Summary Report - Results of the 2007 Gaming Machine Venue Survey

Office of Economic and Statistical Research 

Office of the Government Statistician 

Queensland Office of Liquor, Gaming and 

Racing 

Summary Report 

Results of the 2007 Gaming Machine Venue Survey 


Level 8, 33 Charlotte Street 

Brisbane, QLD, 4000 

Ph: (07) 3224 5326 

http://www.oesr.qld.gov.au 

© Queensland Government 2009 

This report is for the exclusive use of the Queensland Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing without restriction. 

All data and information in this document are believed to be accurate and have come from sources believed to be reliable. 

However, the Office of Economic and Statistical Research, Queensland Treasury, does not guarantee or represent that the data 

and information are accurate, up to date or complete, and disclaims liability for all claims, losses, damages or costs of whatever 

nature and howsoever occurring, arising as a result of relying on the data and information, regardless of the form of action, 

whether in contract, tort (including negligence), breach of statutory duty or otherwise. 

17 February 2009

Contents 

FIGURES ............................................................................................................................... III 

TABLES.................................................................................................................................IV 

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 1 

2. THE QUEENSLAND CLUB AND HOTEL GAMING INDUSTRY 1 ................................. 4 

2.1 Background ............................................................................................................................ 4 

2.2 Community benefits from club and hotel gaming................................................................... 5 

2.3 Responsible gambling in Queensland.................................................................................... 6 

3. METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................... 7 

3.1 Objective................................................................................................................................. 7 

3.2 Survey scope.......................................................................................................................... 7 

3.3 Survey administration............................................................................................................. 7 

3.4 Comparison with previous surveys ........................................................................................ 8 

3.5 Response problems and editing............................................................................................. 8 

3.6 Reliability of results ................................................................................................................ 8 

3.7 Accuracy of results ................................................................................................................. 9 

3.8 Segmentation of gaming machine venues............................................................................. 9 

3.9 Commercial in confidence information ................................................................................. 12 

3.10 Survey results....................................................................................................................... 12 

4. VENUE PARTICULARS .............................................................................................. 13 

Result highlights............................................................................................................................. 13 

4.1 Projected change in gaming machines at venues (Question 1)........................................... 14 

4.2 Additional gambling activities at venue (Question 2) ........................................................... 16 

4.3 Other services provided by venues (Question 3)................................................................. 19 

4.4 Provision and extent of loyalty reward program (Questions 4-6)......................................... 23 

4.5 Anticipated improvements to venue services (Question 7).................................................. 31 

4.6 Industry association membership (Questions 8-11)............................................................. 34 

5. GROSS REVENUE...................................................................................................... 39 


5.1 Venue gross revenue (Question 12) ................................................................................... 40 

5.2 Change in venue gross revenue (Question 13) ................................................................... 43 

5.3 Anticipated change in venue gross revenue (Question 14) ................................................. 47 

5.4 Activity contribution to gross revenue (Question 15) ........................................................... 50 

5.5 Operating costs attributed to various services and expenses (Question 16)....................... 53 

5.6 Gaming machine subsidisation of bar trade, meal trade and entertainment 

(Question 17)........................................................................................................................ 57 

6. EMPLOYMENT ........................................................................................................... 59 


6.1 Number of staff employed as at 30 June 2007 (Question 18) ............................................. 60 

6.2 Staff time involved in gaming machine activities (Question 19)........................................... 64 

6.3 Anticipated change in staffing in the 2007-08 financial year (Question 20)......................... 66 

7. BUILDING PROJECTS/FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS ................................................ 69 


7.1 Building or facility improvements (Questions 21-24)............................................................ 70 

7.2 Anticipated building or facility improvements this financial year (2007-08) and 

in the next three financial years (2008-2011) (Question 25)................................................ 77 

8. BUSINESS IMPACTS.................................................................................................. 81 


8.1 Rating of competitors (Question 26) .................................................................................... 82 

8.2 Regulatory and other factors impacting on venue financial performance in the 

2006-07 financial year (Question 27) ................................................................................... 87 

8.3 Factors likely to influence venue level of trade in the 2007-08 financial year 

(Question 28)........................................................................................................................ 95 

8.4 Venue patron type (Question 29) ......................................................................................... 99 

9. COMMUNITY SUPPORT........................................................................................... 101 

i

Result highlights........................................................................................................................... 101 

9.1 Provision of community support by venues (Question 30)................................................. 102 

9.2 Community organisations supported by clubs and hotel cash/cheque and noncash 

contributions (Question 31) ....................................................................................... 103 

9.3 Type of community support provided by venues (Question 32)......................................... 105 

9.4 Cash/cheque and non-cash support for community organisations in the 

previous financial year (2006-07) (Questions 33-34)......................................................... 108 

10. RESPONSIBLE GAMBLING PRACTICES ............................................................... 112 

10.1 Perception of responsible gambling (Question 35) ............................................................ 113 

10.2 Support for responsible gambling by the Queensland Responsible Gambling 

Code of Practice (Question 36).......................................................................................... 116 

10.3 How Many Employees in your Venue have used the Responsible Gambling 

Industry Training Kit (Question 37) .................................................................................... 129 

10.4 Most effective ways of providing information to gamblers to assist them in 

making better informed decisions regarding their gambling behaviours 

(Question 38)...................................................................................................................... 130 

10.5 Preferred location in venue to display information to gamblers (Q39)............................... 131 

APPENDIX A. SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ..................................................................... 132 

ii

U 

UOther 

UScope 

UPerceived 

........................... 

0BFigures 

Note: Figure numbers are derived from the section in which the Figure is placed. 

UFigure 3.8 (a) U 

UQueensland Segmented for the 2007 SurveyU....................................................... 11 


UAdditional gambling activities by venue typeU......................................................... 16 

UFigure 4.3 (a)U UOther non-gaming services provided by venue typeU............................................. 19 

UFigure 4.3 (b) U non-gaming services provided by venue locationU ....................................... 21 


UVenues with loyalty reward program by year, venue type and sizeU...................... 23 

UFigure 4.4 (b)U 

UAverage number of registered and active players on the loyalty reward 

program by venue type and sizeU ........................................................................... 25 

UFigure 4.4 (c)U 

UAverage number of registered and active players on the loyalty reward 

program per venue by venue locationU ................................................................... 26 

UFigure 4.4 (d)U UScope of loyalty reward program for accruing points by venue typeU .................... 27 

UFigure 4.4 (e) U of loyalty reward program for redeeming points by venue typeU................. 28 

UFigure 5.1(a) U 

UAverage and median gross revenue by venue type, 2006-07U .............................. 40 

UFigure 5.1(b)U UAverage gross revenue by venue type and size, 2006-07U.................................... 41 

UFigure 5.1 (c) U 

UMedian gross revenue by venue type and size, 2006-07U ..................................... 42 


UChange in gross revenue by venue type, 2006-07U ............................................... 43 

UFigure 5.2 (b) U 

UChange in gross revenue from 2002 to 2007 by venue typeU ................................ 44 


UChange in gross revenue by venue location, 2006-07U.......................................... 46 


UAnticipated change in gross revenue in 2007-08 by venue type and sizeU............ 47 


UAnticipated change in gross revenue in 2007-08 by venue locationU..................... 49 

UFigure 5.4 (a)U 

UAverage proportion of gross revenue derived from different activities in 


2006-07 by venue typeU.......................................................................................... 50 

UAverage proportion of operating costs attributed to various services and 

expenses in 2006-07 by venue typeU...................................................................... 53 


UAnticipated change in full-time staffing by venue type, 2007-08U........................... 66 


UAnticipated change in part-time staffing by venue type, 2007-08U ......................... 67 


UAnticipated change in casual staffing by venue type, 2007-08U............................. 68 


UAverage amount spent on building and facilities improvements by venue 

location, 2006-07U ................................................................................................... 72 

UFigure 7.1 (b)U UVenue improvements by venue type, 2006-07U ..................................................... 73 




UReasons building or facility improvements undertaken by venue type, 

2006-07U.................................................................................................................. 75 

UAverage anticipated expenditure per venue on building or facility 

improvements by venue location, 2007-08U............................................................ 78 

UAverage anticipated expenditure on building or facility improvements in 

future financial years (2008-2011) by venue locationU ........................................... 80 


UClub rating of competitorsU ..................................................................................... 82 


UPerceived major competitors by club sizeU............................................................. 83 

UFigure 8.1 (c)U UHotel rating of competitorsU .................................................................................... 84 

UFigure 8.1 (d) U 




UFigure 8.2 (d)U 


major competitors by hotel sizeU............................................................ 85 

UImpact of regulations and other factors on the financial performance of 

clubs in 2006-07U .................................................................................................... 87 

UImpact of regulations and other factors on the financial performance of 

hotels in 2006-07U ................................................................................................... 90 

UImpact of inflationary pressures, water restrictions and advertising and 

promotion guidelines and restrictions on venue financial performance in 

2006-07 by venue locationU .................................................................................... 92 

UImpact of smoking legislation, the Queensland Responsible Gambling 

Code of Practice, hotel gaming maching reallocation scheme and venues 

over the NSW border, by venue locationU............................................................... 93 

UFactors likely to influence venue level of trade in the current financial year 

(2007-08) by venue typeU........................................................................................ 95 


UAverage proportion of patron type by venue locationU ......................................... 100 


UCommunity organisations supported by clubs and hotels by venue type, 

2006-07U................................................................................................................ 103 

UFigure 9.3 (a) UType of community support provided by venue type, 2006-07 U 105 


UTotal cash/cheque and non-cash support for community organisations 

from 2001 to 2007 by venue typeU........................................................................ 108 


UAverage cash/cheque and non-cash support for community organisations 

by venue type, 2006-07U....................................................................................... 109 

iii





UFigure 10.2 (d)U 

UFigure 10.2 (e)U 

UFigure 10.2 (f)U 

UAverage cash/ cheque and non-cash contributions to community 

organisations by venue location, 2006-07U........................................................... 111 

UPerception that individuals, communities, the gambling industry and the 

Government have developed a shared understanding of responsible 

gambling practices (Q36a)U .................................................................................. 118 


Government have an understanding of their rights and responsibilities in 

relation to responsible gambling practices (Q36b), by RegionU............................ 120 

UPerception that the gambling industry provides safe and supportive 

environments for the delivery of gambling products and services (Q36c), 

by RegionU............................................................................................................. 122 

UPerception that that customers make informed decisions about their 

gambling practices (Q36d)U .................................................................................. 124 

UPerception that gambling related harm to individuals and the community is 

minimised, by venue type and sizeU ..................................................................... 126 

UPerception that people adversely affected by gambling have access to 

timely and appropriate assistance and information (Q36f)U.................................. 128 

1BTables 

Note: Table numbers are derived from the section in which Table is placed. 

UTable 3.2 (a) U 

UIn scope survey population – responses receivedU .................................................. 7 


UGaming machine venues by type and sizeU ........................................................... 10 

UTable 3.8 (b) U 

UResponding venues by type and sizeU ................................................................... 10 

UTable 3.8 (c) U 

UVenues by type, size and regionU ........................................................................... 11 

UTable 3.8 (d)U UResponding venues by type, size and regionU ....................................................... 12 

UTable 4.1(a)U 

UTable 4.1 (b)U 

UExpected change in gaming machine numbers in 2007-08 by venue type 

and sizeU ................................................................................................................. 14 

UExpected change in gaming machine numbers in 2007-08 by venue 

locationU .................................................................................................................. 15 


UAdditional gambling activity by club sizeU............................................................... 17 


UAdditional gambling activity by hotel sizeU.............................................................. 17 


UAdditional gambling activity by venue locationU...................................................... 18 


UVenues with loyalty reward program by venue locationU........................................ 24 


UScope of loyalty reward programU .......................................................................... 29 

UTable 4.5 (a)U 

UVenues anticipating implementing service improvements by venue type, 


UTable 4.5 (c)U 

2007-08U.................................................................................................................. 31 

UVenues anticipating implementing service improvements by venue type 

and size, 2007-08U .................................................................................................. 32 

UVenues anticipating implementing service improvements by venue 

location, 2007-08U ................................................................................................... 33 


UIndustry membership by venue type and sizeU....................................................... 34 


UIndustry membership by venue locationU................................................................ 34 


UIndustry association memberships by venue type and sizeU.................................. 35 

UTable 4.6 (d) U 

UClub industry associations by venue locationU ....................................................... 36 

UTable 4.6 (e)U UHotel industry associations by venue locationU ...................................................... 36 

UTable 4.6 (f)U UAdvice from industry associationsU......................................................................... 37 

UTable 4.6 (g) U 

UAdvice from industry associations by venue type and sizeU................................... 37 

UTable 4.6 (h) U 

UAdvice from industry associations by venue locationU............................................ 38 

UTable 5.1(a) U 

UAverage gross revenue by venue location, 2006-07U............................................. 42 


UMedian gross revenue by venue location, 2006-07U .............................................. 43 


UChange in gross revenue by venue type and size, 2006-07U................................. 45 


UExpected change in sales by venue typeU.............................................................. 47 


UAverage proportion of gross revenue in 2006-07 derived from gaming 




machines by venue type and sizeU ......................................................................... 51 

UAverage proportion of gross revenue derived from different activities in 

2006-07 by venue locationU .................................................................................... 52 

UAverage proportion of operating costs attributed to gaming machines by 

venue type and sizeU............................................................................................... 54 

