The state opposition will take the policy to the looming Queensland election, arguing an increase to the cap will throw a "lifeline" to smaller clubs facing closure.

In short:

  • Queensland’s LNP opposition wants to increase the cap on poker machines that can operate at clubs with more than two premises.
  • The gaming machine cap for a club licensee with three or more sites is 500, but the LNP wants to lift that to 700.

What’s next?

  • The LNP is taking the policy to the looming October state election, arguing that the proposal would benefit smaller clubs facing closure.

… Don’t these statements contradict each other?

-> Applies only to businesses with more than two premises

-> benefits “smaller clubs”

???

Also I love the related stories:

  • AutoTL;DRBEnglish
    1•5 days ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:

    Queensland’s LNP opposition has promised to allow clubs with more than two premises to operate hundreds more poker machines if it wins the next state election.

    Shadow Attorney-General Tim Nicholls described the LNP’s proposal as a “commonsense plan” that would throw a lifeline to small community-owned clubs.

    “The Queensland government has committed to a club compact, but also has to take into account the needs of the entire sector while ensuring gambling harm minimisation initiatives.”

    “Fundamentally across the state, there is only a finite number of club venues that will have a requirement to go to the incremental cap of 700 gaming machines,” he said.

    Alliance for Gambling Reform interim chief executive Martin Thomas said his organisation was opposed to the proposal to increase the cap on gaming machines at clubs with multiple sites.

    Mr Thomas said the Alliance for Gambling Reform wanted state governments to introduce a mandatory cashless card with pre-commitments for poker machine users.

    The original article contains 688 words, the summary contains 157 words. Saved 77%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!