Racing Amendment Bill

[curious]

 

13 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Where did Dillon come up with the nonsense about the delay in the legislation costing us $1m a month?  In my opinion the delay is a saviour and hopefully gives them some time to do some decent analysis.  What do you think Curious?

I replied to the above in the Messara thread but perhaps somewhat glibly. I thought the subject may be worthy of its own thread. The above Bill which had its first reading last August is currently in select committee with the Primary Production Committee due to report back to parliament in July 2018. Interestingly that is immediately subsequent to the due date for John Messara's report.

The bill proposes two charges for overseas operators, a consumption charge and an information use charge. There seems little issue with the latter except how and at what level the minister sets fees for that. Currently, it would generate only a small amount of revenue which I think operators will be happy to pay assuming the fees are fairly set.

The consumption charge however, is way more complicated.

In direct response to your question, estimates of the quantum of that vary widely and as I noted the DIA itself is not convinced of the NZRB figures and rightly so in my view. The legality of such a tax has also been called into question.

Sportsbet's submission for example says:

The Bill, if enacted in its present form, will :

(a) Have an overall detrimental impact on the New Zealand racing industry;

and

(b) Violate New Zealand’s international trade agreement obligations, including the New Zealand–Australia Closer Economic Relations Agreement, Protocol on Trade in Services (CER Services Protocol).

Sportsbet is concerned that the provisions contained in the Bill are anti-competitive and protectionist in nature. We believe they constitute arbitrary and unjustifiable discrimination against offshore

betting operators and therefore breach New Zealand’s obligations in the CER Services Protocol.

With respect to the quantum of that and your question though Chief Stipe, The DIA Regulatory Impact Statement concludes:

Conversely, the proposal that offshore gambling operators pay a charge when they take bets from people in New Zealand is not recommended. This option is considered to carry a higher risk of non-compliance than the information use charge. The projections for the possible revenue from this charge, while based on the best available information, are subject to large margins for error.

This means that there is a chance that the returns could vary significantly from what has been predicted and could end up being lower than the cost of administering the charge.

https://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/Files/Racing-Amendment-Bill-Regulatory-Impact-Statement/$file/Regulatory-Impact-Statement-Offshore-racing-and-sports-betting.pdf

 

Of course the likes of Dillo who it seems can not only not count or multiply but also can't read or can't be bothered to, blithely continue, along with NZTR and the NZRB, to bandy about ridiculous and unfounded figures like the million a month without considering or reporting any kind of balanced view. Meanwhile, the NZRB are happily and quite irresponsibly spending that money in advance at this stage. I assume it will be part of Messara's brief to consider, comment on and make recommendations in relation to the Bill. I'm pretty confident he will come to a more sensible conclusion.

 

 

Edited April 28, 2018 by curious

[Reefton]

So Curious how does Sportsbet and other Aussie operators reconcile this 'anti competitive and protectionist' piece of legislation with the Aussie government's stopping the NZ TAB website being accessible in Australia?

Like a lot of things it seems a one way street with the Aussie were they get all the favours and NZ is on the back tit (for want of a better expression)

By way of explanation I know virtually nothing of the current Racing Act nor the proposed Racing Act - my opinion being if there is no show of being able to influence it there is no point in wasting time studying it

[Newmarket]

6 minutes ago, Reefton said:

So Curious how does Sportsbet and other Aussie operators reconcile this 'anti competitive and protectionist' piece of legislation with the Aussie government's stopping the NZ TAB website being accessible in Australia?

Like a lot of things it seems a one way street with the Aussie were they get all the favours and NZ is on the back tit (for want of a better expression)

By way of explanation I know virtually nothing of the current Racing Act nor the proposed Racing Act - my opinion being if there is no show of being able to influence it there is no point in wasting time studying it

Aussie probably don’t see it like that.N Z  TAB take more money from Aus racing, dogs, harness & sport, than they do on nz products. In a way, they should feel lucky they have strong aus products to bet on. 

[Rowley Mile]

I've only been back in Oz for a month, in that time I've asked around the traps re NZ racing......the consensus is thus, no one here gives a flying f#%^ if NZ racing collapses or not.....or whatever......they do know, most of them, that racing in NZ is in dire straights, the common question to me is ''how did it get to this''.......if only I knew, apathy, misinformation maybe, closeted reporting.....but whatever, our company has a motto, a mantra we try to live by.....it's not the problem, it's how you fix the problem.......I know JM will do what he can, my fear is his report will go into the too hard basket.......I hope it's not too late for all you good bastards, for us it was.