UComparison of costs and revenue for major areas within venues by venue 

type and sizeU.......................................................................................................... 55 

iv


UAverage proportion of operating costs attributed to activities by venue 

locationU .................................................................................................................. 56 


UGaming machine subsidisation of bar trade, meal trade and entertainmentU ........ 57 


UCross-subsidisation of bar trade by venue type and sizeU ..................................... 57 


UCross-subsidisation of meal trade by venue type and sizeU................................... 58 


UCross-subsidisation of entertainment by venue type and size U.............................. 58 

UTable 6.1 (a) UEmployment in venues as reported in 2002 to 2007 Surveys ,U.............................. U 

60 


UPositions in venues as at 30 June 2006 and 30 June 2007 by venue typeU.......... 61 


UPositions in venues as at 30 June 2007 by venue type and sizeU ......................... 61 


UPositions in venues as at 30 June 2007 by venue locationU .................................. 63 


UAverage proportion of time involved in gaming machine activities, by 



venue typeU ............................................................................................................. 64 


venue type and sizeU............................................................................................... 64 


venue locationU ....................................................................................................... 65 


UAnticipated change in staffing, by venue type, 2007-08U ....................................... 66 


UVenues with building or facility improvements by venue type and size, 

2006-07U.................................................................................................................. 70 


UVenues with building or facility improvements by venue location, 2006-07U.......... 70 

UTable 7.1 (c)U UTotal expenditure on building or facility improvement by venue type, 2006- 

07U........................................................................................................................... 71 

UTable 7.1 (d)U 

UAverage amount spent on building or facilities improvements by venue 

type and size, 2006-07U .......................................................................................... 71 

UTable 7.1 (e)U UVenue improvements by venue location, 2006-07U................................................ 74 

UTable 7.1 (f)U 





UReasons building or facility improvements undertaken by venue location, 

2006-07U.................................................................................................................. 76 

UTotal anticipated expenditure on building or facility improvements by 

venue type, 2007-08U.............................................................................................. 77 

UAverage anticipated expenditure on building or facility improvements by 

venue type and size, 2007-08U ............................................................................... 77 

UTotal anticipated expenditure on building or facility improvements in the 

coming financial years (2008-2011) by venue typeU............................................... 78 

UAverage anticipated expenditure on building or facility improvements in 

future financial years (2008-2011) by venue type and sizeU................................... 79 


URating of major competitors by venue locationU ..................................................... 86 




(2007-08) by venue type and sizeU ......................................................................... 96 


(2007-08) by venue regional locationU .................................................................... 97 


UEstimated average proportion of patron type by venue type and sizeU.................. 99 


UProvision of community support by venues, 2006-07U ......................................... 102 


UProvision of community support by venue location, 2006-07U.............................. 102 


UCommunity organisations supported by clubs and hotels by venue type 



and size, 2006-07U ................................................................................................ 103 

UCommunity organisations supported by clubs and hotels by venue 

location, 2006-07U ................................................................................................. 104 

UType of community support provided by clubs and hotels by venue size, 

2006-07U................................................................................................................ 106 


UType of community support provided by venue locationU..................................... 107 


UTotal cash/cheque and non-cash support for community organisations 

from 2001 to 2007 by venue typeU........................................................................ 108 

UTable 9.4 (b)U UAverage cash/cheque and non-cash contribution to community 

organisations by venue type and size, 2006-07U.................................................. 110 





UTable 10.1 (e)U 

UPerception of whether responsible gambling provides a supportive 

environment for customers by venue type and sizeU............................................ 113 

UPerception of whether responsible gambling provides a supportive 

environment for customers by venue locationU..................................................... 113 

UPerception of whether responsible gambling is good for business by venue 

type and sizeU........................................................................................................ 114 

UPerception of whether responsible gambling is good for business by venue 

locationU ................................................................................................................ 114 

UPerception of whether responsible gambling promotes sustainability of the 

gambling industry by venue type and sizeU .......................................................... 115 

v


UPerception of whether responsible gambling promotes sustainability of the 

gambling industry by venue locationU ................................................................... 115 



Government have developed a shared understanding of responsible 

gambling practices (Q36a)U .................................................................................. 117 



Government have an understanding of their rights and responsibilities in 

relation to responsible gambling practices (Q36b)U.............................................. 119 


UPerception that the gambling industry provides safe and supportive 

environments for the delivery of gambling products and services (Q36c)U .......... 121 


UPerception that that customers make informed decisions about their 

gambling practices (Q36d)U .................................................................................. 123 

UTable 10.2 (e)U 

UPerception that gambling related harm to individuals and the community is 

minimised, by venue type and size (Q36e)U ......................................................... 125 


UPerception that people adversely affected by gambling have access to 

timely and appropriate assistance and information (Q36f)U.................................. 127 


UReasons for not having used the Responsible Gambling Industry Training 

Kit (Q37b)U ............................................................................................................ 129 


UMost effective way of providing customers with information to assist them 

in making informed decisions about their gambling behaviours (Q38) U ............... 130 

UTable 10.5 (a)U UPreferred location in venue to display information to gamblers (Q39) U................ 131 

vi

2B1. Executive Summary 

1.1 Introduction 

This report presents the findings of the 2007 Queensland Survey of Gaming Machine 

Venues (2007 Survey). The objective of the Survey was to obtain information from 

Queensland clubs and hotels about the dynamics of the club and hotel gaming 

machine industry. In particular, information on: 

venue particulars; 

gross revenue; 

employment; 

building projects and facilities improvements; 

business impacts; 

community support; and 

responsible gambling practices. 

This information helps to inform research and policy development in the Office of 

Liquor, Gaming and Racing (formerly known as the Queensland Office of Gaming 

Regulation). 

1.2 Methodology 

A self-completion methodology was utilised. All Queensland clubs and hotels with 

operational gaming machines that had traded for the full 12 months of the 2006-07 

financial year were invited to participate (1,251 venues). A total of 948 venues 

returned completed questionnaires, giving a response rate of 75.8%. 

Venue responses were weighted and extrapolated to be representative of the 1,251 

Queensland clubs and hotels operating gaming machines between 1 July 2006 and 

30 June 2007. 

1.3 Results 

Venue particulars 

Clubs and hotels can be characterised across a range of variables. The venue 

particulars section of the 2007 Survey found clubs and hotels exhibited some marked 

distinctions: 

 

Clubs had higher expectations for increasing the number of gaming machines 

than hotels. 

Raffles (eg Art Unions, Sweeps etc) were the most common additional 

gaming activity in clubs, while Keno was the most popular additional gaming 

activity in hotels. 

 

 

More clubs than hotels provided live sport, sporting facilities, function centres 

and a courtesy bus. 

More hotels than clubs offered take-away alcohol, televised sport, 

accommodation and ATMs. 

Clubs had more registered and active players in loyalty programs than did 

hotels. 

Hotels were more likely than clubs to allow redemption of loyalty reward 

points on gaming machines. 

 

Clubs were more likely than hotels to be members of an industry association, 

and to have sought advice from their association on responsible gambling 

training or compliance with gaming legislation. 

1

The 2007 Survey found that clubs and hotels also had many similarities: 

Comparably high proportions of clubs and hotels anticipated there would be 

no change in the number of gaming machines at their venue in the 2007-08 

financial year. 

For both clubs and hotels, the most common anticipated improvement for 

2007-08 was the addition of new or upgraded gaming software. 

Comparable proportions of clubs and hotels operated loyalty reward 

programs and allowed accrual of points on gaming machines. 

Both clubs and hotels were more likely to be industry association members 

than not. 

Gross revenue 

Approximately one half of the venues reported an increase in sales from the 2005-06 

financial year to the 2006-07 financial year, and approximately one-third of venues 

reported a decrease. Average gross revenue for 2006-07 was $2.9 million for clubs 

and $4.5 million for hotels. 

Approximately one half of clubs and hotels expect to increase their sales in the 2007- 

08 financial year, with less than one in ten anticipating a decrease. 

Gaming machines, bar trade and food and catering contributed the largest 

proportions to gross revenue for clubs, while gaming machines, bar trade and take 

away alcohol were the biggest contributors to gross revenue for hotels. Wages, bar 

trade, gaming machines and take-away alcohol were the largest operating costs for 

operating a venue. 

Employment 

Overall there were 34,643 jobs provided by clubs and hotels with gaming machines 

in Queensland in the 2006-07 financial year. This included full-time, part-time, 

casual, contract and volunteer positions. Approximately half of all positions in clubs 

are casual, while in hotels this figure is closer to two-thirds of all positions. 

Venues were asked about anticipated changes to staffing levels for the upcoming 

financial year (2007-08). The most common response from clubs was that staffing 

levels for full-time, part-time, and casual positions would remain the same. Hotels 

were also most likely to anticipate that full-time and casual positions would remain 

the same. Hotels were divided in their views on part-time positions, being equally as 

likely to be unsure about what change would occur, or to believe that that part-time 

positions would remain the same. Both clubs and hotels were more likely to 

anticipate an increase in casual staff than in other types of positions. 

Full-time and casual staff spent more work time devoted to gaming machine related 

activities than did part-time employees. 

Building projects and facility improvements 

Approximately $302 million was collectively spent last financial year (2006-07) on 

building projects and facility improvements, a decrease of $17 million from the 

previous financial year (2005-06). Significantly higher proportions of clubs than 

hotels undertook building projects or facility improvements. 

The most common building/facility improvements for both clubs and hotels related to 

designated outdoor smoking areas in 2006-07. The most common reasons for 

undertaking building/facility improvements in 2006-07 were to attract new customers, 

modernise facilities and/or accommodate changes in legislation. 

Business impacts 

Venues indicated that a range of social, environmental, market and governmental 

factors influenced their overall performance in the 2006-07 financial year. More than 

2

one half of clubs and hotels reported that inflationary pressures and smoking 

legislation had a negative impact on their financial performance in 2006-07. 

Approximately one quarter of clubs and one third of hotels believed the Queensland 

Responsible Gambling Code of Practice had had a positive impact on their financial 

performance in the 2006-07 financial year. 

Factors nominated by at least one half of venues as being likely to impact on their 

2007-08 level of trade included local population change, venue facilities, the general 

economic climate and interest rates. Higher proportions of clubs than hotels believed 

that venue membership would be likely to impact their 2007-08 level of trade. Higher 

proportions of hotels than clubs suggested local population changes and interest 

rates were likely to impact their 2007-08 level of trade. 

While most patrons of clubs and hotels were local residents, a small proportion were 

tourists or day-trippers. A small proportion of club patrons were reciprocal members. 

Community support 

The 2007 Survey found that more than eight in ten clubs and hotels provided 

community support. Venues were most likely to provide community support to sports 

and recreational groups and/or schools, and to do so in the form of cash/cheque, 

vouchers, fundraising events, and/or donation tins. 

Clubs contributed similar amounts overall in cash contributions in the 2005-06 ($31.2 

million) and 2006-07 ($30.7 million) financial years. They also contributed similar 

amounts in non-cash contributions in 2005-06 ($10.8 million) and 2006-07 ($9.3 

million). 

Hotels contributed less overall in cash contributions in the 2006-07 financial year 

($2.6 million) than they did in 2005-06 ($6.7 million). They also contributed less in 

non-cash contributions in 2006-07 ($2.3 million) then in 2005-06 ($4.0 million). 

Responsible gambling practices 

The 2007 Survey found general support for responsible gambling initiatives with most 

venues believing responsible gambling practices in their venue created a supportive 

environment for customers, were good for business and promoted sustainability of 

the gambling industry. The majority of venues agreed that the six outcomes of the 

responsible gambling code of practice had been achieved effectively. The six 

outcomes are: 

1. shared understanding of responsible gambling practices; 

2. understanding of the rights and responsibilities related to responsible 

gambling practices; 

3. the gambling industry is providing a safe and supportive environment; 

4. customers able to make informed decisions; 

5. gambling harm to individuals and the community is minimised in gaming 

venues; and 

6. people adversely affected by gambling have access to timely and appropriate 

assistance and information. 

The majority of venues believed that the most effective ways of providing information 

to gamblers was for the information to be displayed on a sign, or provided in one or 

more brochures containing information on all topics. Venues were most likely to say 

that the preferred location for displaying information to gamblers was in designated 

gambling areas. 

3

3B2. The Queensland Club and Hotel Gaming IndustryF 

13B2.1 Background 

Gaming machines were first permitted in Queensland clubs in 1992 to assist 

community organisations to improve their facilities. Gaming machines were also 

permitted in hotels under more limited conditions. The current maximum number of 

gaming machines is 280 for a club and 40 for a hotel. 

The Queensland Gaming Commission (QGC) considers applications for licences and 

determines the number of gaming machines for each venue in accordance with the 

Gaming Machine Act 1991 (the Act). The objective of the Act is to ensure, on 

balance, the State and the community as a whole benefit from gaming machine 

operations. The Act provides for a system of regulation and control designed to 

protect players and the community through: 

ensuring the integrity and fairness of games; 

ensuring the probity of those involved in the provision of gaming machine 

gambling; and 

minimising the potential for harm from gaming machine gambling. 

In May 2001, the Queensland Government responded to community concerns about 

the proliferation of gambling by capping overall gaming machine numbers for hotels 

to 18,843. 

A scheme for re-allocating gaming machines within this cap was released by the 

Queensland Government in April 2003. The scheme allows hotels to buy and sell 

authorities to operate gaming machines within the number QGC has approved for 

their venue. The first authority auction was held in July 2004, with the latest being 

held in November 2007. The Queensland Government announced the lifting of the 

cap to 20,000 gaming machines from 1 July 2006, although this has since been 

capped at 19,310 authorities following the announcement of a number of harm 

minimisation initiatives on 15 April 2008. 

