curious

Reefton, can you please point us to where you read that? I may have missed it in the cabinet papers but just had another look and don't see any mention of club assets. They may have some crafty way of legislating around it, but as it stands, the Racing Act can not over-ride any other Act, including as you say, the Incorporated Societies Act which is what most race clubs are based on. Many clubs are involved in other equine and non-equine community activities, farming operations, various partnerships etc. So, it seems to me that if they are not happy with directions as to race dates and venues, they will simply de-register so they are not subject to the Racing Act, possibly amend their constitutions and retain their assets for the communities that created them?

Thanks Reefton. Yes, you'd think the IRD data would provide a pretty accurate figure of what is being wagered by NZ residents with overseas providers, though that may include lotteries, casinos etc. and not be separable from that. As you say though, it is based on revenue, not turnover, so would likely be a good estimate of actual expenditure and since overseas providers are already reporting it seems it would make revenue a better basis for a PoC if any, than turnover. Why the likes of cabinet and the MAC have not obtained and used/published it seems somewhat incredulous. Instead, they have used some airy fairy NZRB figures from the ANZ based on credit card deposits. How those are related to revenue or turnover is difficult to comprehend. If the MAC and cabinet can't be bothered, I may do an OIA request for that data and report back. It surely can't be considered commercially sensitive in gross. Though previous experience of OIA requests suggests they will use their full 30 days before providing anything.

I was hoping someone would correct me on this topic sooner or later. Thanks.

Might have just been a typo in the paper? Possibly was meant to read .24 million, not 24 million?

The DIA were gentle with the monkeys, eh? Probably in the interests of animal welfare? DIA believes there are reasons to be more cautious in this assumption. Lower levels of voluntary compliance would both reduce the amount of money collected by any charges and increase the cost of administering collection and enforcement.This, combined with the margins for error around the projected returns from these charges (particularly the consumption charge), means that it is not possible to state with certainty how much money might be collected and available for ultimate distribution to the New Zealand racing and sports sectors. The Minister does not wish to implement any measures that depart significantly from the options which were recommended by the Working Group. For that reason, several alternatives that may otherwise have been considered are noted in this Statement but were screened out at an early stage.

Perhaps they need to get people involved who can not only count but also read?

Thanks Freda. I'm sitting here marveling at the fact that according to cabinet paper #3 on this, the MAC, cabinet and NZRB seem to think that kiwi punters are turning over 1200 million with off shore providers while managing to turn over 2/3 of that with the NZTAB. Surely there is something amiss with the ANZ data referred to in cabinet paper number 3, or the interpretation of that, or the NZRB are wildly making things up to suit themselves. I think we need to employ people in the likes of cabinet and the MAC who can count (at least up to 100).

Aside from the Treasury comments, the MAC seems already to have largely ignored the DIA Regulatory Impact Statement which questions some of the numbers being used. Hopefully, cabinet will apply some common sense.

So, have you changed the editing time Chief? 20-30 minutes would be good. I go make a cup of coffee, see a typo in my post and then can't fix it.

Hey chief. Can we have a little more editing time here please? No worries Freda. I should say that I made those comments based only on the MAC report. I'm still wading my way through the 3 related cabinet papers. From the first however, I note a couple of things that concur with my above comments. Firstly, in relation to shedding the pokie business: I see the following comment with respect to the 1700+ submissions on the Messara report: The most significant volume of feedback received related to a sub-recommendation within the Report, which proposes removing the legal restrictions in section 33(3) of the Gambling Act 2003 that prevents the NZRB from acquiring class 4 gaming licence venues. 1 187 submissions were received, almost all of which were form-style submissions which opposed the sub-recommendation. It seems clear from that, MAC should have, or at least should be in their final report, recommending that RITA transition NZ Racing out of the pokie business in the interests of social responsibility and the image of the game. Secondly, the political risk I refer to is highlighted by the comments from Treasury. Some budget sensitive matters are blanked out but I think this comment is telling. Treasury comment 51.The proposals in this suite of papers have significant regulatory and financial implications for the Crown, the racing industry, and consumers and the public. The evidence supporting the problems identified and the case for the proposed interventions has not been presented here, so the nature and causes of the problems facing the industry are not clear. Further analysis of the problems, the intervention options, and the impacts expected would help inform Cabinet decision-making. In particular, this analysis could consider: 51.1 the risks relating to greater gambling harms as a result of the proposals, including any wider impacts on well-being; 51.2 the impacts on New Zealand consumers (gamblers), including whether they will face higher or lower costs; 51.3 the impact on overseas operators, including whether or not they may exit the New Zealand market; 51.4 the impact on the financial position of the New Zealand Racing Board; 51.5 Budget sensitive 52. Without this analysis, it is difficult to assess whether these proposals will revitalise the industry as intended or whether the industry will continue to decline (as other factors may be driving this). This needs to be done before this is further advanced and MAC need to address this in their final report.