[curious]

31 minutes ago, Reefton said:

So Curious how does Sportsbet and other Aussie operators reconcile this 'anti competitive and protectionist' piece of legislation with the Aussie government's stopping the NZ TAB website being accessible in Australia?

Like a lot of things it seems a one way street with the Aussie were they get all the favours and NZ is on the back tit (for want of a better expression)

By way of explanation I know virtually nothing of the current Racing Act nor the proposed Racing Act - my opinion being if there is no show of being able to influence it there is no point in wasting time studying it

That's because the gambling legislative structures are quite different in both countries Reefton. Oz licenses operators who then pay Australian taxes etc. The NZ TAB was taking bets directly from Australian customers at an unfair competitive advantage to those licensed operators. The NZTAB can obtain a licence to operate in Australia on a level playing field with Australian licensed operators if they choose.

NZ on the other hand does not allow OZ operators to be licensed and therefore advertise here. However, NZ customers may bet with Oz operators which currently have an unfair competitive advantage as they do not pay NZ betting duty, fees for the use of NZ racing and sports information, problem gambling fees etc. The intention of the Amendment Bill is to level that playing field by charging either an information use charge and/or another consumption charge (they already pay NZ GST), for bets taken from NZ customers.

Hope that makes sense.

[Portfolio]

Curious, 

So you think nz tab should be paid when I bet with an Aussie Corp, on aus product? 

[curious]

No.

[Reefton]

34 minutes ago, curious said:

That's because the gambling legislative structures are quite different in both countries Reefton. Oz licenses operators who then pay Australian taxes etc. The NZ TAB was taking bets directly from Australian customers at an unfair competitive advantage to those licensed operators. The NZTAB can obtain a licence to operate in Australia on a level playing field with Australian licensed operators if they choose.

NZ on the other hand does not allow OZ operators to be licensed and therefore advertise here. However, NZ customers may bet with Oz operators which currently have an unfair competitive advantage as they do not pay NZ betting duty, fees for the use of NZ racing and sports information, problem gambling fees etc. The intention of the Amendment Bill is to level that playing field by charging either an information use charge and/or another consumption charge (they already pay NZ GST), for bets taken from NZ customers.

Hope that makes sense.

But surely the NZ TAB has to pay NZ duty in its overseas wagering income (in the same way the Aussie outlets pay licence fees and taxes or whatever over there).  One way or another there must be an almost even playing field otherwise how would comingling work?  The deductions must be compable on both totes.

I'm afraid that from where I am sitting it looks like Aussie's simply wanting to use the NZ product and not pay for it in the same way the NT bookies didn't want to pay before their race fields legislation.  Though given the comparatively unattractive product we have to offer I could see them simply dumping NZ racing.

The only options to generate more revenue from our own system is to either allow local competition or to cut takeout rates here( and that one would hope would be a major plank of the Messara report being cutting costs to improve returns)The Aussie's would soon find ways to bet on the NZTAB if the divs were more competitive.

At the moment having had a bit of close up Aussie exposure in the last few weeks I am thinking my best option is to take a share in a Darby or Dynamic syndications horse(God knows their ads infest social media)and race for the good dosh over there.  Running fourth and sixth over there and getting $A72k in stakes seems a bit better return than in available in little old NZ.

[Chief Stipe]

Curious - Aussie betting operators do pay for NZ information.  They either pay for the form information or create their own.  At least one NZ publication actually pays an Australian organisation for NZ form and field feeds.

[Rowley Mile]

48 minutes ago, Reefton said:

But surely the NZ TAB has to pay NZ duty in its overseas wagering income (in the same way the Aussie outlets pay licence fees and taxes or whatever over there).  One way or another there must be an almost even playing field otherwise how would comingling work?  The deductions must be compable on both totes.

I'm afraid that from where I am sitting it looks like Aussie's simply wanting to use the NZ product and not pay for it in the same way the NT bookies didn't want to pay before their race fields legislation.  Though given the comparatively unattractive product we have to offer I could see them simply dumping NZ racing.

The only options to generate more revenue from our own system is to either allow local competition or to cut takeout rates here( and that one would hope would be a major plank of the Messara report being cutting costs to improve returns)The Aussie's would soon find ways to bet on the NZTAB if the divs were more competitive.