In addition to the changes in the hotel EGM cap, on the same date a moratorium was 

introduced capping the number of gaming machines available to clubs. On 16 

November 2008, the Premier announced that the cap on club gaming machines 

would be a permanent fixture in the regulation of machine gaming in Queensland. 

The maximum number of gaming machines available to clubs in Queensland will be 

limited to 24,710, although this number may be lower pending QGC finalisation of 

submissions on hand. 

A market based transfer scheme to allow movement of gaming machine entitlements 

between clubs and within existing regions will be introduced. 

There are four casinos in Queensland that are authorised to operate gaming 

machines, namely: Conrad Jupiters; Conrad Treasury; Jupiters Townsville Hotel and 

Casino; and, The Reef Hotel Casino. In 2006-07, nearly 3,660 gaming machines 

were operational in the four casinos. These casinos are not included in this survey. 

1 

1 Casinos are not in-scope for this survey. 

4

14B2.2 Community benefits from club and hotel gaming 

Almost all clubs and hotels provide voluntary contributions to community 

organisations. These contributions are explored in Section 9 of this report. 

Community benefits from gaming machines are also derived through gambling taxes. 

The Queensland Government raised $489 million in gaming machine taxation last 

financial year (2006-07). Hotels with metered wins over $100,000 also pay a major 

facilities levy, which collected $29 million. From 1 July 2006, this levy became the 

Health Services Levy which is used to finance health and related services. 

The Community Investment Fund (CIF) receives 8.5% of club and hotel gaming 

machine taxation (approximately $41 million in 2006-07). The CIF funds the 

Gambling Community Benefit Fund (GCBF), responsible gambling research and 

initiatives, the Gambling Help service system and other programs of state-wide 

significance. 

The GCBF primarily administers one-off grants to eligible non-government 

organisations to strengthen their ability to meet local needs and build community 

capacity. Since 1994, the GCBF has distributed $352 million to 31,215 community 

projects. During 2006-07, $35 million was allocated to 2,055 community projects 

throughout Queensland. 

CIF funding supports a range of Gambling Help services (GHS) for people with 

gambling-related problems. Funded Gambling Help support and treatment services 

include: 

Gambling Help Line. A 24 hour, seven day a week state-wide free-call 

service that provides crisis counselling, information and referral. 

Gambling Help services. Full-time, face-to-face counselling and support 

services available at 13 urban, rural and remote venues in Queensland. 

Outreach services are also available in a number of other locations. These 

services offer help through counsellors who work with individuals and the 

families of those who have experienced gambling related harm. 

The Salvation Army’s Moonyah Alcohol and Drug Rehabilitation Centre. 

Moonyah is a residential rehabilitation facility treating men with alcohol and 

drug abuse problems. Since mid-2002 it has also been funded to provide an 

outpatient gambling help counselling service for men and women. 

The CIF also funds a gambling research program to investigate gambling related 

issues including effective prevention, protection and rehabilitation measures. The 

research program is conducted through the Queensland Government and external 

research organisations. The annual Responsible Gambling Research Grants 

Program supplements external research. This program allocates grants to 

researchers to conduct gambling-related research aligned with the research priorities 

of the Queensland Government. 

5

15B2.3 Responsible gambling in Queensland 

The Queensland Government works together with the community and industry to 

address gambling issues and to foster an environment of responsible gambling 

through the Responsible Gambling Advisory Committee (RGAC). 

The RGAC reports directly to the Queensland Treasurer and provides advice to the 

Queensland Government on minimising any negative impacts of gambling. Peak 

bodies representing the club and hotel industries at the RGAC are Clubs Queensland 

and the Queensland Hotels Association. 

One significant outcome from the RGAC, with support from the Policy, Legislation 

and Harm Minimisation Branch of the Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing (OLGR), 

was the development of the Queensland Responsible Gambling Code of Practice 

(Code of Practice). The Code of Practice encompasses a whole-of-industry 

voluntary approach to responsible gambling in Queensland. The accompanying 

Responsible Gambling Resource Manual outlines procedures and processes to 

assist venues in implementing a responsible gambling environment. 

Further information on these programs and policies can be found at 

www.olgr.qld.gov.au. 

6

4B3. Methodology 

16B3.1 Objective 

The Office of Economic and Statistical Research (OESR) administered the 2007 

Survey of Queensland Gaming Machine Venues on behalf of the (then) Queensland 

Office of Gaming Regulation (QOGR). The survey objective was to obtain 

information about the club and hotel gaming machine industry to inform research and 

policy development in QOGR (now the Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing). 

Specifically, the research collected information on: 

products and services; 

revenue; 

employment; 

building projects; 

facilities improvements; 

impacts on business; 

community support; and 

responsible gambling. 

17B3.2 Survey scope 

All Queensland clubs and hotels with operational gaming machines that had traded 

for the full 12 months of the 2006-07 financial year were included in the survey frame. 

The total frame amounted to 1,251 venues. 

Table 3.2 (a) shows the number of venues that responded to the survey. 

Table 3.2 (a) 

In scope survey population – responses received 

Number of 

Venues Percent (%) 

Completed Survey 948 75.8 

Did Not Respond 303 24.2 

Total 1,251 100.0 

The 948 completed questionnaires generated an overall response rate of 75.8% of 

the in scope survey population. 

18B3.3 Survey administration 

A two tiered approach was taken in conducting the 2007 Survey. Firstly, the survey 

questionnaires were mailed to all individual club and hotel gaming machine venues 

on 29 August 2007 (see Appendix A for survey questionnaire). Venues were asked 

to complete and return the survey within two weeks. Venues who had not returned a 

survey questionnaire were posted a reminder letter on 24 September 2007, allowing 

one fortnight for venues to return their questionnaires. A second reminder letter was 

posted on 11 October 2007 to those remaining venues that had not returned a survey 

questionnaire. Accompanying this second reminder letter was a new blank 

questionnaire in case the original had been lost. On 22 October 2007, a follow up 

process was undertaken, with 266 non-responding venues contacted by telephone to 

remind them to return their surveys. This reminder allowed one week for venues to 

return their survey questionnaires. No data was collected over the telephone. 

7

Secondly, one major chain group was targeted in a separate approach. This group 

collectively controls 93 gaming machine venues, and a targeted survey approach 

was chosen due to the bias introduced to the survey if this group did not respond. 

After consultation with this group, the preferred approach was for head office 

coordination of venue responses to questions 17 and 21 to 25 and for venues not to 

respond to questions 12 and 15. With these conditions, questionnaires were 

distributed directly to these venues on 11 September 2007, asking these venues to 

complete all but questions 12, 15, 17 and 21 to 25 of the survey questionnaire. 

Venues then posted their survey questionnaires to head office for coordination of 

responses to questions 17 and 21 to 25. Survey questionnaires were then returned to 

OESR. 

The 2007 Survey of Queensland Gaming Machine Venues closed on 31 October 

2007. 

19B3.4 Comparison with previous surveys 

The 2007 Survey builds on previous Surveys conducted annually since 2001. 

Many questions used in the 2007 Survey were first used in the 2001 Survey. The 

2007 Survey included new and revised questions on venue products and services, 

employment, building projects and facility improvements, business impacts, 

community support as well as responsible gambling practices. 

Like the 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 Surveys, the 2007 Survey was only 

conducted via written responses. The 2002 Survey allowed respondents to complete 

the survey either as a written response or a verbal interview. The 2007 Survey was 

administered over a similar timeframe to past surveys. 

20B3.5 Response problems and editing 

While some minor problems were encountered, survey issues have not adversely 

affected the collected information. Editing processes are detailed in the 

accompanying technical report. 

21B3.6 Reliability of results 

The 2007 Survey aimed to survey all 1,251 clubs and hotels with operational gaming 

machines in the 12 months to 30 June 2007. The response rate of 75.8% meant the 

survey results had to be treated as a population sample and extrapolated to 

represent the entire population. Samples are subject to two errors: 

Sampling error. Estimates based on information obtained from a sample of 

venues may differ from figures that would have been produced if all venues 

had been included in the survey. 

Non sampling error. Errors may also occur due to non-response to the 

survey, inadequacies of the sampling frame, inaccuracies in reporting by 

respondents and processing errors. 

Non-sampling errors are difficult to quantify. However, several statistical techniques 

measure sampling error including standard error and relative standard error. This 

report uses a derivative of relative standard error called confidence intervals. 

Confidence intervals measure the accuracy of a value. A confidence interval is an 

estimate of a population parameter that consists of a range of values bounded by 

upper and lower confidence limits. For example, if 45% of respondents answered 

“yes” to a question, and the confidence interval for the sample is ±4%, then we can 

be 95% confident that between 41% and 49% of the population of interest would 

answer yes to the question. Upper and lower limits close to the value indicates the 

8

value is a relatively good representation of the population. Upper and lower limits 

widely distributed from the value indicate the value is less representative. 

Confidence intervals provide a relatively secure means of claiming differences 

between two populations. 

Where two sets of confidence intervals across a single variable are not overlapping it 

is considered a statistically significant difference. All differences cited in this report 

are statistically significant to a 95.0% confidence interval. This is a conservative test 

designed to ensure the probability of incorrectly declaring a difference to be 

significant is kept to about 5.0%. 

22B3.7 Accuracy of results 

This report uses relative standard error to provide readers with a measure of the 

accuracy and reliability of the results. Relative standard error is defined as the ratio 

of the standard error to the survey estimate. Within this report, figures marked with 

one asterisk (*) have an associated relative standard error of between 25.0% and 

50.0% and should be treated with caution. Estimates marked with two asterisks (**) 

have a relative standard error greater than 50.0%. These estimates should not be 

used, as they are unreliable. An explanatory note about standard error symbols used 

in figures and tables appears in a text box at the bottom of the “Result Highlights” 

section of each chapter of the report. 

23B3.8 Segmentation of gaming machine venues 

The 2007 Survey categorised venues three ways – by venue type, size and location 

as follows: 

Venue type split venues between clubs and hotels. 

Size was determined based on the annual metered win of clubs and hotels 

(collected for all venues by OLGR). Annual metered win refers to the level of 

annual player expenditure on a venue’s gaming machines. Venues were split 

into small (with metered win less than $200,000 in 2006-07), medium 

($200,000 - $800,000 in 2006-07) and large (greater than $800,000 in 2006- 

07). 

Location was determined by allocating venues into five regions based on 

2 

Statistical DivisionsF F. Selection of regions was driven by consistency with 

previous Surveys and catchment size. The regions were: 

 

 

 

 

 

Brisbane 

Moreton (includes Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast) 

Darling Downs, South-West, Wide Bay-Burnett 

Fitzroy, Mackay, Central West 

Northern, Far North, North West. 

The titles for these regional groupings were shortened to Brisbane, Moreton, 

Darling Downs, Fitzroy and Northern for this report. 

This classification system was used to analyse possible differences between 

behaviours and attitudes for various types, sizes and locations of venues. 

2 A Statistical Division (SD) is an Australian Standard Geographical Classification (ASGC) defined area. 

SDs represent relatively homogeneous regions characterised by identifiable social and economic links 

between the inhabitants and between the economic units within the region, under the unifying influence 

of one or more major towns or cities. 

9

Table 3.8 (a) provides the structure of the club and hotel gaming machine industry in 

Queensland based on venue type and size. 

Table 3.8 (a) 

Gaming machine venues by type and size 

Venues by Type and Size 

Venues 

(Metered Win per Year) Total (No.) % 

Clubs 

Large (>$800,000) 166 13.3 

Medium ($200,000 and $800,000) 127 10.2 

Small ($800,000) 334 26.7 

Medium ($200,000 and $800,000) 233 18.6 

Small (

Figure 3.8 (a) outlines the five regions. 

Figure 3.8 (a) 

Queensland Segmented for the 2007 Survey 

Northern 

Fitzroy 

Moreton 

Darling Downs 

Brisbane 

Table 3.8 (c) details the total and proportion of all venues in Queensland based on 

their type, size and region. 

Table 3.8 (c) 

Venues by type, size and region 

Region 

Brisbane Moreton Darling Downs Fitzroy Northern 

% of 





Venue No. Total No. Total No. Total No. Total No. Total 

Clubs 

Large 49 3.9 50 4.0 27 2.2 18 1.4 22 1.8 

Medium 45 3.6 36 2.9 14 1.1 20 1.6 12 1.0 

Small 85 6.8 54 4.3 63 5.0 42 3.4 23 1.8 

Total 179 14.3 140 11.2 104 8.3 80 6.4 57 4.6 

Hotels 

Large 131 10.5 83 6.6 31 2.5 41 3.3 48 3.8 

Medium 28 2.2 50 4.0 69 5.5 40 3.2 46 3.7 

Small 9 0.7 20 1.6 49 3.9 27 2.2 19 1.5 

Total 168 13.4 153 12.2 149 11.9 108 8.6 113 9.0 

Total 347 27.7 293 23.4 253 20.2 188 15.0 170 13.6 

11

Table 3.8 (d) provides a summary of gaming machine venues that responded to the 

2007 Survey. This table provides an overview of the total number of clubs and hotels 

that responded to the survey and the percentage of the total venues in their region by 

type and size. 

