Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Outdoor pokies luring hopeless addicts to Quangers?

johnboy 21 December 2010 43

Casino City Times has the strange news that Canberra’s licensed clubs want a tax cut because Queanbeyan has outdoor poker machines.

At these outdoor poker machines the gambling addicts can also smoke, and no doubt drink.

Apparently this is costing the locals $4.2 million which the ACT taxpayer must cough up or risk losing crappy bistros and wall to wall plasma screens.


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
43 Responses to
Outdoor pokies luring hopeless addicts to Quangers?
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
JustThinking 1:46 pm 25 Dec 10

Hiyas,
I’ve only noticed 2 clubs in Queanbeyan with outside pokies. (I’ve not been to the other clubs though)
Summer isn’t too bad as long as the sun isn’t glaring off the screen but winter sure sucks.
My query is “do we know how many people are supposed to be flocking to these outside pokies across the border?”
I cannot imagine it would be enough to complain about..
Geesh the Clubs would only have about 20outside machines(each) and most days a few of them aren’t working.
Any time I’ve been to the club there is only a handful of people playing them..

Growling Ferret 12:14 pm 23 Dec 10

Shadow Boxer

GLGC is build on three floodways and a power easement. Very little of the actual course land would be suitable for housing.

And JB, how is not maintaining a public golf course subsidised through revenue from poker machines making a contribution to the community? You are providing a recreational facility for the public, a green belt in an overcrowded suburban area, and a club facility for families to eat, drink and be merry.

p1 10:23 am 23 Dec 10

Yeh, its all good, the Labor club thing makes me a little uncomfortable as well, licenced clubs should be rsstricted to legitimate sporting and arts clubs. Not political parties or generic clubs like Kaleen sports club or the City club.

This is pretty much how I feel. I think the spirit of the restriction of pokies to sporting and community clubs is broken by ownership by political parties, or mega-club organisations.

shadow boxer 2:56 am 23 Dec 10

Yeh, its all good, the Labor club thing makes me a little uncomfortable as well, licenced clubs should be rsstricted to legitimate sporting and arts clubs. Not political parties or generic clubs like Kaleen sports club or the City club.

Skidbladnir 10:19 pm 22 Dec 10

1) They’re not members’ profits, they’re Club Group profits raised on behalf of members.

2) I don’t particularly campaign for anything, but it gets harder to like the gaming recipients and the Club sector the more you look into these things.
As I have said in many other threads, there just isn’t near enough local analysis on the industry that provides so much cash directly to ACT Labor party, and the local Club Group that constitutes half of the Labor Party’s asset base.

Either local journos and media lift their game, or they can leave it to the curious amateurs who are willing to put in the effort.

shadow boxer 9:26 pm 22 Dec 10

@JB, I was going with post 10 here http://the-riotact.com/did-i-hear-right-stanhope-defending-the-pokies/27283 but looking back that is not what you said, my apologies.

I’ve had great time at my local club over the past couple of weeks, went to the kids christmas party. played golf, had lunch, won a ham, caught up with my friends etc.

I am also quite pleased that my local club plays such a big part in the Gungshlin community and has been in Canberra supporting junior sport since it was established 80 years ago.

I understand it’s not everybodies cup of tea and that the rest of the community feels it deserves a cut of the members profits(and i’m not going to change your mind) so I’ll move on and let you and skid continue the campaign.

Merry Christmas and hope I didn’t offend anyone.

Growling Ferret 8:52 pm 22 Dec 10

I am more than happy for the chronic gamblers to subsidise my sporting clubs and teams.

Thanks!

Skidbladnir 8:25 pm 22 Dec 10

Shadow Boxer:
I note you’re being heavily reliant on only ClubsACT for your information, and just cut-and-pasting from sources I’d read long before you decided to join the debate, without adding any value by doing your own analysis or even applying critical reasoning.

