It’s to VCAT, and a tipping point for change
14 February, 2012
By Andrew McKenna
‘Born here or blown here, we all know the spirit of this place. Let’s appeal.’
- Cr Christine Henderson.
Council this evening voted to file an appeal at VCAT against the VCGR’s recent decision to grant a license to the Maryborough Highland Society for 65 gaming machines in Castlemaine. This means the Society’s bid to bring the poker machines to Castlemaine could be delayed by as much as a year. If the challenge is successful the poker machines won’t come.
‘We’re very excited about Council going to VCAT,’ said David Stretch, President of Enough Pokies in Castlemaine.
‘I think this is the most important decision that Council will ever take … I think (the feeling in the Castlemaine Town Hall) was obviously buoyant and upbeat, and when the Councillors resolved to go to VCAT there was a great cheer. And so there should be.’
Councillors spoke in turn before a packed audience at the Town Hall. The Council meeting was preceded by a community rendition of Money – that’s what I want.
I missed the early part of the proceedings because my train from Melbourne was stuck with signal failure at Taradale. I missed councillors Machin, Rewell and Redden’s contributions, but several people filled me in, notably on what Cr Rewell said. He said a man he knew (or knew of) had a gambling addiction and his wife had attacked him with an axe. He voted for the Council to appeal the VCGR’s decision.
Cr Cross, the sole dissenting voice, argued against Council funding an appeal.
‘We can’t afford to gamble ratepayers’ funds away,’ she said. She argued the appeal would have a limited chance of success.
‘The debate has run its course. Gambling is legal, along with gambling and smoking.’
She argued that the difference in Castlemaine’s case to the Jan Juc case was that we already had poker machines here.
‘Most of our ratepayers gamble responsibly. Are we willing to be seen to be gambling with ratepayers’ money on short odds?’
She said Council had ‘ignored’ 3000 signatures for the Western to be preserved, but was taking note of 1000 signatures against poker machines.
Cr Christine Henderson acknowledged that the VCGR had spoken. She acknowledged that the MHS had said it would pay $50,000 in cash to community groups and $150,000 ‘in kind’. The VCGR regarded this, along with a purported 30 new jobs, as an ‘economic benefit’, although she questioned whether the 30 jobs may be displaced from elsewhere in the community.
‘This must be weighed against the $1.7 to $2 million lost to the MHS annually,’ she said.
‘The Productivity Commission estimates that 40 per cent of of gaming revenue is from problem gamblers, so $1 million would come from problem gamblers in this community.
‘How many businesses will lose money out of the till?’
She could not accept the VCGR’s ‘economic benefit’ argument, and neither did she accept the VCGR’s notion that problem gambling would be low in Castlemaine.
‘The social effects of gambling are well known. Sixty-five more egms (electronic gaming machines) will result in more people afflicted with this addiction.
‘Born here or blown here, we all know the spirit of this place. Let’s appeal.’
Her last comment raised thunderous applause from the hall.
Cr Cropley called the vote, and Cr Cross was the sole dissenter. Cr Cropley said Council had been through a difficult process, and they had worked hard.
‘This shire doesn’t deserve to be in the place it’s in,’ she said.
‘In 2006 it named every street in the Maldon and Castlemaine CBDs as not suitable for gaming, but we could not apply that to the State Government.
‘It’s a State Government development and the State has provided the venue.
‘EPIC has the capacity to represent community issues, and it has the capacity to harness resources it needs to join us at VCAT.’
Jess Howard from EPIC explained later that only the original parties who were present at the VCGR hearing can take an appeal to VCAT. Once the appeal is being heard at VCAT, any parties, at the discretion of VCAT, can ‘join’ and present their case.
‘This was an important day and the councillors have done a great job,’ Mr Stretch said.
‘Castlemaine is a diverse community and there are many different points of view, including on this important issue. Council has always opposed this development, and they held their nerve and listened to all points of view.
‘This decision is not a popularity contest. They are making a decision on community cohesion. When we go to VCAT people on all sides of the debate will respect the umpire’s decision.’
Back in December 2010, Senator Nick Xenophon predicted that what is happening in Castlemaine will be heard in Canberra.
‘Governments have dismally failed the people, and destroyed lives,’ he said at the time.
‘Don’t underestimate your power. This is the litmus test of good government. This community, this meeting, this fight could be the tipping point for change.’
Read the archive of poker machine stories by clicking the machine
Posted in Economics, Environment, Featured slide, Featured Story, Health, Live in Castlemaine, Local news, Politics, Social Justice
February 14th, 2012 at 10:41 pm
What an extraordinary decision! It is an interesting precedent that council will effectively cover the legal bills of a lobby group who want to prevent a legal business from opening. I suspect this will be a tipping point alright, a tipping point that sees formally neutral people express their anger at the use of their rates in this manner.
February 15th, 2012 at 4:06 am
This argument doesn’t wash and is a clever but unsustainable diversion. Tom I do not use the Wesley Hill sports complex yet council commits millions of dollars and council resources to develop and maintain this and other sporting facilities. Sports bodies make convincing lobby groups. I’m a rate payer – can I get a refund for services I don’t use, support or approve of? That’s not how it works and council have acted on behalf of the community as a WHOLE.