Table 3.8 (d) 

Responding venues by type, size and region 

Region 


Responding Venues No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % 

Clubs 

Large 44 89.8 47 94.0 26 96.3 18 100.0 19 86.4 

Medium 37 82.2 29 80.6 11 78.6 20 100.0 11 91.7 

Small 75 88.2 46 85.2 54 85.7 29 69.1 19 82.6 

Total 156 87.2 122 87.1 91 88.0 67 83.8 49 86.0 

Hotels 

Large 90 68.7 50 60.2 23 74.2 24 58.5 29 60.4 

Medium 19 67.9 35 70 44 63.8 29 72.5 32 69.6 

Small 5 55.6 15 75 38 77.6 17 63.0 13 68.4 

Total 114 67.9 100 65.4 105 70.5 70 64.8 74 65.5 

Total Venues 270 77.8 222 75.8 196 77.5 137 72.9 123 72.4 

24B3.9 Commercial in confidence information 

A small part of the information collected in the 2007 Queensland Survey of Gaming 

Machine Venues may have allowed for individual venues to be identified. In 

accordance with the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) any such information was treated as 

commercial-in-confidence and was not reported. 

25B3.10 Survey results 

Tables, graphs and commentary presented in this report are based on weighted 

data, so the results relate to the 1,251 Queensland clubs and hotels operating 

gaming machines between 1 July 2006 and 30 June 2007. Details of weighting 

procedures are contained in the Technical Report. 

This report summarises data for the whole of Queensland, and also by size of venue 

and region. 

12

5B4. Venue particulars 

26BResult highlights 

Clubs and hotels can be characterised by a range of variables, such as the number 

of gaming machines at venues, the range of gambling activities and non-gambling 

services offered to patrons, the operation of patron loyalty reward programs and 

membership of and interactions with industry associations. While clubs and hotels 

exhibited some marked distinctions in relation to the aforementioned elements, 

commonalities also existed between these venue types. 

Key distinctions between clubs and hotels included: 

Clubs were more likely than hotels to have anticipated an increase in the 

number of gaming machines at their venues in the 2007-08 financial year. 

Clubs were more likely than hotels to have offered bingo and held raffles. 

Hotels were more likely than clubs to have offered Keno and/or TAB. 

A higher proportion of clubs than hotels offered live sporting events, sporting 

facilities, function centres and/or a courtesy bus. 

A higher proportion of hotels than clubs offered televised sporting events, 

take-away alcohol, accommodation and/or ATMs. 

More large clubs than large hotels offered patrons a loyalty reward program. 

Clubs had more registered and active players in their loyalty reward programs 

than hotels. 

Clubs were more likely than hotels to allow accrual of loyalty reward points 

on: food and catering services; café/coffee lounge; bar services; and takeaway 

alcohol. 

Hotels were more likely than clubs to allow redemption of loyalty reward 

points on gaming machines. 

A greater proportion of clubs than hotels were members of an industry 

association with Clubs Queensland as the favoured association for clubs and 

the Australian or Queensland Hotels Association the most popular 

representatives for hotels. 

Clubs were more likely than hotels to have sought or received advice on 

Responsible Gambling Training and/or compliance with gaming legislation. 

Key commonalities between clubs and hotels included: 

Comparably high proportions of clubs and hotels anticipated there would be 

no change in the number of gaming machines at their venue during 2007-08. 

Similar proportions of clubs and hotels provided food and catering services, 

cafés/coffee lounges, bars, live entertainment, kids’ entertainment rooms, 

childminding services and vending machines. 

For both clubs and hotels, the most common anticipated improvement for 

2007-08 was the addition of new or upgraded gaming software. 

Comparable proportions of clubs and hotels operated patron loyalty reward 

programs and allowed accrual of points on gaming machines. 

The majority of clubs and hotels were industry association members. 

Similar proportions of clubs and hotels that didn’t seek or receive advice from 

industry associations saw that there could be benefit from this type of 

assistance. 

Figures and tables throughout this chapter include the symbols * and **. Estimates with * have a 

relative standard error of 25.0% to 50.0% and should be used with caution. Estimates with ** have a 

relative standard error of above 50.0% and have not been considered. 

13

27B4.1 Projected change in gaming machines at venues (Question 1) 

As in the 2004 to 2006 Surveys, the 2007 Survey sought data on the expected 

changes in gaming machine numbers in the upcoming (in this case, 2007-08) 

financial year. Table 4.1 (a) details the response to Question 1 by venue type and 

size. 

Table 4.1(a) 

Expected change in gaming machine numbers in 2007-08 by 

venue type and size 

Trend in Gaming Machine Numbers 


Increase 

% 

Remain Same 

% 

Decrease 

% 

Don’t Know 

% 

Refused 

% 

Clubs 

Large 30.1 63.5 ** 4.5* ** 

Medium 20.7 76.7 0.0 ** 0.0 

Small 7.5 90.3 ** 1.8* 0.0 

Total 17.2 79.3 ** 2.7* ** 

Hotels 

Large 4.1* 90.8 ** 2.6* ** 

Medium 16.4 77.2 ** 3.9* ** 

Small 8.3* 81.9 4.5* 5.3* 0.0 

Total 9.0 84.6 1.9* 3.6 0.9* 

Overall 12.7 82.2 1.2* 3.2 0.7* 

Similar to the 2004, 2005 and 2006 Surveys, most venues expected no change to 

their gaming machine numbers. About 82.2% of venues expected stability in gaming 

machine numbers in the 2007-08 financial year, similar to the 82.4% reported for the 

2006-07 financial year and the 83.2% reported for 2005-06. 

A total of 12.7% of venues anticipated an increase in gaming machines. There were 

some differences across venues: 

Clubs (17.2%) were more likely than hotels (9.0%) to have anticipated an 

increase in the number of gaming machines in their venue. 

Large clubs (30.1%) and medium clubs (20.7%) were more likely than small 

clubs (7.5%) to have anticipated expanding their number of gaming machines. 

More medium hotels (16.4%) than large hotels (4.1%*) expected to augment 

the number of gaming machines in the current financial year (2007-08). 

It should be noted, however, that all venue types and sizes were more likely to have 

expected no change in their gaming machine numbers than either an increase or 

decrease. 

14

Regional analysis 

Table 4.1 (b) 

Expected change in gaming machine numbers in 2007-08 by 

venue location 

Trend in Gaming Machine Numbers 

Venue Location 

Increase 

% 

Remain Same 

% 

Decrease 

% 

Don’t Know 

% 

Refused 

% 

Brisbane 10.2 84.7 ** 3.0* ** 

Moreton 11.0 85.2 ** 1.8* ** 

Darling Downs 11.4 80.5 ** 6.8 ** 

Fitzroy 14.7 82.8 ** ** 0.0 

Northern 20.3 74.1 ** ** ** 

There was only a single significant difference apparent in gaming machine number 

trends across regions. More venues in the Northern region (20.3%) than in Brisbane 

(10.2%) predicted an increase in the number of their gaming machines. Table 4.1 (b) 

presents the regional data for Question 1. 

15

28B4.2 Additional gambling activities at venue (Question 2) 

The 2007 Survey followed its predecessors in asking venues to identify other forms 

of gambling activities offered. This question provided information on the range of 

gambling activities consumers may access when visiting club or hotel gaming 

machine venues. This question allowed for multiple responses. The results of this 

question are presented in Figure 4.2 (a) below. 


Additional gambling activities by venue type 

46.8 Clubs 

Keno 71.9 

Hotels 

60.7 

Total 

21.9 

TAB 55.0 

40.2 

Bingo 

2.4* 

16.5 

33.9 

Raffles (Art Unions, 

sweeps, etc.) 

33.0 

52.4 

76.4 

Lucky Envelopes 

6.2 

7.1 

6.7 

Other 

4.7 

4.1 

4.4 

No other gambling 

activities 

12.7 

15.1 

14.0 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 

Percentage (%) 

The 2007 Survey revealed similar results to those found in the 2001 to 2006 Survey 

series regarding the types and frequencies of additional gambling activities: 

Raffles were the most popular additional gaming activity provided by Clubs. 

Clubs (76.4%) were more likely than hotels (33.0%) to provide raffles. 

Clubs (33.9%) were also more likely than hotels (2.4%*) to hold bingo. 

Keno was the most popular additional gaming activity provided in hotels. 

Hotels (71.9%) were more likely to provide Keno than Clubs (46.8%). 

Hotels (55.0%) were also more likely to provide TAB than clubs (21.9%). 

16

Club specific analysis 

There were some differences evident between the additional gambling activities that 

clubs of different size provided. Table 4.2 (a) details this analysis. 

Table 4.2 (a) 

Additional gambling activity by club size 

Clubs 

Gambling Activity 

Large 

% 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 

Keno 98.6 58.7 9.0 

TAB 65.5 9.1* ** 

Bingo 79.1 25.2 9.9 

Raffles 84.7 78.2 70.4 

Lucky Envelopes 10.2* 4.4* 4.5* 

Other 7.2* 3.6* 3.7* 

No other gambling ** 7.1* 22.4 

Large clubs were more likely than smaller clubs to have provided: 

Keno (98.6% of large clubs, 58.7% of medium clubs and 9.0% of small clubs); 

Bingo (79.1%, 25.2% and 9.9%, respectively); and 

TAB (65.5% of large clubs vs. 9.1%* of medium clubs). 

While similar proportions of large (84.7%) and medium (78.2%) clubs held raffles, 

large clubs were more likely to do so than their small (70.4%) counterparts. 

Hotel specific analysis 

Some differences emerged in the provision of additional gambling activities by hotels 

of different sizes. Table 4.2 (b) notes this analysis. 

Table 4.2 (b) 

Additional gambling activity by hotel size 

Hotels 


Large 

% 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 

Keno 93.6 69.2 18.7 

TAB 78.2 44.0 13.5 

Bingo 4.0* ** 0.0 

Raffles 32.4 34.0 32.7 

Lucky Envelopes 3.6* 10.1 11.1* 

Other 3.7* 5.6* ** 

No other gambling 4.9* 13.1 46.5 

Large hotels were more likely than their smaller counterparts to have offered: 

Keno (93.6% of large hotels, 69.2% of medium hotels and 18.7% of small 

hotels); and 

TAB (78.2%, 44.0% and 13.5%, respectively). 

Similar proportions of large (32.4%), medium (34.0%) and small (32.7%) hotels ran 

raffles. Only small proportions of hotels offered Bingo, lucky envelopes or other 

gambling activities. 

17


Some variations in the types of additional gambling activities venues offered 

emerged when data were disaggregated by region. Table 4.2 (c) presents these 

results. 

Table 4.2 (c) 

Additional gambling activity by venue location 

Region 


Brisbane 

% 

Moreton 

% 

Darling Downs 

% 

Fitzroy 

% 


% 

Keno 62.5 68.9 50.0 58.8 60.8 

TAB 48.3 46.3 27.3 36.3 36.6 

Bingo 18.9 17.5 15.2 13.3 15.3 

Raffles 52.8 57.7 54.0 51.1 41.9 

Lucky Envelopes 3.0* 7.5* 9.5 7.6* 7.6* 

Other 3.1* 5.8 3.9* 2.6* 7.1* 

No other gambling 12.4 8.1 17.8 19.4 16.3 

The following differences were observed across regions: 

Venues in Brisbane (62.5%) and Moreton (68.9%) were more likely to offer 

patrons Keno than those in Darling Downs (50%). Additionally, higher 

proportions of Moreton venues (68.9%) than Fitzroy venues (58.8%) provided 

Keno. 

Larger proportions of venues in Brisbane (48.3%) than those in Darling 

Downs (27.3%), Fitzroy (36.3%) and Northern (36.6%) offered TAB. Further, 

more venues in Moreton (46.3%) than in Darling Downs (27.3%) provided 

TAB for customers. 

Moreton venues (57.7%) were more likely than those in the Northern region 

(41.9%) to hold raffles. 

While the proportions involved are small, more venues in Darling Downs 

(9.5%) organised lucky envelopes than those in Brisbane (3.0%*). 

18

29B4.3 Other services provided by venues (Question 3) 

As in previous surveys, the 2007 Survey asked venues about other non-gambling 

services at their venue. This question aimed to compose a picture of venue 

activities. Figure 4.3 (a) presents the findings of this question. 


Other non-gaming services provided by venue type 

Food and catering 

services 

90.9 

93. 1 

92.1 

30.3 

Cafe/coffee lounge 29.7 

30.0 

97.7 

Bar 98.7 

98.3 

Take-away alcohol 

80.7 

87.8 

84.6 

61.6 

Live entertainment 62.0 

61.8 

Live sporting events 16.4 

30.3 

47.5 

Televised sporting 53.6 

events 66.8 

77.6 

35.0 

Courtesy bus 16.6 Clubs 

24.9 

Hotels 

Kids' entertainment 18.8 

22.0 

Total 

room 20.6 

Childminding facilities ** 

** 

5.3 

Function centre 26.4 

39.5 

55.6 

1.3* 

Accommodation 44.7 

25.3 

Sporting facilities 

2.1* 

30.1 

64.6 

53.2 

Vending machines 47.5 

50.1 

ATMs 

72.7 

84.7 

79.3 

18.2 

Other 18.3 

18.2 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 


19

Several differences emerged between clubs and hotels in their provision of nongambling 

services to patrons. 

Clubs were more likely than hotels to have offered: 

live sporting events (47.5% vs. 16.4%); 

sporting facilities (64.6% vs. 2.1%*); 

a function centre (55.6% vs. 26.4%); and 

a courtesy bus (35.0% vs. 16.6%). 

