Monday, 1 March 2010

The Beach Hotel's Non-Compliant Plans

The web site for The Beach Hotel invites visitors to "feel free to come to the hotel and see the plans, we are happy to answer any questions you may have". I obtained a copy of plans for The Beach and they do not appear to comply with the national principles for the conduct of responsible gaming machine activity in clubs and hotels. Here's a picture of the plan:The first national principle states that minors should not be exposed to gambling areas within venues yet Mr Pertzel plans show the restaurant to be as close as possible to the pokie gambling area. While the plans do show a solid wall, they also show an open bar between the two areas and a double door. At the very best case, children in the restaurant will be exposed every time the doors open and shut. At worst, they will be left open or constructed from glass. I can only speculate whether Mr Pertzel intends to have a sign over the pokie room door promoting the presence of pokies.

Furthermore, if a family function is being held in Function 1, then people using the toilets may also be exposed to the pokie room. Adult traffic through Function 1 is likely as there is no smoking lounge self contained within the pokie area. The closest adjoins Function 1. Alternatively, smokers would walk through the restaurant to gain access to a smoking area.

I emailed Mr Pertzel using the form on The Beach Hotel's web site. Here's what I wrote:
I refer to your plans to include pokie gambling at the Beach Hotel.
These plans do not comply with the National Principles for responsible pokie gambling as your plans allow for children to be exposed to pokie gambling within the venue. You can read the principles here: http://www.jennymacklin.fahcsia.gov.au/internet/jennymacklin.nsf/content/gambling_communique_10july2009.htm
It would be helpful if you could provide information to my email address what your proposals are to comply with the national principles.
Exposure to pokie gambling is at odds with your earlier statements about The Beach being a 'family haven"
I have not gotten a response from Mr Pertzel despite providing my contact details.

I welcome the opportunity to speak or meet with Mr Pertzel to discuss his adoption of the national principles.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

i was just wondering, i have been in the hospitality industry for a number of years and have never seen your name (and i know who you are) listed as any foremost expert in responsible gaming procedures.

In fact you have nothing to do with the responsible gaming authority at all..but you endeavour to tell all and sundry that you are the local expert of gaming procedure..your a little out of your league dont you think?

I support your right to an opinon but telling everbody what you think is good for them is fascism. People have the right in this country to make their own decisions, and accept the consequences of their decisions. Its a freedom our ancestors fought for.... Its a matter of choice, ergo you dont want to play pokies, thats fine, then stay away from the place..pretty simply stuff really..What sort of a person obtains joy from organising a collective mob of people to stop a proposal that you would never visit in the first place.

You want to do something good for the community, fine. grab a bag get on the surfcoast highway and start picking up rubbish..start offering your time to local community groups that cater for the homeless and underprivilaged, get out and help meals on wheels, or the salvos.. But you wont , because their is no grandstanding in it, there is no percieved power in it, its easier to hide you face and pretend to be something your not..you remind me of the wizard of Oz.. Kids being exposed to pokies...you must be kidding, how about kids being exposed to mindless violence, drugs, alcohol abuse, child abuse etc etc etc, you want to be a crusader, well how about you crusade on these issues, something all the community will support. An issue that you can gain respect for championing, surely the issues are more important then a child seeing or hearing a pokie machine, which is in an area that they cannont enter into anyway..

Anyway, just think about being a better person in your life and make an effort to help the poor disadvantaged kids in the community, rather than telling adults what is good for them...

I have a local member, and a federal member, if i have a problem, i bring it to their attention, because they are our Elected Representitives...have you heard of them, i dont remember seeing your name on the ballot sheet, arnt they the repsonsible authority, equipped to deal with these issues? arnt these the people that the taxpayer is paying for to represent concerned citizens. We dont need rent a crowd or facist types pretending to be something their not, in an attempt to feather their own political agendas, under the guise of community do-gooders.

Anonymous said...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/pokie-crusaders-in-the-dark-on-partners-casino-fortune/story-e6frg6no-1225700239837

You must be kidding Paul...!!!

How many of your supporters know this....you hypocryte..

David said...

"telling everbody what you think is good for them is fascism"

Since when is free speech a form of fascism?

I though fascism usually involved the suppression of criticism, political dissent and general freedom of speech.

Perhaps Anonymous could choose a to live in a country where free speech is severely restricted, and so not be subject to the tyranny of despots like PokieAct.

Anonymous said...

David, as i said, having an opinion is good, forcing it onto others to support your political agenda's is another.

And whats more amusing is the owner of this blog and his family made a large amount of their own money from pokie machines!! Work that out..??

David said...

Do you think that the author of this blog dislikes other pokie venue operators pushing the ethical boundaries further than he is prepared to, to make greater profits?

If the sorts of controls apparently supported by this blog are going to benefit the broader society at the expense of personal profits, a cynical person might question the author's business sanity.

I think there is a better way to control gambling. Remove all caps controlling poker machine numbers; allow easier acquisition and entry for new players in the market, and let them operate the machines in any setting they desire, whether high or low payouts, for example -
- and let market forces determine the outcome. This might also turn the pokies into a rather passe and boring recreational activity.

No, I think poker machine operators like the controls and government legislation for a reason - fewer people make more money. For those on the outer in this game, I suppose appeals to moral authority are the next best thing.

PokieWatch said...

1. Whether or not I am an expert in responsible pokie gambling does not diminish the significance of the Federal Minister's and all state minister's statement setting out national principles for the conduct of responsible gaming machine activity in clubs and hotels. Whether Mr Pertzel chooses to comply with the national principle regarding exposing children to pokie gambling is a measure of whether his application should be approved or not.
My opinion, based upon an objective examination of his own plans that anyone can make, is that he does not intend to comply.

2. My personal life is an irrelevant consideration as to whether Mr Pertzel should be allowed to introduce pokie gambling into the family suburb of Jan Juc. However, I spent Friday, Saturday, and Sunday last week providing volunteer assistance to a state government sponsored gambling rehabilitation programme. The objective was to re-introduce pokie gambling addicts back into a normal social environment.


3. Regarding substantial inaccuracies in The Australian news report, please refer to my post under my Don't Poke Jan Juc blog.

4. Given the already harmful nature of pokies, David's suggestions run contrary to the draft findings of the Productivity Commission. Those findings were reached based upon over 10 years of consideration of this issue.

Anonymous said...

Your personal life on this subject is very relevant because of the fact that your family is a direct beneficiary of the spoils of pokies. You keep taking the high ground in an attempt to mask this fact and to divert attention from your hypocrisy.
As stated by another previously, you have no credibility, unlike Mr. Pertzel who has simply turned a disgrace into an asset for Jan Juc, and has now put forward a proposal for consideration by those elected to do so.
You and Mr. Ham should follow this lead and have faith that if your opinion is so blatantly correct, that surely the authorities will agree, rather than vandalising the community that you claim to care for and personally slandering a guy that is putting his hard earned back into Jan Juc.
You want to do something constructive and show all how much you care for the community that you don't live in and have probably never been to, then how about putting forward a commercially viable suggestion for the proposed site that is currently nothing more than an overgrown paddock.
Maybe Daddy could buy it for you, and you and Mr. Ham could plant trees and put up stickers on your own property?

Anonymous said...

mmm...one year on, and the world did not end because Pokies were kept out of Jan Juc. The pub is still operating, although many locals swore off the place after the pokies debacle.