Submission Template - Class 4 Jackpots Minimum Equipment Standards

News

Thursday, 04 February 2010 09:27

CLASS 4 JACKPOTS MINIMUM EQUIPMENT STANDARDS - follow up to email sent 21st January 2010

Thank you to those clubs that have taken the time to complete the submission on Class 4 Jackpots Minimum Equipment Standards and especially to those that pointed out my date typo in the Executive Summary. This is a follow up to my original email send out on 21st January 2010. Please see the bottom of the page for details on completing and returning the submission to the DIA.

I have fielded a number of questions, which is great, on the content of the draft submission sent out to clubs. Therefore please find attached the questions and answers asked of and received from the DIA prior to compiling the draft submission and how I have interpreted their answers.

As the time period has been very short between getting the papers from the DIA and when they want the submissions in by (with the Christmas Break in between) I have had to quickly put together a submission template and get it out to all clubs for their input and return to DIA. I was further delayed by the DIA as I sent them a list of questions which I thought needed answering before I put the template together. These questions were based on some unanswered issues arising from the original submission in 2008. I have attached a copy of the questions for your info and also the DIA reply.

I also got some extra time out of the DIA. In their last email they stated:

Not a problem Gus. The consultation period ends on 19 February so there are four weeks left from next week. Hopefully that is enough time.

However, if your members submissions continue to come in in drips and drabs after that date they won't be ignored.

From what I can gather from their answers I believe there are four issues that need addressing before downloadable jackpots should be introduced. I suppose that the DIA can't address some of these issues until they hear back from the users with their thoughts but it is of concern that the DIA has come back to us again without appearing to cover off most of the items below. The issues as I see them (and your input is appreciated) that the DIA need to address are:

1. The cost to clubs to introduce downloadable jackpots and the effect this will have on clubs maximising their Net Proceed returns to their communities and indeed returning the minimum 37.12% as laid down as a condition by the Secretary on our Club Gaming Venue Licences.

2. A thorough understanding of the effects downloadable jackpots will have on Harm Minimisation to our members and the extra workload a lock up mechanism for set credits, say $600 will bring to our staff and the time it will reduce for players to have access to the machines.

3. There doesn't appear to be a new set of draft standards in place for downloadable jackpots that include the type of protocol they intend approving. Until we see a draft, how can we possibly commit to this.

4. There doesn't appear to be any equipment currently in existence that would meet the requirements of a new protocol. The DIA now seems unsure of whether the current approved SINFO protocol would remain or whether another suitable protocol will come onto the market. Again, it appears that the DIA is jumping the gun as it doesn't have any technical specifications let alone any equipment available to implement a single stage solution with approved equipment.

As usual, we looked forward to any comments and input you may wish to make.

News sent 21st Jan 2010 with instuctions for completing submission