Hotels were more likely than clubs to have offered: 

take-away alcohol (87.8% vs. 80.7%); 

televised sporting events (77.6% vs. 53.6%); 

accommodation (44.7% vs. 1.3%*); and 

ATMs (84.7% vs. 72.7%). 

Similar proportions of clubs and hotels provided: food and catering services; 

café/coffee lounges; bars; live entertainment; kids’ entertainment rooms; childminding 

facilities; and, vending machines. 

A number of differences emerged in the provision of non-gambling services when 

venues were compared by size. 

Large venues were more likely than medium and small venues to have provided: 

televised sporting events (91.0%, 70.6% and 32.4%, respectively); 

live entertainment (78.7%, 67.5% and 34.8% ); 

ATMs (98.0%, 88.3% and 47.2%); 

vending machines (68.6%, 48.7% and 27.5%); 

café/coffee lounges (46.9%, 27.1% and 11.0%); 

kids’ entertainment areas (38.2%, 12.8% and 5.2%); and 

a courtesy bus (33.9%, 26.1% and 12.2%). 

Medium and large venues were more likely than small venues to have offered: 

food and catering services (l97.3%, 94.2% and 83.6%, respectively); 

a bar (99.2%, 99.3% and 96.1%); and 

take-away alcohol sales (89.2%, 86.4% and 77.2%). 

Medium venues were more likely than small venues to have: 

ATMs (88.3% vs. 47.2%); 

televised sporting events (70.6% vs. 32.4%); 

live entertainment (67.5% vs. 34.8%); 

vending machines (48.7% vs. 27.5%); 

café/coffee lounges (27.1% vs. 11.0%); 

a courtesy bus (26.1% vs. 12.2%); and 

kids’ entertainment areas (12.8% vs. 5.2%). 

More medium-sized venues (37.2%) than either large (19.5%) or small (21.6%) 

venues offered patrons accommodation. 

Small venues (52.9%) were more likely to have provided sporting facilities than their 

large (17.1%) or medium (23.4%) counterparts. 

20


A regional analysis of non-gaming services revealed a number of variations. Figure 

4.3 (b) provides the outcomes of this analysis. 

Figure 4.3 (b) 

Other non-gaming services provided by venue location 

100 

Brisbane 

Moreton 

90 

85 .2 

Darling Downs 

82.4 

80.3 

Fitzroy 

80 

76.2 


69.9 

70 

66.8 


60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

48.4 

40.3 40.6 44.0 

37.2 

37.0 

36.5 

34.8 35.5 

36.1 

35.0 

33.5 

29.9 30.9 

28.6 

22.4 

24.3 25.7 

23.6 

20.8 

18.2 

18.5 

16.7 

15.1 

12.7 

13.0 

10.4 

8.4 

3.0* 

1.6* 2.6* 4.3* 

0.7* 

Kids' 

entertainment 

room 

Childminding 

facilities 

Function centre Accommodation Sporting facilitiesVending machines ATMs Other 

58.1 

100 

90 

80 

94.2 91.7 

92.4 91.5 

90.1 

98.0 98.4 

98.6 98.6 97.6 

88.9 

87.5 

83.4 84.5 

81.4 

73.6 

75.0 

73.7 

Brisbane 

Moreton 

Darling Downs 

Fitzroy 


70 

64.3 

66.4 

65.3 

54.4 


60 

50 

40 

30 

39.0 

33.3 

28.7 

22.2 

60.0 

54.4 

50.4 

37.7 

31.6 

27.4 

27.5 

22.8 

35.2 

27.2 

20 

20.7 

20.6 

19.8 

18.1 

10 

0 

Food and 

catering 

services 

Cafe/coffee 

lounge 

Bar 

Take-away 

alcohol 

Liv e 

entertainment 

Live sporting 

events 

Te le v ise d 

sporting events 

Courtesy bus 

The most common non-gaming services, provided by more than two-thirds of venues 

in every region, were: food and catering; bar; take-away alcohol; and ATMs. 

Brisbane (66.4%), Moreton (75%) and Northern (73.7%) venues were more likely to 

have provided televised sporting events than Darling Downs venues (54.4%). 

Live entertainment was staged by a greater number of venues in Brisbane (64.3%) 

compared with those in Fitzroy (50.4%). Similarly a greater proportion of Moreton 

venues (73.6%) offered patrons live entertainment than those in Darling Downs 

(54.4%), Fitzroy (50.4%) and the Northern (60.0%) region. 

21

Live sporting events were more likely to have been held in Brisbane (37.7%) rather 

than Darling Downs venues (22.8%). 

More Brisbane (82.4%) and Moreton (85.2%) venues had ATMs for patron use than 

those in Darling Downs (69.9%). 

Higher proportions of Brisbane (58.1%) venues, in comparison with those in Darling 

Downs (36.1%) and Fitzroy (33.5%) provided vending machines at their premises. 

Around two-thirds of Moreton venues (66.8%) had vending machines compared with 

36.1% in Darling Downs, 33.5% in Fitzroy and 44.0% in Moreton. 

More Brisbane (33.3%) and Moreton (39.0%) venues had cafes/coffee lounges than 

those in Darling Downs (22.2%) and Northern (20.7%). 

Higher proportions of Brisbane (36.5%), Moreton (29.9%), Darling Downs (28.6%) 

and Fitzroy (30.9%) venues had sporting facilities compared with those in the 

Northern region (18.5%). 

More venues in Moreton (35.2%) than in Brisbane (20.6%), Fitzroy (19.8%) and 

Northern (18.1%) offered customers a courtesy bus, while Brisbane (22.4%) and 

Moreton (24.3%) venues were more likely to have provided a kids’ entertainment 

room than Northern venues (12.7%). 

Around half of the venues in Brisbane (48.4%) had a function centre in comparison 

with approximately a third (34.8%) of venues in Moreton. 

While Moreton (18.2%) venues were more likely to have provided accommodation 

than those in Brisbane (8.4%), more venues in Darling Downs (35.0%) and Fitzroy 

(40.3%) had accommodation than those in Brisbane or Moreton. 

Similar proportions of venues across all Queensland regions provided food and 

catering services, bars, take-away alcohol sales and childminding services. 

22

30B4.4 Provision and extent of loyalty reward program (Questions 4-6) 

Questions 4, 5 and 6 collected data on the prevalence and coverage of loyalty 

reward programs and the number of registered and active players in these programs. 

Questions 4 and 6, on the existence and coverage of loyalty reward programs, were 

first asked in the 2004 Survey. Question 5, on the number of registered and active 

players, was first included in the 2005 Survey. 

Figure 4.4 (a) compares the results of question 4 across the 2004, 2005, 2006 and 

2007 Surveys. 


Venues with loyalty reward program by year, venue type and 

size 

100 

2004 

90 

80 

87.0 

82.6 

76.2 

75.7 

73.5 

2005 

2006 

2007 

70 


60 

50 

40 

30 

25.6 

33.3 

29.0 

29.0 

26.0 

55.8 

50.3 

49.3 

37.3 

30.0 27.9 

27.4 

20 

10 

0 

19.2 

13.9 

16.0 

11.0 

12.5 

10.8 

3.6 1.8 

3.3 2.4 

8.6 

5.8 

2.5 

0.0 0.0 

Large Medium Small Total Large Medium Small Total 

Clubs 

Hotels 

In 2007, similar proportions of clubs (33.3%) and hotels (27.9%) operated a loyalty 

reward program. Large venues (61.8%) were more likely than medium (16%) or small 

(3.2%*) venues to have run a loyalty reward program, with medium venues also more 

likely to have done so than small ones. 

Large clubs (87.0%) were more likely than medium (25.6%) and small (3.6%*) clubs 

as well as large (49.3%) and medium (10.8%) hotels to have provided loyalty reward 

programs. 

Higher proportions of large hotels (49.3%) provided loyalty reward programs than 

medium (25.6%) and small (3.6%*) clubs and medium (10.8%) hotels. 

23

Historical analysis 

The proportion of large clubs that provided a loyalty reward program increased over 

time from 76.2% in 2004 to 87.0% in 2007. 

There was a decline in the proportion of large hotels offering loyalty reward programs 

across the same time period. While 73.5% of large hotels reported a loyalty reward 

program in 2004, this figure had decreased to 49.3% in 2007. The proportion of 

large hotels with such a program in the 2007 Survey (49.3%) is comparable to the 

findings for 2006 (50.3 %). 


Table 4.4 (a) 

Venues with loyalty reward program by venue location 

Region 

Brisbane 

% 

Moreton 

% 

Darling Downs 

% 

Fitzroy 

% 


% 

Loyalty Reward Program 39.0 29.7 21.5 27.9 29.3 

Brisbane venues (39.0%) were more likely than those in Moreton (29.7%), Darling 

Downs (21.5%) and Fitzroy (27.9%) to run a loyalty reward program. However it is 

important to note that venues across all regions were more likely not to have run 

such programs than the reverse. 

24

Number of registered and active players in loyalty reward programs 

Venues managing a loyalty reward program were asked how many registered and 

active players they had on their reward program. An active player is a player that 

has used their loyalty card within the past 12 months. This question was first added 

in the 2005 survey. 

In total, there were an estimated 1,423,305 registered players and 734,197 active 

players in venues across Queensland. Clubs had an estimated 1,203,945 registered 

players and 629,808 active players. Hotels had an estimated 219,360 registered 

players and 104,389 active players. 

Figure 4.4 (b) shows the average number of registered and active players by venue 

type and size. 


Average number of registered and active players on the loyalty 

reward program by venue type and size 

10,000 

9,000 

8,000 

9,366 

7,698 

Registered players 

Active players 

7,000 

Average 

6,000 

5,000 

4,000 

4,949 

4,027 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 

0 

2,498* 

** 

** 

1,394 1,254 

653 597 

** 

327* ** 89* 89* 


Clubs 

Hotels 

Clubs had more registered and active players than hotels. On average, clubs with a 

loyalty reward program reported 7,698 registered and 4,027 active players. This 

contrasted with the hotel average of 1,254 registered and 597 active players. 

Large clubs (9,366) on average had more registered players than medium (2,498*) 

clubs as well as large (1,394), medium (327*) and small (89*) hotels. Large clubs 

(4,949) had greater average numbers of active players than large hotels (653) and 

small hotels (89*). Large hotels (1,394) had higher average numbers of registered 

players than either medium (327*) or small (89*) hotels. 

25

There were also a few variances across regions in the average number of registered 

and active players on venues’ loyalty reward programs. Figure 4.4 (c) displays these 

findings. 

Figure 4.4 (c) 

Average number of registered and active players on the loyalty 

reward program per venue by venue location 

6,000 

5,000 

5,207 

5,774 

Brisbane 

Moreton 

Darling Downs 

Fitzroy 


4,000 

Average 

3,000 

2,250* 

2,687 

2,871 

2,680 

2,937 

2,000 

1,453 

1,543* 

1,109 

1,000 

0 

Registered players 

Active players 

On average, Brisbane (5,207) and Moreton (5,774) venues with a loyalty reward 

program had a higher number of registered players than those in Darling Downs 

(2,250*) and Fitzroy (2,687). Similarly, venues in Brisbane (2,680) and Moreton 

(2,937) had higher average numbers of active players compared with Darling Downs 

(1,109). 

26

Areas covered in loyalty reward program for accrual of reward points 

Question 5 asked venues managing a loyalty reward program to document the areas 

in their business where patrons could accrue and redeem their player loyalty reward 

points. 

Figures 4.4 (d) and (e) display the ways in which clubs and hotels allowed patrons to 

accrue or redeem loyalty reward points. This question allowed for multiple 

responses, so percentages across categories add to more than 100%. 

Figure 4.4 (d) 

Scope of loyalty reward program for accruing points by venue 

type 

Gaming machines 

87.7 

89.7 

88.7 

Club 

Other gambling 

activities 


services 

2.8* 

4.0* 

3.4* 

27.7 

38.0 

48.6 

Hotel 

Total 

Café/Coffee lounge 

10.3 

22.1 

34.3 

Bar 

28.3 

42.0 

56.1 


22.9 

35.1 

47.7 

Live entertainment 

Poker nights 

Childminding 

facilities 

Function Centre 

Accommodation 



** 

3.2* 

2.5* 

0.0 

3 

3 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

5.8* 

3.3* 

4.5* 

** 

** 

1.6* 

** 

** 

** 

7.1* 

** 

4.3* 

0 20 40 60 80 100 


Almost nine in ten venues (88.7%) with a loyalty reward program allowed 

patrons to accrue loyalty points on gaming machines. Similar proportions of 

clubs (87.7%) and hotels (89.7%) venues allowed accrual of points on gaming 

machines. 

Clubs were more likely than hotels to allow accrual of points on: 

food and catering services (48.6% vs. 27.7%); 

café/coffee lounge (34.3% vs. 10.3%*); 

bar services (56.1% vs. 28.3%); and 

take-away alcohol (47.7% vs. 22.9%). 

