curious Posted April 20, 2019 Share Posted April 20, 2019 52 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: The DIA has but no one has listened. Perhaps they need to get people involved who can not only count but also read? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted April 20, 2019 Author Share Posted April 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, curious said: Perhaps they need to get people involved who can not only count but also read? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted April 20, 2019 Share Posted April 20, 2019 (edited) 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. Edited April 20, 2019 by curious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted April 20, 2019 Author Share Posted April 20, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted April 20, 2019 Author Share Posted April 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, curious said: 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. Orangutans are Apes not Monkeys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted April 20, 2019 Share Posted April 20, 2019 1 hour ago, Freda said: I'm getting the feeling from this, that the members of MAC and also those Cabinet personnel, didn't bother to check the figures that were given to them by NZRB, but just accepted them. That I find disappointing, given the [ supposed ] quality of the people concerned. I hope that Treasury - and the DIA - apply more diligent scrutiny. Might have just been a typo in the paper? Possibly was meant to read .24 million, not 24 million? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted April 20, 2019 Share Posted April 20, 2019 17 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: Orangutans are Apes not Monkeys. I was hoping someone would correct me on this topic sooner or later. Thanks. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reefton Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 Curious thanks for the analysis and obviously a lot of hard work has gone into digesting the report. I have finally had my first decent look today and am pretty concerned at their plans to get around the course and assets seizure issue. From what I read they plan to put any club which loses its venue into administration and effectively seize these assets so they can use them to prop up the deadbeat big clubs and their failing infrastructure. Am I right in reading it that way? I must say I no longer have the concentration to go through the entire thing but obviously have a close interest in that part. If I am right it is a particularly slimey way around the obvious issue I dined out out on over the Messara report - in that the original proposal had to mean all clubs had all their assets vested into the control of the governing authority. Now they are saying once the relevant authority decided a club are no longer allowed to race at their venue the assets are effectively grabbed at that point. And no point in taking legal action(unless the Committee or Members fund it themselves) because the ‘administrator’ is going to to knock that on the head quick smart. It will be interesting to see how the Incorporated Societies Act is to be overridden to allow an outside party to gain control of a Society’s assets when it is still(in most cases) a going concern. Or are racing clubs to be taken out of the Incorporated Societies Act umbrella and given their own Act to facilitate this? One of the major planks of Reefton DIA submission was a question as to how the overriding of the Incorporated Societies Act(pretty much a core piece of NZ law) by the Racing Act was to be tolerated. Just on the GST Act question(which to be fair I had not thought of but which of course would hook outside gaming agencies turning over more than $60000 in NZ) they will be paying GST on their net revenue not the gross of course(and that info, if the IRD provides it of course, would indicate pretty much exactly how much is being wagered by NZ punters with offshore agencies). interested in your comments Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reefton Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 And to be fair about the GST they pay if the Aussie (and I assume most of them are Aussie gaming outlets) GST legislation is like ours - and I believe it is - then they will not be paying GST over there. That is the income will be being treated(in Aussie) as export income upon which GST is zero rated. So while yes they are paying GST on NZ wagering to the NZ IRD they are almost certainly not paying GST on that income to the Aussie IRS. So at the end of the day it would balance out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freda Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 5 hours ago, Reefton said: Curious thanks for the analysis and obviously a lot of hard work has gone into digesting the report. I have finally had my first decent look today and am pretty concerned at their plans to get around the course and assets seizure issue. From what I read they plan to put any club which loses its venue into administration and effectively seize these assets so they can use them to prop up the deadbeat big clubs and their failing infrastructure. Am I right in reading it that way? I must say I no longer have the concentration to go through the entire thing but obviously have a close interest in that part. Ok....then Hokitika [ for example ] cannot now race at their own track, but have been directed to race at Greymouth. Does the asset seizure still apply while the club itself is still viable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 5 hours ago, Reefton said: Just on the GST Act question(which to be fair I had not thought of but which of course would hook outside gaming agencies turning over more than $60000 in NZ) they will be paying GST on their net revenue not the gross of course(and that info, if the IRD provides it of course, would indicate pretty much exactly how much is being wagered by NZ punters with offshore agencies). interested in your comments 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 (edited) 6 hours ago, Reefton said: Curious thanks for the analysis and obviously a lot of hard work has gone into digesting the report. I have finally had my first decent look today and am pretty concerned at their plans to get around the course and assets seizure issue. From what I read they plan to put any club which loses its venue into administration and effectively seize these assets so they can use them to prop up the deadbeat big clubs and their failing infrastructure. Am I right in reading it that way? I must say I no longer have the concentration to go through the entire thing but obviously have a close interest in that part. 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? Edited April 21, 2019 by curious 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reefton Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 49 minutes ago, Freda said: Ok....then Hokitika [ for example ] cannot now race at their own track, but have been directed to race at Greymouth. Does the asset seizure still apply while the club itself is still viable? Westland was exactly the Club that worried me. I understand they have $400k in the bank and still own the course which will be worth some money depending how they elect to dispense with it. A real decent boot fair in the guts for a bunch or tireless workers on that committee to not only close their course but then NZTR stick their hand out for everything they have accumulated. How in God’s name anyone could say that is fair is totally beyond me. McKenzie and his cohorts should be hanging their heads in shame at even suggesting it but great behaviour seems to be the norm these days. Having said that this legislation will not be through by Christmas and by the time it is Westland may have given up(they tell me morale is pretty low among what is a geriatric committee) and carried out a special meeting to change their status. But in five years time we will be