curious

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.

There's nothing to read between the lines I don't think Ace.

It's probably a bit too logical for them, but if they want to reduce the number of 37k per meeting costs they are spending, would it not make sense to consider reducing the number of meetings (instead of clubs and venues)? Alongside that, fix the handicapping and programming issues so that starter numbers, competitive racing and wagering revenue (though that might be difficult given the way the NZRB is going) are sustained or improved over less meetings?

Yes, there is a club compliance funding amount of up to10k, part of which is a bribe which they will save from closing clubs, but they could have just removed it to the same effect. The rest of the funding for meeting type, venue category and meeting compliance is all per meeting. They will only save that 10k per club if clubs actually close and relinquish their licences, not if they change venues, so the 35k bs is just that. Governance/audit annual payment of $10,000 per club paid upon fulfilment of club governance and audit requirement as outlined in the Funding Policy, with additional addition, one-off payment of $2,000 available upon update of Club Rules. Name change to Club compliance. Annual funding of $10,000 now divided into three components: $5,000 for annual financial reporting by 31 December 2018 $2,500 for annual track management planning $2,500 for annual Health and Safety planning. One-off payment of $2,000 for Club Rules has been removed. Some conditions of the compliance funding have been amended, see Section 13 for full details.

Thanks Reefton. That matches my non-accounting understanding. I don't actually see how even reducing the number of clubs would have the slightest impact on that cost, though they clearly are determined to do that (reduce clubs as well as venues). This is a cost per raceday, not per venue or club. I'm not now sure if they are completely thick or they think we are. Doesn't make an iota of sense to me.

Good point Freda. That's absolute nonsense and why would clubs even mention it in a submission given the same amount will be paid to the same club regardless of where they race. I don't see why that would even be an issue that clubs would consider engaging with. Reefton may be able to enlighten me. Compared with this, there were submissions which, while they may have been passionate, simply failed to engage with the issues or provide a considered argument to support their case. A lack of understanding regarding how clubs are funded, and the level of investment required by NZTR to keep 48 venues fit for purpose was also apparent. The cost to the industry to stage an average midweek race day is $37,500 (excluding stakes and RIU costs and the costs to owners of racing such as transport etc) yet we constantly read of clubs claiming not to cost the industry anything.

https://www.nzrb.co.nz/sites/default/files/documents/NZRB1845_HY_REPORT_2019_v3_0.pdf

Don't see what or who Mardi has to combat?