27

Areas covered in loyalty program for redemption of reward points 

Figure 4.4 (e) 

Scope of loyalty reward program for redeeming points by venue 

type 


40.7 

51.0 

60.9 

Club 

Other gambling activities 

Food and catering services 

4.0* 

5.0* 

4.5* 

43.9 

54.4 

65.3 

Hotel 

Total 

Café/Coffee lounge 

16.1 

28.1 

40.6 

Bar 

38.1 

53.0 

68.4 


34.3 

44.6 

55.3 


3.5* 

** 

2.5* 

Poker nights 

** 

** 

** 

Childminding facilities 

** 

** 

** 

Function Centre 

Accommodation 

3.4* 

** 

2.9* 

** 

3.3* 

2.0* 


4.4* 

** 

2.5* 


6.5* 

13.1 

19.9 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 


Approximately one half of venues allowed redemption of loyalty rewards points on 

gaming machines (51.0%), food and catering services (54.4%) and bar services 

(53.0%). 

Clubs were more likely than hotels to allow redemption on 

food and catering services (65.3% vs. 43.9%); 

bar services (68.4% vs. 38.1%); 

take-away alcohol (55.3% vs. 34.3%); and 

café/coffee lounge (40.6% vs. 16.1%). 

Hotels (60.9%) were more likely than clubs (40.7%) to allow redemption on gaming 

machines. 

28

Areas covered in loyalty program for both accrual and redemption of reward points 

There were a few differences in the service areas where venues allowed loyalty 

points to be accrued, redeemed, or both accrued and redeemed. Table 4.4 (b) 

shows the results. 

Table 4.4 (b) 

3 

Scope of loyalty reward programF 

Loyalty 

program area 

Accrual 

% 

Redemption 

% 

Total 

Both accrual 

and 

redemption 

% 

Not 

Applicable/ 

missing 

% 

Gaming 

machines 39.2 1.5* 49.5 9.9 


gambling activities 1.9* 3.0* ** 93.6 

Food and 

catering services 6.8 23.2 31.2 38.8 

Café/Coffee lounge 4.2* 10.3 17.9 67.7 

Bar 6.2 17.3 35.7 40.8 

Take-away alcohol 7.1 16.6 28.0 48.3 

Live entertainment ** ** 1.6* 96.7 

Poker nights ** ** 0.0 98.9 

Childminding 

facilities 0.0 ** 0.0 99.7 

Function centre 1.6* 0.0 2.9* 95.5 

Accommodation ** ** ** 97.6 

Sporting facilities 0.0 ** ** 97.5 

Other 2.5* 11.3 1.8* 84.4 

Venues were more likely to have allowed gaming machines to be service points 

where loyalty points could be both accrued and redeemed (49.5%) rather than just 

accrued (39.2%) or redeemed (1.5%*). Hotels (59.2%) were more likely than clubs 

(39.5%) to have allowed both point accrual and redemption on gaming machines. 

Moreover, higher proportions of large hotels (62.2%) than large clubs (41.4%) and 

medium clubs (34.6%) permitted both accrual and redemption of points at gaming 

machines. Clubs (48.2%) were more likely to have allowed accrual only on gaming 

machines than hotels (30.4%). 

Overall, similar proportions of venues allowed redemption only (23.2%) as well as 

both accrual and redemption (31.2%) of points via food and catering services in 

comparison with only 6.8% of venues permitting accrual only in this area. Clubs 

(40.6%) were more likely than hotels (22.2%) to have allowed both accrual and 

redemption of points in the food and catering services area. However, more large 

hotels (47.5%) than large clubs (22.3%) permitted both accrual and redemption in the 

food and catering services area. 

Overall, café/coffee lounge services were more likely to have been sites where both 

accrual and redemption (17.9%) of points were allowed by venues rather than either 

3 Total percentages for gaming machines, café/coffee lounges, accommodation and sporting facilities 

add up to a fraction of a percent more or less than 100% as a result of rounding. 

29

accrual (4.2%*) or redemption (10.3%) in isolation. Here too, a higher proportion of 

clubs (27.3%) than hotels (8.7%*) permitted points to be both accrued and redeemed 

with large clubs (32.1%) more likely to do so than large hotels (10.2%). 

Greater proportions of venues permitted both accrual and redemption (35.7%) of 

loyalty points for bar services than either accrual (6.2%) or redemption (17.3%) only 

in this area. Clubs (49.2%) were more likely to have offered both accrual and 

redemption for bar services than hotels (22.8%), with both large clubs (48.0%) and 

small clubs (73.3%*) more likely to have done so than large hotels (20.5%). 

Similar to the findings for bar services, venues were more likely to allow both accrual 

and redemption of loyalty points for take-away alcohol sales (28.0%) as opposed to 

just accrual (7.1%) or redemption (16.6%). More clubs (37.3%) than hotels (19.0%) 

offered both accrual and redemption for this service area, with large clubs (37.5%) 

more likely to have done so than large hotels (16.9%). 


There were no notable variations in the scope of venue loyalty reward programs 

areas across the five Queensland regions. 

30

31B4.5 Anticipated improvements to venue services (Question 7) 

Question 7 was introduced in the 2004 Survey and employed in the 2005 and 2006 

Surveys. This question was designed to complement questions 2 to 5. Question 7 

requested venues to note their anticipated service improvements for the 2007-08 

financial year. 

In total, 67.8% of venues across Queensland (67.3% of clubs and 68.1% of hotels) 

anticipated they would make improvements to their venue in 2007-08. Table 4.5 (a) 

details the types of improvements anticipated. Venues could nominate more than 

one type of improvement, so percentages across categories add to more than 100%. 

Table 4.5 (a) 

Venues anticipating implementing service improvements by 

venue type, 2007-08 

Service Improvement 

Clubs 

% 

Hotels 

% 

Total 

% 

Additional gaming machines 18.2 9.3 13.2 

New/upgraded gaming software 50.0 53.6 52.0 

New/upgraded gambling activities (bingo, 

TAB, Keno, other) 12.1 15.3 13.9 

New/upgraded food or catering facilities 31.8 30.9 31.3 

New/upgraded entertainment activities (live 

or televised) 15.8 18.1 17.1 

New/upgraded courtesy bus system 9.3 4.6 6.7 

New/upgraded childminding or kids' 

entertainment room 11.4 7.5 9.2 

New/upgraded loyalty reward programme 9.4 5.4 7.2 

New/upgraded/relocated ATM/cash facility 9.2 11.4 10.4 

Other 1.8* ** 1.5* 

Total venues anticipating improvementsF 

4 

67.3 68.1 67.8 

Venues were most likely to have anticipated implementing new or upgraded gaming 

software (52.0%) as a service improvement they would undertake during 2007-08. 

Approximately one half of clubs (50.0%) and hotels (53.6%) anticipated improving 

this element in this time period. 

Nearly a third of clubs (31.8%) and hotels (30.9%) expected to upgrade or provide 

new food and catering services. 

4 Percentages across categories do not add to the total percentage of venues anticipating service 

improvements, as venues could anticipate improvements in more than one area. 

31

Some differences in venues based upon type and size were evident. Table 4.5 (b) 

displays this result. 

Table 4.5 (b) 


venue type and size, 2007-08 


Large 

% 

Medium 

% 

Clubs 

Small 

% 

Total 

% 

Large 

% 

Medium 

% 

Hotels 

Small 

% 

Total 

% 

Additional gaming 

machines 33.3 21.8 7.1 18.2 5.6* 15.7 7.1* 9.3 

New/upgraded gaming 

software 77.2 48.8 33.7 50.0 70.3 45.9 23.5 53.6 

New/upgraded gambling 

activities (bingo, TAB, 

Keno, other) 22.2 19.7 2.2* 12.1 20.8 12.5 5.8* 15.3 

New/upgraded food or 

catering facilities 50.1 35.0 19.0 31.8 33.9 28.1 28.3 30.9 

New/upgraded 

entertainment activities 

(live or televised) 33.2 11.9 6.9 15.8 21.8 16.9 10.4* 18.1 

New/upgraded courtesy 

bus system 18.9 11.7 2.2** 9.3 3.3* 6.9 3.4** 4.6 

New/upgraded 

childminding or kids' 

entertainment room 23.3 10.1* 4.6* 11.4 8.3 8.4 3.5** 7.5 

New/upgraded loyalty 

reward programme 19.8 10.2* 2.6* 9.4 8.2 4.3* 0 5.4 

New/upgraded/relocated 

ATM/cash facility 13.8 14.4 4.0* 9.2 14.7 7.5 9.8 11.4 

Other 4.5* 0 1.0** 1.8* 1.9* 1.3** 0 1.3* 

Large clubs (77.2%) and large hotels (70.3%) were more likely to have anticipated 

upgrading or adding new gaming software than medium (48.8%) and small (33.7%) 

clubs and medium (45.9%) and small (23.5%) hotels. 

More large clubs (50.1%) than small clubs (19.0%) and large (33.9%), medium 

(28.1%) and small (28.3%) hotels predicted upgrading or adding new food and 

catering services. Additionally, around a third of large clubs anticipated improving or 

adding to their gaming machines (33.3%) and their entertainment activities (live or 

televised) (33.2%), with smaller proportions of medium and small clubs and large, 

medium and small hotels having done so. 

Medium (45.9%) hotels were more likely than small (23.5%) hotels to have 

anticipated upgrading or acquiring new gaming software. 

32

Large hotels (33.9%) were more likely than small clubs (19%) to have predicted they 

would upgrade or add new food or catering services. Large hotels were also more 

likely than small clubs to have anticipated adding to, upgrading or relocating their 

ATM (14.7% and 4.0%* respectively) and improving their loyalty reward program 

(8.2% and 2.6%*). 

Large (21.8%) and medium (16.9%) hotels were more likely to have anticipated 

improving or adding new live or televised entertainment than small clubs (6.9%). 

A higher proportion of large hotels (20.8%) predicted upgrading or adding to their 

gambling activities (bingo, TAB, Keno, other) than either small clubs (2.2%*) or small 

hotels (5.8%*), with medium sized hotels (12.5%) more likely to do so than small 

clubs (2.2%). 

A greater proportion of medium hotels (15.7%) predicted adding to their gaming 

machines in comparison with small clubs (7.1%*) and large hotels (5.6%*). 


There were a few differences across regions in the proportions of venues intending 

to introduce new service improvements in 2007-08. Table 4.5 (c) details the results. 

Table 4.5 (c) 


venue location, 2007-08 

Region 

Darling 

Brisbane Moreton 

Fitzroy Northern 

Downs 

% 

% 

% 

% 


% 

Additional gaming machines 10.2 12.7 12.1 15.3 19.7 

New/upgraded gaming software 58.7 56.5 40.2 50.5 50.0 

New/upgraded gambling activities (bingo, 

TAB, Keno, other) 

16.3 20.7 7.1* 7.8* 13.9 

New/upgraded food or catering facilities 31.0 32.1 22.3 35.9 39.1 

New/upgraded entertainment 

activities (live or televised) 

17.7 22.5 9.5 17.4 17.3 

New/upgraded courtesy bus system 6.8 9.1 5.0* 6.7* 5.0* 

New/upgraded childminding or 

kids’ entertainment room 

9.6 9.8 9.7* 10.9 5.0* 

New/upgraded loyalty reward program 8.4 9.5 3.4* 5.0* 9.0 

New/upgraded/Relocated ATM/cash facility 13.0 10.4 5.6* 10.5* 12.3 

Other 2.5* ** ** ** ** 

Venues in Brisbane (58.7%) and Moreton (56.5%) were more likely than those in 

Darling Downs (40.2%) to have anticipated upgrading or adding to their gaming 

software. 

More Northern (19.7%) than Brisbane (10.2%) venues predicted adding to or 

upgrading existing gaming machines. 

A greater proportion of Fitzroy (35.9%) and Northern (39.1%) venues compared with 

those in Darling Downs (22.3%) predicted they would upgrade or add to their food or 

catering services. 

A significantly higher proportion of Moreton (20.7%) venues than Darling Downs 

(7.1%*) and Fitzroy (7.8%*) venues anticipated new or upgraded gambling activities 

(bingo, TAB, Keno, other) in the financial year of 2007-08. 

33

32B4.6 Industry association membership (Questions 8-11) 

Questions 8 and 9 asked venues to identify whether they belonged to an industry 

association and to name the association to which they belonged. Questions 10 and 

11 were new questions first included in the 2005 Survey. These questions were 

designed to determine whether venues sought or received assistance from their 

industry association on gaming-related topics. Table 4.6 (a) details the percentage of 

industry association membership by venue type and size. 

Table 4.6 (a) 

Industry membership by venue type and size 

Clubs 

Hotels 

Industry Membership 

Large 

% 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 

Total 

% 

Large 

% 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 

Total 

% 

Yes 95.4 93.4 87.2 91.0 90.8 72.5 59.2 78.9 

No 4.6* 6.6* 12.8 9.0 9.2 27.5 40.8 21.1 

As found in the 2006 Survey, the 2007 Survey results indicated that more clubs 

(91.0%) than hotels (78.9%) were members of an industry association. 

Some differences in association membership were evident by venue type and size. 

Higher proportions of large clubs (95.4%) than small clubs (87.2%) and medium 

(72.5%) and small hotels (59.2%) were members of an industry association. Medium 

(93.4%) and small (87.2%) clubs were also more likely to be industry association 

members than medium (72.5%) or small (59.2%) hotels 


Table 4.6 (b) presents the results for the regions. 

Table 4.6 (b) 

Industry membership by venue location 

Region 

Darling Downs 

Brisbane % Moreton % 

Industry Membership 

% 

Fitzroy % Northern % 

Yes 90.1 87.7 75.7 86.5 77.5 

No 9.9 12.3 24.3 13.5 22.5 

The majority of venues across all regions were members of an industry association. 