Hints:
Single source debates are boring and biased, but reek of lazy research and argument.
ClubsACT’s webpages are mostly very outdated, and hide behind their fair share of weaseling.
The return-to-player they cite would need to be verified (since they’re legally allowed to return less than that) before I’d trust it beyond seeing it as a “Well, it makes the aand of expected values easier when I check their claims” source.

They’re unashamedly a lobby group and it is easy enough to recognise that, they really don’t bother to hide it.
Try to be aware of how they operate.

However, if you have a valid criticism of the linked article, any points you want me to bear in mind on the next version, or argument that will withstand scrutiny, I’ll take it on board.

shadow boxer 7:58 pm 22 Dec 10

@hells bells74

I’ll post the text if it helps

Secondly, clubs are required by law to contribute at least 7% of Net Gaming Machine Revenue (NGMR) to eligible community recipients. To arrive at a NGMR figure, taxes and the administrative cost of running gaming are deducted from the GGMR. The ACT Government estimates a notional amount equivalent to 15% of GGMR is needed to run gaming operations – or 1.5 cents. This is probably on the low side. This brings the notional NGMR figure in at 5.4 cents (after deducting the 3.1 cents tax and 1.5 cents attributed to gaming on-costs from the 10 cents).

In fact clubs have consistently contributed well over the legislated amount of 7% in recent years. The discretionary element has ranged from 5% to 7%, taking the average overall level of community contributions to over 12%.

Following the deduction of legislated (7%) and discretionary (say 5%) community contributions of 0.38 cents and 0.27 cents respectively, clubs are left with an amount of 6.25 cents out of the 10 cents to run the club.

Thirdly, from this amount clubs pay wages, buy goods and services, provide training, offer member services, conduct marketing, service their debt etc. Any leftover revenue (or surplus) is used by clubs to accommodate depreciation and undertake new developments, improve member services, build new facilities – or generally to maintain and hopefully sustain their viability. None of the money is paid out in dividends to privateers or individuals.

Of course the level of any surplus varies widely between individual clubs depending on their circumstances. In a reasonable year, it is estimated that overall club sector surplus will be about 5%, but under the current tough trading environment 2.5% or even less is more likely.

I still dont see why anti-pokie people think it a good idea to tax them more, higher community contributions maybe but that will directly effect the quality of the club.

Then again I dont understand why someone would be a member of a club, hate pokies and not get involved in the AGM and try to influence the direction of the club. You could always form your own club without pokies I suppose.

shadow boxer 7:50 pm 22 Dec 10

@ JB

Dude, i know you own this place so I’n probably on shaky grounds but your example has nothing to do with plasma tv’s. The list you posted looks like a perfectly reasonable list of community facilities drawn up by the impartial umpire.

Your vague allegation remains unsubstantiated much like your previous post in the other pokies thread that Directors were taking them home to their lounge rooms.

which one is it you find so objectionable ?

    johnboy 8:52 pm 22 Dec 10

    Want to link to that thread shadow boxer? I don’t recall making that claim.

Hells_Bells74 7:14 pm 22 Dec 10

I was shocked and dismayed to read the annual report for the Belconnen Soccer Club. Oh my, they pay so little tax after all the deductions/promotions etc. I was shocked at how much they take off people and do whatever they like in-house with it, then it is a tiny trickle of what’s left as actual income to tax or for charities.

Made me a little green around the gills, reading it.

johnboy 6:28 pm 22 Dec 10

Here you go shadow boxer:

http://www.gamblingandracing.act.gov.au/Documents/CommunityContributions0405.pdf

Section 67, community infrastructure.

Example of eligible contributions

expenses to design, build or upgrade sporting ovals, grandstands, oval lighting, museums, art galleries, playgrounds, public car parks, parklands or gymnasiums

It also notes this list is not exhaustive. We’ve noted its use to pay for club fittings like plasma screens before, but i’ve spent enough time making up for YOUR ignorance looking this far.

shadow boxer 6:07 pm 22 Dec 10

yeh a tricky one,

I dont really know the tax system well enough to comment but i’m not sure putting more pokie money into consolidated revenue is a good result for anyone (even the anti-pokie campaigners).

