Friday, 19 March 2010

Victoria's Gambling Commission Sucks

Here is an extraordinary statement from Victoria's gambling commission demonstrating that it is out of touch with local communities and its members unfit to hear any further pokie gambling license applications. The statement is taken from the 15 March 2010 decision regarding the Laurimer Tavern in Whittlesea.
91. It will provide a modern Tavern with a range of entertainment facilities which are not available at present, and which a new and growing residential area is entitled to expect. It is consistent with the Council’s Strategic Development Plans for the suburb. The gaming room will be part of the overall facility which is a common feature of similar developments in the newer suburbs of Melbourne.
No facts were cited by the Commission in this decision that supports a finding that pokie gambling is something that "a new and growing residential area is entitled to expect". This is a statement that demonstrates clear bias.

It should be noted that Whittlesea Council opposed this application and spent a considerable amount in support of its position. The finding that the Council's opposition is inconsistent with its own plan can be easily ascertained.

Finally, simply because this same Commission has granted pokie gambling licenses in other areas is no justification for granting this license. In other cases the Council may have supported those applications upon criterion that would no longer apply. For example, pokie venue licenses granted in shopping centres and many strip malls that would no longer be permitted.

Each application must be treated upon its merits. These statements of predisposition by members of the Victorian Gambling Commission are grounds for dismissing the Commissioners involved with this decision.

1 comment:

Banpokies1 said...

I absolutely agree with that comment. I would also like to know how any net community benefit can ever be obtained by a pokies venue's addition to the landscape of a town. A pokies venue is increasingly getting to be 'on the nose' for too many people. The 'meaning' of the town changes...mostly downwards. That cannot be formally is it considered? It can make or break tourism!

The pokies' industry habit of employing only 3-4 people for every $million spent by consumers, as against retail that employs 6-20 people per $million, would no doubt affect many or all towns negatively? No wonder we are told that with pokies gone, that we could halve our unemployment! How van pokies ever be a plus with those sorts of figures?

Add to that the fact that every poker machine brings almost one new gambling addict, not to mention the 'at risk' overspenders as well...then times that number by 7 and that is one huge lot of citizens, adversely affected by pokies.

The tests for net costs / benefits need much reviewing I believe.

VCAT also needs to be more than a 'rough justice rubber stamping joint' also. It is over-used, to get justice for too few people.