At the moment having had a bit of close up Aussie exposure in the last few weeks I am thinking my best option is to take a share in a Darby or Dynamic syndications horse(God knows their ads infest social media)and race for the good dosh over there.  Running fourth and sixth over there and getting $A72k in stakes seems a bit better return than in available in little old NZ.

There are a few trainers here in Oz that sell 'partnerships' in their purchases ......no mark ups, no monthly Mangement fees etc.....deal direct with man at the coal face....perfect example, Mick Price, or Nigel Blackiston.....others too, I'd much rather deal with the trainer who has stumped up his own hard earned, put his nackers on the line so to speak. Darby, Triple Crown, they do a great job for the industry and their recent results speak for themselves, but nothing beats direct contact. IMO.

[curious]

3 hours ago, Reefton said:

But surely the NZ TAB has to pay NZ duty in its overseas wagering income (in the same way the Aussie outlets pay licence fees and taxes or whatever over there).  One way or another there must be an almost even playing field otherwise how would comingling work?  The deductions must be compable on both totes.

Yes, that's true for the TABs. NZTab pay a fee to Oz for bets taken on Australian product and vice-versa.

[mardigras]

7 hours ago, Reefton said:

I'm afraid that from where I am sitting it looks like Aussie's simply wanting to use the NZ product and not pay for it in the same way the NT bookies didn't want to pay before their race fields legislation. 

I don't think they would have a problem paying for using NZ product - at a realistic level of race fields fees (just like the TABs do). They didn't have a problem paying race field fees either. More the largely moronic approach of V'landys that they opposed - and in my view, rightfully so.

If offshore bookies stop taking bets from NZers or on NZ racing - what makes anyone think the NZ TAB would obtain that business. 

[Reefton]

31 minutes ago, mardigras said:

I don't think they would have a problem paying for using NZ product - at a realistic level of race fields fees (just like the TABs do). They didn't have a problem paying race field fees either. More the largely moronic approach of V'landys that they opposed - and in my view, rightfully so.

If offshore bookies stop taking bets from NZers or on NZ racing - what makes anyone think the NZ TAB would obtain that business. 

Clearly the NZ TAB needs to become more competitive and that is one of the things Messara can and hopefully will address. Some of the takeouts on the NZ TAB  are a scandal aren't they?

[curious]

7 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Curious - Aussie betting operators do pay for NZ information.  They either pay for the form information or create their own.  At least one NZ publication actually pays an Australian organisation for NZ form and field feeds.

No they don't and I didn't think that Reefton's question was about publications but about betting operators. Of course there is an arrangement with the respective TABs in each country where those operators do pay. But for example Betfair Australia arranges bets on NZ racing but pays nothing for racefields information (even though they offered to 10 years ago but the NZRB didn't want their money). The likes of Sportsbet and Crownbet who also take bets on NZ racing don't either, although the latter have a commercial arrangement with NZ Rugby where they do pay them directly for relevant sporting information on NZ events which they offer a market on.

[mardigras]

6 minutes ago, Reefton said:

Clearly the NZ TAB needs to become more competitive and that is one of the things Messara can and hopefully will address. Some of the takeouts on the NZ TAB  are a scandal aren't they?

They are. I would drop them to between 10% and 12% on NZ racing events. Get out of commingling, get out of fixed odds and set racefield fees at 30% of market profit (not turnover) from other betting providers on NZ events. Others could do the same back, but that shouldn't be a concern since we should be focusing on NZ racing income and wanting to shift focus on to our industry.

[Newmarket]

40 minutes ago, mardigras said:

I don't think they would have a problem paying for using NZ product - at a realistic level of race fields fees (just like the TABs do). They didn't have a problem paying race field fees either. More the largely moronic approach of V'landys that they opposed - and in my view, rightfully so.

If offshore bookies stop taking bets from NZers or on NZ racing - what makes anyone think the NZ TAB would obtain that business. 

Storm in a tea cup. Seriously, Aussie operators won’t be making a bundle of nz racing. 

Lets face it, for 30 odd years the tab screwed me, didn’t have another option. 

They dictated what odds I took, what bet types I could take, tab branch hours, how I withdrew, how I deposit, what I could bet on, what live sports events before suspending again, what hours I could bet etc etc. They had a monopoly!! Did they run promos for their regular punters 5 years ago? NO. Did they try to compete 5 years ago. NO. 

