Page 1661 - Week 06 - Thursday, 23 July 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
70s when Canberrans flocked across the border to play the pokies in Queanbeyan. In the two weeks after gaming recommenced in New South Wales, ClubsNSW reported to me that, on a per machine basis, turnover was up across the state by 89 per cent—an 89 per cent increase per machine across New South Wales. What do you reckon the Queanbeyan figure was? On a per machine basis in Queanbeyan it was up 453 per cent. Is that not staggering? You did not have to spend much time in the car park at Queanbeyan Kangaroos or the Queanbeyan Leagues Club to know that the increase was all ACT residents, with very distinctive ACT number plates.
This week it has been revealed that a large proportion of our local suburban sporting clubs fear they will become insolvent during the COVID crisis. These clubs rely heavily on our licensed clubs. If our licensed clubs do not reopen it is going to be disastrous for junior sport and all amateur sport right across Canberra. These groups do not benefit from the point of consumption gaming tax. The clubs are a lifeline for them.
I am so close to Mr Rattenbury that I can actually hear the cogs whirring in his brain and I know that he is thinking, “Hang on a second, Mr Parton; I’m not talking about closing the clubs. I am just talking about some very, very simple changes that in theory could be done at the push of a button.” Indeed, they are not as simple as Mr Rattenbury suggests and it is disappointing to see Mr Rattenbury, given his reputation for being a diligent legislator, taking a policy position which suggests that he has not fully done his homework.
Has Mr Rattenbury actually consulted the clubs to help with that homework? Does Mr Rattenbury know that when it comes to electronic gaming machine approval we piggyback off New South Wales? If we were to implement his suggestions we could no longer do that. We would have to either go it alone or piggyback off the Queensland machine approval, which has even more complications because, although the Queensland machines by and large comply with Mr Rattenbury’s suggestions, we would have to start from scratch when it comes to our EGM fleet. The cost would just be amazing.
It is fine for Mr Rattenbury to suggest that we go it alone, but that would require a new, comprehensive regulatory framework and, again, the cost would be enormous. To go it alone would impose a massively high economic cost to reconfigure the machines. As an example of the cost we are talking about, when this jurisdiction went through the $20 note receiver change, which was a seemingly minor change, that cost around $750 per machine. When you scope that out across 4,000 machines, it is three million bucks. Understand that the sector has not been turning over anything, really, for such a long period.
If machines need to be replaced, which we believe would be the case for quite a number of smaller venues who have held onto old machines, if they have to replace all their machines, we are talking about $25,000 per machine. The replacement cost in particular would hit a number of those smaller clubs who have been hanging onto those older machines and, quite clearly, costs of this level would sound their death knell. They would be gone. If the changes contained in this motion were implemented, you could say goodbye to a large section of the club sector.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video