No worries Freda. I should say that I made those comments based only on the MAC report. I'm still wading my way through the 3 related cabinet papers. From the first however, I note a couple of things that concur with my above comments. Firstly, in relation to shedding the pokie business: I see the following comment with respect to the 1700+ submissions on the Messara report: The most significant volume of feedback received related to a sub-recommendation within the Report, which proposes removing the legal restrictions in section 33(3) of the Gambling Act 2003 that prevents the NZRB from acquiring class 4 gaming licence venues. 1 187 submissions were received, almost all of which were form-style submissions which opposed the sub-recommendation. It seems clear from that, MAC should have or at least should be in their final report, recommending that RITA transition NZ Racing out of the pokie business in the interests of social responsibility and the image of the game. Secondly, the political risk I refer to is highlighted by the comments from Treasury. Some budget sensitive matters are blanked out but I think this comment is telling. Treasury comment 51.The proposals in this suite of papers have significant regulatory and financial implications for the Crown, the racing industry, and consumers and the public. The evidence supporting the problems identified and the case for the proposed interventions has not been presented here, so the nature and causes of the problems facing the industry are not clear. Further analysis of the problems, the intervention options, and the impacts expected would help inform Cabinet decision-making. In particular, this analysis could consider: 51.1 the risks relating to greater gambling harms as a result of the proposals, including any wider impacts on well-being; 51.2 the impacts on New Zealand consumers (gamblers), including whether they will face higher or lower costs; 51.3 the impact on overseas operators, including whether or not they may exit the New Zealand market; 51.4 the impact on the financial position of the New Zealand Racing Board; 51.552. Without this analysis, it is difficult to assess whether these proposals will revitalise the industry as intended or whether the industry will continue to decline (as other factors may be driving this). This needs to be done before this is further advanced and MAC need to address this in their final report.

I'm afraid the positives are only potentially positives Freda. Included though are: 1. The NZRB reverts to a wagering organisation as referred to in the report TABNZ or WageringNZ. I don't give a stuff what they call it as long as it focuses on the wagering business and stops meddling in other things like the RIU, pokies, etc. 2. The much needed review of the RIU. 3. The P&E audit, which should have been done under the current legislation anyway but another nudge won't hurt. 4. Improving requirements for governance appointments so the likes of Wagering NZ has a board dominated by wagering expertise for example. 5. The RIOEC review of whole or partial outsourcing options. It would be good if this includes outsourcing all FOB and retaining the tote business and then making it globally competitive. 6. Legislating a Racing Information Use charge. Should have been done yonks ago though won't lead to much additional net revenue, if any. Ignore the bandied figures. 7. The Industry Future Venue Plan Group which might hopefully come up with a better plan than what we've seen from NZTR so far who seem to have stupidly jumped the gun on this. It needs to be a 3 code plan. 8. The animal welfare strategies. 9. Requesting prizemoney policy information from codes that indicate a prizemoney structure that will increase participation, increases field sizes and generate revenue growth. We don't have that now. That's about it. Would have been nice to see something that was correlated with increased revenue but other than stealing from the taxpayer at considerable political risk, I don't see anything definitive.

Also see the Messara report: In this regard, arguments have been advanced that application of these charges would amount to double taxation as the wagering operators already pay GST to the New Zealand Government. It has also been suggested that it would be difficult for wagering operators to determine the location of persons placing bets with them. I note that the MAC report seems to have ignored this issue.

Yes, most anyway where turnover is more than NZ$60,000 from NZ resident customers. Paid to IRD. http://taxpolicy.ird.govt.nz/publications/2015-commentary-rlwtgstossl/supplies-remote-gambling-services Last I saw, compliance is high. See also the DIA RIS. Since October 2016, offshore operators have been subject to the requirement to register for and pay GST on qualifying supplies to New Zealand. Each offshore operator will be also be subject to taxes in its domestic jurisdiction. However, they are not required to make any payments to the New Zealand racing and sports industries, nor are they required to pay New Zealand’s betting duty or problem gambling levy

And wtf does this mean? 50% on each Code’s contribution to NZ economy. 50% of what and how the hell would that be calculated?

That said, there are at least a couple of clangers in there that may mean the whole thing never gets off the ground. I think that the PoC tax is untenable, unreasonable (since overseas bookies already pay a 15% PoC tax in the form of GST), will cause avoidance and resistance, possibly reduce revenue and be virtually impossible to enforce. Worse, it may undo the passage of Bill #1. Second, the revenue distribution proposal needs a rethink. A percentage of revenue from overseas same code events? How will it be determined which ones are offered? If they are all or mostly dogs say (assuming that is the best revenue producer for TABNZ), then the TR code won't get much will they?

Agree. Still digesting the report and at first glance it seems mostly sensible but may be too little, too late?

I wish people would stop saying that and look at the numbers. What Australian racing get back from Government is a modest proportion of what they give government. The opposite is true here and some want more from NZ taxpayers. It's bullshit and ridiculous.

Maybe two teams of different levels.

Shame on me for even suggesting that.

Dyed in the wool Crusaders fan but have a look at the TAB pricing on the Highlanders options.

Definitely doesn't. Probably not on any race run in NZ anymore. The stakes are being subsidised by sports betting, pokies, overseas racing and other codes, I'm afraid, let alone the costs of staging the event. Was different 10 or 15 years ago. Not now.

I'd walk too if my club even suggested it.

True Reefton. Though I think most club constitutions would allow them to rescind or add to their rules at a GM with a certain member majority if they decided to wind up, so it seems a bit pointless anyway and maybe you could have used the 2k usefully in the mean time. Don't think NZTR would hold the necessary half or 2/3 vote or whatever to prevent that.

Yeahhh and they've withdrawn that bribe now so too late to collect the 2 grand for giving up your community assets.