February 15th, 2012 at 6:27 am
Tom – this decision has many parallels so while the decision is interesting it does not set a precedent.
And only an emotionally driven few suggest democracy is perfect yet it too can be interesting.
February 15th, 2012 at 7:21 am
Congratulations to EPIC for keeping their battle alive. While the pro-pokie mob might squeal about their rates being spent on a challenge they don’t support ( and perhaps that’s not unreasonable), people might be surprised who would support this appeal financially from within the community.
The Maths teacher in me says the appeal will cost $80,000, EPIC has 500 members, so each member contributes a $160. Perhaps some can’t afford that amount, perhaps some can afford more. Perhaps some could embark on a personal fundraising effort to raise that amount any innovative way they can think of. Others might donate in-kind.
In the meantime, count me in for $200.
February 15th, 2012 at 9:04 am
Yes count me in too for $100, a worthwhile investment to help protect the vulnerable people in this special community.
February 15th, 2012 at 10:20 am
Steve, having been to VCAT many times try $150,000 if you are lucky. And Jacqueline maintaining public facilities is a clear role of council. Those facilities are available for all to use although some choose not to. Council have clearly gone outside the expectations of the community here. A poll of ratepayers asking if they support council using funds in this manner would get an overwhelming no. I’m all for EPIC fighting this fight, but it should be funded by those wishing to do so. If EPIC has the community support it claims to then raising the money to fight should not be difficult.
February 15th, 2012 at 1:22 pm
Unfortunately Tom the problem is that the way the Gambling regulations are written it is not possible for a community group or individual to appeal this decision. The only group entitled to appeal to VCAT is the council and they voted to do so because their own independent survey of 400 shire residents indicated overwhelming opposition to the new gambling venue.
February 15th, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Tom, I have already contributed to this appeal via my exhorbitant council rates. I agree with council’s decision.
Cr Cross is correct that gambling, smoking and drinking are legal. And so are brothels. I wonder who would object to a brothel near Subway for example? Legality doesn’t always make something good or desirable.
February 15th, 2012 at 3:51 pm
I understand that James, but EPIC should fund the appeal that council lodges for them.
And Debbie decisions like this will contribute to another rate rise next year.
The ‘middle’ section of the community are now angry which is a big problem for EPIC. Have a look at the 3BO radio page where they reported this decision. The angry comments are from 30+ year olds with families, not the angry young men on the other Facebook pages. If EPIC loses those people then they will never win this battle.
February 15th, 2012 at 6:26 pm
Tom, – I completely disagree that council are ‘paying the legal bills’ of a supposed lobby group.
This is a completely pragmatic decision based on what kind of community we want to live in. It is always an expectation that councils decisions consider ‘net community benefit’.
It is absolutely true that smoking and gambling are legal pursuits – but it is equally true that we all, taxpayers who don’t smoke, drink or gamble pay enormous amounts of taxes for the health detriments that both of these pursuits impose on society and families.
It makes no sense for any council to support an increase in the the resultant problems and detriment from these pursuits in a small community.
The decision to smoke, drink and gamble are individual ones. I wonder if governments stopped making money from them and instead refused to fund social and healthcare programs to support those who harm themselves in this way, would it shift the focus of responsibility back onto the individual? Would it begin to make some sense why councils SHOULD be at the forefront of resisting the increase in gaming machines?
Council has to make a decision about what best sustains THIS community.
By their own admission the commission acknowledged that we are not a wealthy community sitting at about 60 something on the scale of 84 municipalities.
They also admitted that this decision would remove 1% of all cash flowing through to a range of small businesses, ensuring that we would be pushed further down the chart of ‘social didadvantage’.
Why on earth would any council want more of that?
The commission dismally failed to note that that 1% wouldn’t be be distributed across the board, and of course they also completely failed to acknowledge the ‘spirit’ of the place.
30% of our population are part time workers: that means just a step away from being unemployed.
Why would any council support the loss of diverse employment options? It makes no sense.
What is it that contributes to a high sense of community wellbeing?
What makes people want to come and live here?
What attracts tourists, and brings money into the town?
Why are house prices more here than Maryborough?
What aspects of our culture allow a huge range of microbusinesses and sole trader families to contribute to society (as opposed to being unemployed?)
Is it better to have clubs to making efforts raise their own funds as opposed to receiving ‘handouts’?
What does that teach our kids about effort and industry?
There is a place in Castlemaine for all sorts, including those of us who aspire to more for our kids than a coming of age party at the local gambling venue.
Why would any council NOT want this kind of cultural richness and diversity of choice for its citizens?
February 15th, 2012 at 7:15 pm
How easy it is to miss a very important point.
Cr. Cross doesn’t smoke or drink, although her contribution to the Rotary Calcutta has been noted!
Far from recommending any of these vices she makes a very valid point – should council be gambling rate payer funds on very long odds (their own legal advice) when it has so many other pressing monetary issues?