staring down the same barrel though we don’t have any money so not the same potential for money grubbing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reefton Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 10 minutes ago, curious said: 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? Page 20 and pages 101 to 105. If you haven’t picked it up I hope to hell I have misinterpreted what they are saying. It sickens me because my only hope when the Messara report came out was that the big Clubs would have to turn over their assets as well on the basis of consistency and that the kickback from that would stop the idea in its tracks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reefton Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 9 minutes ago, Reefton said: Westland was exactly the Club that worried me. I understand they have $400k in the bank and still own the course which will be worth some money depending how they elect to dispense with it. A real decent boot fair in the guts for a bunch or tireless workers on that committee to not only close their course but then NZTR stick their hand out for everything they have accumulated. How in God’s name anyone could say that is fair is totally beyond me. McKenzie and his cohorts should be hanging their heads in shame at even suggesting it but great behaviour seems to be the norm these days. Having said that this legislation will not be through by Christmas and by the time it is Westland may have given up(they tell me morale is pretty low among what is a geriatric committee) and carried out a special meeting to change their status. But in five years time we will be staring down the same barrel though we don’t have any money so not the same potential for money grubbing. Too late to edit that but that ‘great’ word in the middle of the last line first para should be ‘greasy’. Effing spell check! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 5 minutes ago, Reefton said: Page 20 and pages 101 to 105. If you haven’t picked it up I hope to hell I have misinterpreted what they are saying. It sickens me because my only hope when the Messara report came out was that the big Clubs would have to turn over their assets as well on the basis of consistency and that the kickback from that would stop the idea in its tracks. OK. You are reading something different from me. None of the 3 recent cabinet papers are more than 16 pages. What are you actually reading? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 OK Reefton. Gotcha now. You are referring to the February MAC report. However, on p.20 it says " The committee understands and supports the principle behind this recommendation to redistribute industry assets to fund infrastructure investment at the remaining venues. But we do not believe vesting of club assets to the code is necessarily the right vehicle to achieve the outcome this recommendation is trying to achieve. " So given there is no further mention of this in the 3 subsequent cabinet papers, I'm assuming that idea has at least been shelved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reefton Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 22 minutes ago, curious said: OK Reefton. Gotcha now. You are referring to the February MAC report. However, on p.20 it says " The committee understands and supports the principle behind this recommendation to redistribute industry assets to fund infrastructure investment at the remaining venues. But we do not believe vesting of club assets to the code is necessarily the right vehicle to achieve the outcome this recommendation is trying to achieve. " So given there is no further mention of this in the 3 subsequent cabinet papers, I'm assuming that idea has at least been shelved. Shit so I am! Just downloaded the doc from the DIA website based on the original link at the start of the thread. Didn’t look at the date. They are bloody tiresome these reports - I don’t know why they just cannot be clear and concise in what they are saying(and I acknowledge that the accounting profession is the worst exponent of them all in that regard) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weasel Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Reefton said: Too late to edit that but that ‘great’ word in the middle of the last line first para should be ‘greasy’. Effing spell check! You may have also also mean money grabbing?! Still, money grubbing works almost as well. Bawsteds all the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reefton Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 Just now, Weasel said: You may have also also mean money grabbing?! Still, money grubbing works almost as well. Bawsteds all the same. Grubbing was the word I intended there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 (edited) There seem to be a few 'G' words involved here. Another one aside from grub and grab is gambling which appears to be liberally interpreted. Aside from anything else, the cabinet estimate of returns from the PoC tax is based as follows (see note 6, Cabinet paper #3). “The NZRB’s estimate for the POC charge is derived from anonymised credit card data from ANZ (which accounts for approximately one-third of the New Zealand credit card market) which categorises transactions by New Zealanders through a gambling Merchant code which enabled them to identify which deposits were with offshore betting providers.” If you go look at those codes you will see that deposits to racing and sports wagering providers are conflated with online casinos, lotteries etc. https://www.anz.com/Documents/Business/CommercialCard/Merchant_cateogry_codes_control.pdf 7995 Betting, including Lottery Tickets, Casino Gaming Chips, Off-Track Betting and Wagers at Race Tracks Are they suggesting that racing should be entitled to a PoC tax on NZ resident spending via online lotteries, casinos etc? 'Cos that brings us back from Gambling to Grubbing and Grabbing doesn't it? Of course this might partially explain why their estimate of NZ resident overseas betting spend or turnover is 50% higher than their internal spend. Edited April 21, 2019 by curious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curious Posted April 21, 2019 Share Posted April 21, 2019 I'm not an accountant like you Reefton so I'll let you crunch the numbers but this is what the DIA RIS on the original bill had to say about the matter. 1. For comparison, the Inland Revenue Department estimated in its RIS for GST on cross‑border services and intangibles that around 100 offshore suppliers would register voluntarily to pay GST (over 80 had registered as of December 2016), leading to an estimated net gain in revenue of up to $40 million per annum. Now that's the total based on 15% of revenue for that range of services but cabinet and the MAC now think that 2% of turnover on the wagering component of that will amount to $24m. Please help me understand this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holy ravioli Posted May 6, 2019 Share Posted May 6, 2019 any viable track needs to construct a lease to a separate entity ,preferably quite a long term one and deal with any ramifications on the basis of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent54 Posted May 28, 2019 Share Posted May 28, 2019 Did anyone else watch the debate in Parliament yesterday on the Racing Reform Bill? So called friend of the industry, National MP, Ian McKelvie talked about the Racing Season commencing on 1 July. The overall lack of knowledge from some MPs was embarrassing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomass Posted June 4, 2019 Share Posted June 4, 2019 McKelvie's family friends with Dame Julie Christale too isn't he? Maybe that's how he got the job...after she introduced him to a day out? BTW...Winnie's celebrating 40 years in Parliament today! What a stunning contribution! Soon his legacy will be cemented with the Racing Industry A Bronze plaque at HQ alongside Sunline...both Champions! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.