However there were a few significant differences between regions. Greater 

proportions of Brisbane venues (90.1%) than Darling Downs (75.7%) or Northern 

(77.5%) venues were industry association members. Similarly, more venues in 

Moreton (87.7%) than in Darling Downs (75.7%) were members of an industry 

association 

34

Question 9 sought to identify the industry associations with which venues held 

membership and whether they held multiple memberships. Table 4.6 (c) presents 

the findings of this question. Percentages have been calculated based on those 

venues that were members of an industry association. As venues could hold multiple 

memberships, percentages in the table add to more than 100%. 

Table 4.6 (c) 

Industry association memberships by venue type and size 

Clubs 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 

Total 

% 

Large 

% 

Hotels 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 

Industry Association Large % 

Australian or 

Queensland Hotels 

Association - - - - 97.4 92.2 95.9 95.6 

Chambers of 

Commerce - - - - 7.8 10.4* ** 8.4 

Clubs Queensland 95.8 96.2 85.1 91.0 - - - - 

Bowls Association (i.e. 

QDBA) 17.2 29.2 44.7 32.5 - - - - 

Golf Association (i.e. 

Qld Golf Union) 4.0* 4.1* 19.0 10.9 - - - - 

Returned and Services 

League 18.4 5.7* 4.0* 8.9 - - - - 

Surf Life Saving 

Australia 7.8 7.8* ** 4.9 - - - - 

Other 4.1* 6.8* 3.6* 4.5 ** 4.3* ** 2.5* 

Total 

% 

Most clubs that were members of an industry association were members of Clubs 

Queensland (91.0%). Most hotels that were members of an industry association were 

members of the Australian or Queensland Hotels Association (95.6%). 

Smaller proportions of clubs and hotels reported being members of other industry 

associations such as Chambers of Commerce, bowls and golfing associations, the 

Returned and Services League and Surf Life Saving Australia. 

Clubs were more likely to be members of Clubs Queensland (91.0%) than of bowls 

associations (32.5%), golf associations (10.9%), the Returned and Services League 

(8.9%) or Surf Life Saving Australia (4.9%). 

Significantly higher proportions of large (95.8%) and medium (96.2%) clubs than 

small (85.1%) clubs were members of Clubs Queensland. Greater proportions of 

large clubs (18.4%) were members of Returned and Services League than medium 

(5.7%*) or small (4.0%*) clubs. 

By contrast, small clubs (44.7%) were more likely than their large counterparts 

(17.2%) to have been members of a bowls association. More small clubs (19.0%) 

than large (4.0%*) or medium (4.1%*) clubs had membership with golf associations. 

Only a small proportion of hotels cited membership of Chambers of Commerce 

(8.4%). 

35


Tables 4.6 (d) and (e) present the regional results. Percentages in the tables have 

been calculated based on those venues that were members of an industry 

association. As venues could hold multiple memberships, percentages in the tables 

add to more than 100%. 

Table 4.6 (d) 

Club industry associations by venue location 

Region 

Darling Downs 


Industry Association 

% 


Clubs Queensland 95.7 93.6 80.8 89.0 91.0 

Bowls Association (i.e. QDBA) 31.2 30.0 43.7 30.1 26.8 

Golf Association (i.e. Qld Golf Union) 7.3* 14.7 12.3* 9.8* 11.6* 

Return Services League 8.9* 12.5* 7.9* ** 11.0* 

Surf Life Saving Australia ** 16.3 ** ** ** 

Other 5.0* ** 5.1* 7.0* 0.0 

Across all regions, clubs were most likely to be members of Clubs Queensland. 

There was only one difference of significance in industry association membership 

between regions. Brisbane clubs (95.7%) were more likely than those in Darling 

Downs (80.8%) to be members of Clubs Queensland. 

Comparable proportions of clubs across all five Queensland regions belonged to 

bowls associations (e.g. QDBA), golf associations, and the Returned and Services 

League. 

Table 4.6 (e) 

Hotel industry associations by venue location 

Region 


Darling 

Downs Fitzroy % Northern % 

Industry Association 

% 

Australian or Queensland Hotels 

Association 

97.1 94.2 95.6 96.4 94.3 

Chambers of Commerce 3.9* 11.7* 5.8* 9.5* 13.5* 

Other ** ** ** ** ** 

Hotels across all regions were most likely to be members of the Australian or 

Queensland Hotels Association. 

Similar proportions of hotels across regions were members of the Australian or 

Queensland Hotels Association and various chambers of commerce. 

36

Question 10 asked venues whether they had obtained advice from their industry 

association regarding any gaming-related topic. Table 4.6 (f) displays the findings by 

venue type. Percentages in the table have been calculated based on those venues 

that were members of an industry association. As venues could seek advice on 

more than one topic, percentages in the table add to more than 100%. 

Table 4.6 (f) 

Advice from industry associations 

Gaming-Related Topic 

Clubs 

% 

Hotels 

% 

Total 

% 

Responsible Gambling 89.3 87.5 88.4 

Responsible Gambling Code of Practice 83.4 79.3 81.3 

Exclusions Provisions 74.5 68.3 71.3 

Advertising and Promotions Guideline 62.8 65.1 64.0 

Responsible Gambling training 85.0 76.0 80.4 

Responsible Gambling resources 71.3 65.1 68.1 

Compliance with gaming legislation 83.5 73.9 78.6 

Other 6.7 8.1 7.4 

Around ninety percent (88.4%) of venues that were members of an industry 

association sought or received advice related to Responsible Gambling. About eighty 

percent received or sought information regarding the Responsible Gambling Code of 

Practice (81.3%), Responsible Gambling training (80.4%) and compliance with 

gaming legislation (78.6%). Additionally, around seventy percent (71.3%) sought or 

received advice on Exclusions Provisions, 68.1% asked about Responsible Gambling 

resources and 64.0% enquired about Advertising and Promotions Guidelines. 

Clubs that were members of an industry association were more likely than hotels to 

have sought or received advice on Responsible Gambling training (85.0% and 76.0% 

respectively) and on compliance with gaming legislation (83.5% and 73.9% 

respectively). 

Table 4.6 (g) details the percentage of venues who obtained advice from their 

industry association according to venue type and size. Percentages in the table have 

been calculated based on those venues that were members of an industry 

association. As venues could seek advice on more than one topic, percentages in 

the table add to more than 100%. 

Table 4.6 (g) 

Advice from industry associations by venue type and size 

Clubs 

Hotels 

Large Medium Small 


TOTAL 


% % % 

% % % 

TOTAL 

Responsible Gambling 92.4 90.0 87.0 89.3 90.0 85.2 82.3 87.5 

Responsible Gambling Code of Practice 88.2 83.5 80.2 83.4 81.6 77.3 74.7 79.3 

Exclusions Provisions 85.5 74.3 67.2 74.5 70.8 67.1 60.8 68.3 

Advertising and Promotions Guideline 72.5 67.2 53.9 62.8 71.9 58.4 52.4 65.1 

Responsible Gambling training 89.6 88.5 80.1 85.0 78.5 73.8 70.8 76.0 

Responsible Gambling resources 82.8 71.7 63.3 71.3 68.8 61.8 57.4 65.1 

Compliance with gaming legislation 88.3 82.4 80.9 83.5 77.0 72.2 65.3 73.9 

Other 14.8 ** 3.1 6.7 8.1 7.9* 8.2 8.1 

37

Significantly higher proportions of large (89.6%) and medium (88.5%) clubs that were 

members of an industry association sought or received advice on Responsible 

Gambling Training in comparison with medium (73.8%) or small (70.8%) hotels. 

More large clubs (88.3%) than medium (72.2%) or small (65.3%) hotels enquired 

about compliance with gaming legislation. A higher proportion of large clubs (85.5%) 

than small clubs (67.2%) and large (70.8%), medium (67.1%) and small (60.8%) 

hotels asked about Exclusions Provisions. Additionally, more large clubs (82.8%) 

than small clubs (63.3%) and large (68.8%), medium (61.8%) and small (57.4%) 

hotels received or sought advice on Responsible Gambling Resources. 

Both large clubs (72.5%) and large hotels (71.9%) were more likely than small clubs 

(53.9%) to have sought or received advice from industry associations about the 

Advertising and Promotions Guideline. 


Table 4.6 (h) presents the results by region. Percentages in the table have been 

calculated based on those venues that were members of an industry association. As 

venues could seek advice on more than one topic, percentages in the table add to 

more than 100%. 

Table 4.6 (h) 

Advice from industry associations by venue location 

Region 

Darling Downs 



% 


Responsible Gambling 89.9 88.3 90.4 86.0 85.1 

Responsible Gambling Code of Practice 81.6 82.6 81.7 77.8 81.9 

Exclusions Provisions 74.3 73.9 71.5 61.7 70.9 

Advertising and Promotions Guideline 64.7 68.6 60.4 59.7 63.9 

Responsible Gambling training 80.3 81.1 80.5 78.3 81.4 

Responsible Gambling resources 70.1 67.6 69.0 64.4 67.3 

Compliance with gaming legislation 77.2 82.7 77.8 73.9 80.8 

Other 10.1 6.3* 7.0* ** 8.2*. 

Similar proportions of venues across all regions sought advice from their industry 

association on each gaming-related topic. 

Question 11 asked venues that were members of an industry association but that did 

not seek or receive advice from their association on any of the previously mentioned 

gaming-related topics to indicate whether they would see a benefit from this type of 

assistance. Around one third of venues that did not seek advice (33.5%) indicated 

they would see a benefit from this type of assistance. Approximately 44.6%* of clubs 

and 27.3%* of hotels that did not seek advice believed they would benefit from this 

type of assistance from their industry association. 

38

6B5. Gross Revenue 

This section details: 

estimated gross revenue for the 2006-07 financial year; 

change in gross revenue levels from the 2005-06 financial year to the 2006- 

07 financial year; 

anticipated change in gross revenue for the 2007-08 financial year; 

percentage contribution of services to venue gross revenue; 

percentage contribution of operational areas towards costs; and 

gaming machine subsidisation of other venue activities. 


Some of the core conclusions of this section follow: 

Average gross revenue for clubs in the 2006-07 financial year was about $2.9 

million, while for hotels it was about $4.5 million. 

Clubs earned a median gross revenue of about $1.0 million in the 2006-07 

financial year, while hotels earned a median gross revenue of $3.0 million. 

Approximately one half of venues increased their sales from the 2005-06 

financial year to the 2006-07 financial year, and one third reported a decrease 

in sales. 

 

Since the 2006 Survey, there has been a decrease in the proportion of clubs 

and hotels reporting sales increases. There has been a corresponding 

increase in the proportion of hotels and clubs that reported a sales decline. 

Approximately one half of clubs and hotels believed their sales would 

increase in the 2007-08 financial year, with less than one in ten anticipating a 

decrease. 

Gaming machines, bar trade and food and catering contributed the largest 

proportions to gross revenue for clubs, while gaming machines, bar trade and 

take away alcohol were the biggest contributors to gross revenue for hotels. 

 

Wages, bar trade, take-away alcohol and gaming machines were the largest 

costs for operating a venue. 

The majority of clubs and hotels did not use gaming machines to crosssubsidise 

their bar trade, meal trade or entertainment. 




39

Extended results 

34B5.1 Venue gross revenue (Question 12) 

The 2007 Survey asked respondents to report their venue’s gross revenue for the 

2006-07 financial year. While a question about revenue was asked in the 2003 

Survey, revenue was not reported in the 2003 report. This is because the (then) 

QOGR held administrative data on revenue and did not require the data from the 

Survey to be reported. A simplified version of the question was included in the 2004 

to 2007 Surveys. 

Overall results are presented in Figure 5.1 below. Both average gross revenue and 

median gross revenue have been reported. The average gross revenue is the sum 

of the gross revenue for all venues divided by the number of venues. The median 

gross revenue is the mid-point of the data - 50% of venues had a gross revenue 

above the median and 50% of venues had a gross revenue below the median. 

Median gross revenue gives an indicator of the centre of the data that is less 

susceptible to unusually small or large data values. 

Figure 5.1(a) Average and median gross revenue by venue type, 2006-07 

$5,000,000 

$4,500,000 

$4,498,304 

Average gross revenue 

Median gross revenue 

Average/ Median Gross Revenue 

$4,000,000 

$3,500,000 

$3,000,000 

$2,500,000 

$2,000,000 

$1,500,000 

$1,000,000 

$2,875,350 

$970,232 

$2,958,059 

$3,690,329 

$1,805,990 

$500,000 

$0 

Clubs Hotels Total 

The average gross revenue of clubs and hotels in the 2006-07 financial year was 

approximately $3.7 million, slightly more than the 2005-06 financial year at $3.0 

million. On average, hotels earned approximately $4.5 million and clubs earned 

approximately $2.9 million in gross revenue in the 2006-07 financial year. In 

comparison to the 2005-06 financial year, the average gross revenue had increased 

for hotels (up approximately $1.4 million) and clubs (up approximately $0.1 million). 

The median gross revenue of clubs and hotels in the 2006-07 financial year was 

approximately $1.8 million. Hotels earned a median value of approximately $3.0 

million in this period, while clubs earned a median value of almost $1.0 million. 

40

There were marked differences across venue type, size and region. 

Figure 5.1(b) Average gross revenue by venue type and size, 2006-07 

9000000 

8000000 

$7,604,756 

$7,943,219 

7000000 

Average Gross Revenue 

6000000 

5000000 

4000000 

3000000 

` 

$2,875,350 

$3,068,102 

$4,498,304 

2000000 

$1,553,152 

$1,238,603 

1000000 

$563,882 

0 


Clubs 

Hotels 

Large venues had higher average gross revenues than smaller venues in the 2006- 

07 financial year. 