But they run them now , after losing a heap of punters, trying to get them back. 

Theres an old saying, You made your bed, you lie in it!

[mardigras]

3 minutes ago, Newmarket said:

Storm in a tea cup. Seriously, Aussie operators won’t be making a bundle of nz racing. 

I'd agree. I expect there is little if anything to be made there. Peanuts.

[The Crucible]

Nice to see a discussion with 16 or 17 posts without anyone resorting to swearing or personal abuse, and without anyone having to prove that they're the smartest person in NZ racing (or in fact tell everyone that they're the smartest person in NZ racing).

 

[Reefton]

33 minutes ago, The Crucible said:

Nice to see a discussion with 16 or 17 posts without anyone resorting to swearing or personal abuse, and without anyone having to prove that they're the smartest person in NZ racing (or in fact tell everyone that they're the smartest person in NZ racing).

 

What are you saying about the whanau?

(You are welcome to be honest as I do not offend easily)

[The Crucible]

Used to work with a guy who was very intelligent and constantly wanted/needed people to know this.

Another colleague suggested that we start every meeting by all agreeing that this guy was the most intelligent person in the room, so that he didn't have to spend half of the meeting trying to prove it.   Perhaps Scooby should run a poll on RC to that effect.

The difference with the guy I worked with was that he didn't have a nasty bone in his body.

[Reefton]

2 minutes ago, The Crucible said:

Used to work with a guy who was very intelligent and constantly wanted/needed people to know this.

Another colleague suggested that we start every meeting by all agreeing that this guy was the most intelligent person in the room, so that he didn't have to spend half of the meeting trying to prove it.   Perhaps Scooby should run a poll on RC to that effect.

The difference with the guy I worked with was that he didn't have a nasty bone in his body.

Right up to the last sentence  was going to ask if this guy's name was Donald(you know the one who is going to get the Nobel peace prize)

[curious]

On 29/04/2018 at 6:58 PM, mardigras said:

They are. I would drop them to between 10% and 12% on NZ racing events. Get out of commingling, get out of fixed odds and set racefield fees at 30% of market profit (not turnover) from other betting providers on NZ events. Others could do the same back, but that shouldn't be a concern since we should be focusing on NZ racing income and wanting to shift focus on to our industry.

I generally agree. The likes of Betfair suggested 20-30% on racing and 10% on sports. The likes of Ladbrokes suggested that any charges be calculated on the same basis as GST for simplicity and efficiency. That makes sense to me.

What do you think about somehow prohibiting 'best tote' type offerings? And what about allowing complying operators the right to advertise in NZ? In other words remove the core tote business competition as far as possible but encourage legitimate betting exchange and FO operators to build revenue for NZ racing via the IUC.

[mardigras]

14 minutes ago, curious said:

I generally agree. The likes of Betfair suggested 20-30% on racing and 10% on sports. The likes of Ladbrokes suggested that any charges be calculated on the same basis as GST for simplicity and efficiency. That makes sense to me.

What do you think about somehow prohibiting 'best tote' type offerings? And what about allowing complying operators the right to advertise in NZ? In other words remove the core tote business competition as far as possible but encourage legitimate betting exchange and FO operators to build revenue for NZ racing via the IUC.

That would be along the very lines I would go to. Provide a low cost operation(tote only) as the core business. Free up the opportunity for betting operators to run a legitimate business here and simply restrict the basis on which they can price their product. Charge them appropriately and by virtue of a low takeout rate tote model, endeavour to build that to a level of size that makes betting into it attractive. Will involve a period of pain. Short term pain versus continual pain to the point of non-existence.

[curious]

I see that Queensland is busy debating the introduction of a Point of Consumption tax (15% probably) similar to that proposed in the NZ bill but opposed by the DIA. I note that both South Australia (15%) and Victoria (8%) have already legislated this.

https://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/superracing/qld-racing/the-verdict-point-of-consumption-tax-debate-highlights-queensland-racings-dire-need-of-new-funds/news-story/20ee305ecdc38204e8ce23baac0022fa

It will be interesting to see how this affects wagering market pricing and turnover and how the NT bookies manage it. Will they price markets differently for customers from no or lower PoC jurisdictions, for example?  Might this drive the growth of the offshore bitcoin type anonymous wagering providers?

Any thoughts or comments?

 

Edited June 3, 2018 by curious

[barryb]

Didn’t Victoria recently increase or propose to increase?