Sometimes we can’t give our kids what they want because the family budget doesn’t allow it – or at least that’s what I’ve been brought up to respect.
EPIC
February 15th, 2012 at 7:44 pm
So sorry, hit the wrong button before I finished!
… EPIC are gathering pledges which is great, and only fair, given they have lobbied this issue on to the council agenda.
February 15th, 2012 at 8:43 pm
They are all valid points Andrea but are made somewhat redundant by the fact that there are already pokies in town. And people already buy houses, tourists come and house prices are high. I wonder why EPIC is effectively supporting a monopoly on pokies by a business under no obligation to return any share of profit directly to our community and one that is 100% owned by out of town interests. Has EPIC considered the very real prospect that the Goods Shed development would force the existing business to close, thus leaving Castlemaine with the status quo of one pokies venue, but one that must return something to the community?
February 15th, 2012 at 10:27 pm
Tom – you’re dreamin’ mate. There are no rules, acts of parliament, regulations, instruction manuals, guide books or leaflets that says, stipulates, demands, instructs, enforces or encourages clubs like the Maryborough Highland Society to return anything to the community.
Where do you get this impression from that they must?
Check out the Kyneton Bowling Club – they’re broke and give back diddly squat.
Tell me why you think the mythical Castlemaine club will be any different because I would really like to understand.
February 15th, 2012 at 11:26 pm
Tom, I don’t agree that EPIC is supporting a monopoly. They are trying to curtail the expansion of these machines – the most insidious form of gambling according to the productivity commission.
We’ve got some already inflicting the damage – so lets increase the chances that people can get sucked in?
The ‘benefits’ to any community and for tax payers in general from a supposed ‘not-for- profit’ company adding another sixty five loser machines don’t stack up at all. The tax concessions for not for profit are far, far more than they will ever give back.
It’s a cheesy little marketing trick – that’s all.
I think if you want to go into the business of creating social disadvantage – then you ought to be taxed on it-like the commercial – not revered as some kind of ‘community hero’.
Drinking, gambling, & smoking are not ‘sport’ and encouraging these in young people is not to the benefit of a community – no matter how its dressed up.
February 16th, 2012 at 6:48 am
Pokies aside I despair at the thought of the heritage Goods Shed becoming a crass, smelly, noisy venue, signed and grossly tarted up to provide among other things a ‘coffee shop for 92 people’(MHS) plus all the trappings of the original ( & in my experience horrific) ‘leagues clubs’ in NSW.Give the building to a better purpose, a recreation centre for the adolescents of our community, coffee shop, pool/ ping pong/netball practice etc, internet, theatre group, give them the power to make it their own by surveying what they want- and then provide one end section for community rooms (CWA!) and workshop space.
February 16th, 2012 at 9:09 am
It’s a wonderful idea Suzanne but who will fund it?
And Chris you and I both know the legislation for a pub v a club.
I’m not sure why you keep banging on about them not making any money, if the venture fails then they will be bankrupt and close which you would welcome anyway. Win win.
February 16th, 2012 at 10:01 am
The cynic in me suggests that as Council is fighting battles on a number of fronts, and seems to be generally pretty unpopular, the decision to continue to the fight on the pokies front has a suggestion of a little appeasement before the front moves to the pool.
February 16th, 2012 at 4:05 pm
As a medical practitioner I know I am meant to be very interested in the numbers, stats and evidence. I am, but bottom line for me is that in my role, I want to be able to sit across from my patients and say that I have done my best with what I have available to prevent you from ill heath or disease (dis-ease).
As pointed out with legal activities like smoking and alcohol, mostly patients get sick despite all we have available, through their own unhealthy choices. But, if VCAT appeal can do something to stop just one vulnerable person in our shire from destroying their families and then themselves, then I think it is worth it. And then as a GP I can say to my community we have done all we can with what is available to prevent such a tragedy.
As Cr Cross points out we are gambling a lot of rate payers money to avoid a small percentage increase in the number of problem gamblers in our community. I’m sure if my brother or sister were one of those one percenters, I would regret not pitching in what I could. I commend Peter Cole on his bravery to share his tragedy with such a crowd at the meeting. He must see it as an insanity that he needs to stand and argue the same point that he argued way back when the Cumberland introduced the first EGMs into Castlemaine.
I would be devastated if the predicted costs of the VCAT appeal puts added strain on vulnerable rate payers of our community, and I would be interested in those numbers (ie the predicted rate rises as a result.) In the bigger picture, my opinion would be, the cost spread over the whole shire would be small, but I agree also fundraising from those who want to put their “money where there mouth” is could be a creative option.
I will continue to support the action against the introduction of more EGMs in Castlemaine along with my colleagues. Well done all involved, including Cr Cross for standing up for the rights of all the community – let’s hope the the passion of the people is translated into a healthy and thriving community into the future.
February 21st, 2012 at 12:28 am
I support the Council’s decision to fund the appeal to VCAT. And I support the work EPIC are doing. There needs to be a voice somewhere which says NO to governmental collusion with the gambling industry. Why should the State Government and the VCRG, not to mention the MHS, have more say over Pokies in this shire than our own Council?