 24 Aug 12

Jim Jones said :

chewy14 said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

chewy14 said :

I find it mildly amusing that some of the people who can be supportive of personal freedoms in areas such as drug taking are so negative when it comes to the issue of poker machines.

I support harm minimisation in both arenas

So smashing the pokies and banning ATM’s is part of your detailed harm minimisation strategy?

Smashing pokies is the most effective (and enjoyable) harm minimisation strategy I can think of.

Actually that would be pretty fun. But maybe that’s just because I like breaking stuff.

dpm dpm 4:36 pm 24 Aug 12

p1 said :

….Alcohol and tobacco are also pretty heavily regulated. I see this announcement as the same as if Joy put out a release announcing that you no longer needed to check IDs before selling fags, or reducing RSA to “if they can stand up un-aided they can keep drinking…”.

[ok, so I exaggerated a little….]

Ah, I think you’ll find these are termed ‘important reforms’….. 😉
(I love how everything is a ‘reform’ nowadays!)

p1 p1 4:27 pm 24 Aug 12

chewy14 said :

I don’t see anything in that legislation that’s particularly bad. In fact it looks like sensible regulation of the industry.

It just seems to me that there is very little in this announcement to benefit the community (if you believe that pokies are generally “bad” for the community). On the other hand, most of these things are good for the people who own and operate the pokies.

Alcohol and tobacco are also pretty heavily regulated. I see this announcement as the same as if Joy put out a release announcing that you no longer needed to check IDs before selling fags, or reducing RSA to “if they can stand up un-aided they can keep drinking…”.

[ok, so I exaggerated a little….]

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site