Skidbladnir 5:49 pm 22 Dec 10

…ACT club industry that 80% of adult Canberrans currently enjoy…

And you seem to be misreading statistics and engaging in composition fallacy…

A – 80% of Canberra’s population are reported to be members of one or more Clubs.
B – Gaming machines are within clubs\hotels.
C – Not every Club\hotel has gaming machines.
D – All Clubs\hotels provide services other than gambling, or they are either not Clubs under ACT Law, or failing at hotelkeeping.

To gamble on a gaming machine, the player must be inside a club\hotel with machines.
Further, not every person or member present at a club\hotel plays on gaming machines.
Further, not every person who gambles enjoys it.

Skidbladnir 5:09 pm 22 Dec 10

What I’d prefer is another tax bracket, actually.
The large end of town would be the only one affected, due their near abusively large relative income to occupied tax bracket.
Or remodel the taxation and contributions system entirely, currently its screwed.

Giving a tax breaks at the level they ask is roughly equivalent to redefining the tax bracket down one notch, shifting 98.88% of the industry revenue into the bracket currently occupied by only 1% of the industry.
(Taxing at 18% instead of 21%, which is already the most favourable highest tax margin in the country)

However that would mean we were even more dependant on gaming revenue to balance the bottom line.

shadow boxer 5:07 pm 22 Dec 10

Ainslie Football and Social Club doesn’t own the golf course, it’s leased for 10 or 15 years, without Ainslie support it would be houses by now. The community organisations that have been supported in the cases you mention are the Ainslie Football Club and the Gungahlin Lakes Golf Club. Both legitimate non-profit community organisations that run at a loss and would fold without the support. They also pay for kids to have lessons at the course and for the Golf pro to visit local schools teaching golf. What’s the problem ?

I’ll ask for a third time, what are you proposing. Are you saying clubs should return more to the community or are you saying pokies should be banned because some people can’t control themselves and the best way of helping them is to shut down the ACT club industry that 80% of adult Canberrans currently enjoy ?.

They are very different issues and are somewhat mutually exclusive. I would be happy to have a friendly debate with you over it but which one are we talking about ?

I’ll ignore the plasma tv screens one unless it can be sourced.

johnboy 4:52 pm 22 Dec 10

Also the plasma screens at the Dickson Tradies were a community contribution.

Skidbladnir 4:47 pm 22 Dec 10

point me to a machavalian community contribution that is actually a “capital improvement at their club”

The increase in contributions to Community Infrastructure is attributable to one club group investing significant amounts to upgrade its football ground and Golf Course facilities.
Source: Community Contributions made by Gaming Machine Licensees 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010, available here.

The Ainslie Football Club Group did that, for reference.

rather they played the pokies though because the money goes back into the community
Only 3.8% of it is required to go back to the community as contribution. The threat of the sector dropping back to only minimum requirements and blaming the Govt is a major factor in keeping politicians on side.
(There is a strongly negative correllation between size and contribution-over-minimum, once you remove sporting clubs maintaining their base)

shadow boxer 4:09 pm 22 Dec 10

Again, whats your point apart from the fact you dont like pokies ?, what do you want to happen ?

I dont like horse racing but couldn’t care less if people want to do it, i’d rather they played the pokies though because the money goes back into the community rather than an Alice springs betting company or the UK’s Betfair. At least 80% of adult Canberrans presumably agree with me.

btw none of the articles back up JB’s claim, point me to a machavalian community contribution that is actually a “capital improvement at their club”

Skidbladnir 1:26 pm 22 Dec 10

http://the-riotact.com/this-story-is-okay-to-go-under-whatever-title-is-appropriate-once-john-embeds-or-links-to-previously-emailed-photos-as-required/13422

Hehehe. There’s another WordPress bug for you, Jb.
Anyone want to guess what the temporary submission titled was before we agreed on the current one?

PS: http://the-riotact.com/?p=13422 also works…

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site