The average gross revenue for large clubs was approximately $7.6 million in the 

2006-07 financial year, similar to 2005-06 ($7.5 million). 

The average gross revenue for large hotels was $7.9 million in the 2006-07 financial 

year, an increase of approximately $3.7 million from 2005-06. 

There were no significant changes in revenue from 2005-06 to 2006-07 for medium 

and small venues. 

41

Figure 5.1 (c) Median gross revenue by venue type and size, 2006-07 

8000000 

$7,447,486 

7000000 

Average Gross Revenue 

6000000 

5000000 

4000000 

3000000 

2000000 

$5,500,000 

` 

$2,209,490 

$2,958,059 

1000000 

$1,092,411 

$390,000 

$970,232 

$895,000 

0 


Clubs 

Hotels 

Large venues had higher median gross revenues than smaller venues in the 2006-07 

financial year. This is a similar pattern to that for average gross revenue. 

Median gross revenue was $5.5 million for large clubs, approximately $1.1 million for 

medium clubs and almost $0.4 million for small clubs. 

Large hotels had the highest median gross revenue (approximately $7.4 million) of all 

venue sizes and types. Medium hotels earned a median value of approximately $2.2 

million, and small hotels earned approximately $0.9 million. 


There were several differences observed between venues across regions. Table 5.1 

presents results for average gross revenue. 

Table 5.1(a) Average gross revenue by venue location, 2006-07 

Region 

Brisbane 

$ 

Moreton 

$ 

Darling Downs 

$ 

Fitzroy 

$ 


$ 

4,807,423 4,157,930 2,456,070 3,210,394 3,451,634 

Average gross revenue for Brisbane was the highest of the regions at approximately 

$4.8 million. 

Average gross revenue for venues across Queensland had increased from the 2005- 

06 financial year. Brisbane venues experienced an average increase of 

approximately $1.1 million while Moreton and Northern had an average increase of 

approximately $0.8 million. Darling Downs and Fitzroy venues experienced average 

increases of approximately $0.5 million and $0.6 million, respectively. 

42

Table 5.1 (a) shows median gross revenue by region. 

Table 5.1 (b) Median gross revenue by venue location, 2006-07 

Region 

Brisbane 

$ 

Moreton 

$ 

Darling Downs 

$ 

Fitzroy 

$ 


$ 

2,080,000 2,463,114 1,142,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 

Median gross revenue was highest for venues in Moreton ($2.5 million). 

35B5.2 Change in venue gross revenue (Question 13) 

The 2007 Survey followed its predecessors by including questions about gross 

revenue change and expectations for gross revenue change for the venue. Venues 

were asked these questions to measure the industry outlook. Question 13 asked 

venues whether their gross revenue increased, decreased or remained the same in 

the 2006-07 financial year compared with the previous financial year (2005-06). 

Figure 5.2 details the results. 

Figure 5.2 (a) Change in gross revenue by venue type, 2006-07 

51.0 

Increase 

42.7 

46.4 

Remain the 

same 

8.4 

19.0 

14.3 

Clubs 

Hotels 

38.2 

Total 

Decrease 

25.1 

31.0 

Missing 

2.5 

8.4 

13.1* 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 


Gross revenue in clubs and hotels in the 2006-07 financial year reflected 

expectations for gross revenue change in clubs and hotels in the 2005-06 

financial year, with almost half of the venues (46.4%) reporting increased 

gross revenue. 

Clubs (51.0%) were more likely to report increased gross revenue in the 2006- 

07 financial year than hotels (42.7%). More clubs (38.2%) reported decreased 

43

gross revenue compared to hotels (25.1%); whilst more hotels (19.0%) 

reported stable gross revenue than clubs (8.4%). 

Historical analysis 

Figure 5.2 (a) contrasts the results of the 2007 Survey with the 2002 to 2006 

Surveys. 


Change in gross revenue from 2002 to 2007 by venue type 

100 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

90 

80 

70 

70.371.3 

68.6 67.9 


60 

50 

40 

37.4 

46.7 

54.3 

59.5 

51.0 

39.3 

38.2 

59.2 

51.0 

51.2 

49.0 

42.7 

30 

20 

10 

25.3 

23.1 

19.6 

12.0 

9.78.8 

8.4 

27.7 

27.8 

25.7 

24.5 

24.7 

23.0 

20.9 21.6 

2019.9 19.7 19.0 

25.1 

21.2 

17.2 

14.0 

14.0 

12.0 

10.4 

0 

Increase Remain the Same Decrease Increase Remain the same Decrease 

Clubs 

Hotels 

For 2007, the overall trend shows a decline in the proportion of venues with 

increased revenue, and a growth in the proportion of venues with decreased 

revenue. 

While the proportion of clubs with gross revenue growth rose from 37.4% in the 2001 

Survey to 71.3% in the 2005 Survey, this proportion has dropped over the past two 

years to 51.0% in the 2007 Survey. 

Conversely, the proportion of clubs experiencing gross revenue decline (38.2%) is 

the highest it has been since the 2001 Survey (39.3%). In addition, the proportion of 

clubs reporting steady gross revenue has been trending downward since the 2002 

survey (25.3%) except for a small spike in the 2006 Survey (12.0%). This trend has 

continued in the 2007 Survey with a drop to 8.4%, the lowest proportion of venues 

with steady gross revenue so far. 

The proportion of hotels reporting increased gross revenue has fallen to 42.7% in 

2007, the smallest proportion so far since inception of the survey in 2001. The 

proportion of hotels reporting stable gross revenue (19.0%) is similar to 2006 

(21.6%). Nearly one quarter of hotels (24.5%) reported stable gross revenue in 

2001. 

There was an increase from 2006 to 2007 in the proportion of hotels that reported 

declining gross revenue. Whilst the number of hotels reporting decreased gross 

revenue dropped between 2001 and 2004, the proportion of hotels reporting 

44

decreased gross revenue has increased from 10.4% in 2004 to 25.1% in 2007, 

continuing the trend observed in the 2005 and 2006 Surveys. 

More differences emerged when reviewing venue size. Table 5.2 presents these 

results. 

Table 5.2 (a) Change in gross revenue by venue type and size, 2006-07 

Change in Gross Revenue 

Increase 

% 

Remain Same 

% 

Decrease 

% 

Refused/Missing 

% 


Clubs 

Hotels 

Large 47.9 5.2* 45.6 ** 

Medium 52.7 4.7* 40.2 ** 

Small 52.1 12.1 32.5 3.3* 

Total 51.0 8.4 38.2 2.5* 

Large 41.2 10.8 24.9 23.2 

Medium 46.9 22.2 25.8 5.1* 

Small 39.1 35.4 24.5 ** 

Total 42.7 19.0 25.1 13.1 

Overall 46.4 14.3 31.0 8.4 

Unlike in previous Surveys, this year there were no significant differences between 

sizes of venues that reported an increase in gross revenue. 

Similar proportions of large, medium and small clubs reported decreased gross 

revenue in the 2006 Survey. The greatest increase in venues reporting a decline in 

gross revenue was among large clubs, up from 18.5% in the 2006 Survey to 45.6% 

in the 2007 Survey. Similar proportions of hotels of different sizes reported 

decreased gross revenue in the 2007 Survey. 

More small venues reported stable gross revenue in the 2006-07 financial year than 

large venues. About 12.1% of small clubs had steady gross revenue in the 2006-07 

financial year, compared to 4.7% of medium clubs and 5.2% of large clubs. Around 

one quarter of medium (22.2%) and 35.4% of small hotels reported steady gross 

revenue, in comparison to 10.8% of large hotels. 

45


Variances also emerged when the 2007 Survey data was contrasted along regional 

lines. Figure 5.2 (b) presents this analysis. 

Figure 5.2 (c) Change in gross revenue by venue location, 2006-07 

100 

90 

80 

70 

Brisbane 

Moreton 

Darling Downs 

Fitzroy 



60 

50 

40 

30 

53.4 

51.6 

47.5 

43.2 

40.5 

34.8 35.5 

31.4 

27.6 

20 

18.4 

16.8 

14.5 15.4 

20.3 

10 

9.1 

0 

Increase Remain the same Decrease 

Significant declines in the proportion of venues that reported increased gross 

revenue between the 2006 and the 2007 Surveys were observed in Moreton (down 

to 40.5% from 50.5% in the 2006 Survey), Darling Downs (down to 43.2% from 

52.3% in the 2006 Survey) and Fitzroy (down to 51.6% from 63.3% in the 2006 

Survey) venues. 

Venues in the Moreton (34.8%) and Darling Downs (35.5%) regions were more likely 

to report decreased gross revenue than venues in the Northern region (20.3%). 

Venues in the Darling Downs (18.4%) region were more likely to report stable gross 

revenue than venues in the Brisbane region (9.1%). 

Question 13 contained a qualitative element that enabled respondents to make 

comments on venue sales. In 2006, venue upgrades was a factor influencing sales. 

This factor was also identified in the 2007 Survey. Additional comments made in the 

2007 Survey related to legislative changes, inclusive of new smoking laws, and 

decreases and increases in revenue in the 2006-07 financial year. 

46

36B5.3 Anticipated change in venue gross revenue (Question 14) 

As in previous surveys, the 2007 Survey asked respondents about their expectations 

for their gross revenue in the current financial year (2007-08) compared with last 

financial year (2006-07). Table 5.3 presents the results of this question. 

Table 5.3 (a) 

Expected change in sales by venue type 

Change in gross revenue 

Venue 

Increase 

% 

Remain Same 

% 

Decrease 

% 

Don’t Know 

% 

Refused/Missing 

% 

Total 

% 

Clubs 56.1 22.9 11.9 8.0 1.0* 100 

Hotels 54.2 22.3 4.7 9.2 9.6 100 

Total 55.1 22.6 7.9 8.6 5.8 100 

Clubs and hotels had somewhat similar outlooks for sales in the 2007-08 financial 

year, with comparable proportions of clubs and hotels believing their sales would 

increase and comparable proportions believing their sales would remain stable. 

However more clubs (11.9%) than hotels (4.7%) believed that their gross revenue 

would decrease in the 2007-08 year. 

More differences emerged when data was divided along venue size. Figure 5.3 

presents this analysis. 


Anticipated change in gross revenue in 2007-08 by venue type 

and size 


100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

4.4* 

12.3 

14.2 

69.0 

Increase Remain the same Decrease Don't know Missing 

** ** ** 

9.1* 

9.6 

19.5 

12.0* 

13.9* 

5.8* 

14.6 

5.6* 5.6* 

5.5* 

18.6 

3.7* 

28.8 

12.9 

30.4 

35.6 

64.9 

58.4 

53.0 

43.9 

44.9 

0 

Large Medium Small Large Medium Small 

Clubs 

Hotels 

47

Between 3.7% and 14.6% of venues of all sizes believed their gross revenue would 

decrease in the 2007-08 financial year. 

Large (69.0%) and medium (64.9%) clubs were more likely to believe their gross 

revenue would increase than small clubs (43.9%). Almost a third of small clubs 

(30.4%) believed their gross revenue would remain stable in comparison to large 

clubs (14.2%). 

Small (35.6%) and medium (28.8%) hotels were more likely to believe their gross 

revenue would remain stable than large hotels (12.9%). 

48


Some variations became evident when the 2007 Survey data was analysed in terms 

of regional boundaries. Figure 5.3 (a) presents this analysis. 


Anticipated change in gross revenue in 2007-08 by venue 

location 

100 

90 

80 

70 

Brisbane 

Moreton 

Darling Downs 

Fitzroy 



60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

60.3 

57.6 

52.7 

48.8 

52.6 

30.4 

27.1 

24.4 

17.4 

18.0 

10.2 

18.0 

7.8 

5.1* 

4.1* 

12.4 

12.0 

10.5* 

9.3 

8.4* 

6.1* 6.0 

5.4* 

2.7* 

** 

Increase Remain the same Decrease Don't know Missing 

More venues in the Darling Downs (30.4%) region anticipated stable gross revenue 

than venues in the Brisbane (18.0%) and Moreton (17.4%) regions. 

There were no marked differences between venues across regions with regard to 

their expectations of increased gross revenue in this financial year, although there 

was an increase in venues with a positive outlook across all regions from the 2006 to 

the 2007 Survey. The largest increase was in the Brisbane region (up to 57.6% from 

44.2% in the 2006 Survey), while the smallest increase was in the Fitzroy region (up 

to 52.7% from 51.5% in the 2006 Survey). 

There were no differences between venues across regions anticipating decreased 

gross revenue in the 2007-08 financial year. 

Venues were asked if they had any additional comments as to the factors they felt 

might affect their anticipated change in gross revenue for 2007-08 compared to 

2006-07. Reasons noted in the 2007 Survey for the anticipated change in gross 

revenue were: 

legislative changes inclusive of new smoking laws; 

venue upgrades; 

economic climate; and 

general comments on increases and decreases in revenue. 

49

37B5.4 Activity contribution to gross revenue (Question 15) 

The 2007 Survey asked respondents to identify revenue derived from each of their 

services. This information contextualises the value of gaming machines in the 

venue. The 2007 Survey results are generally similar to the 2001 to 2006 Surveys. 

Figure 5.4 details the results to question 15. 


Average proportion of gross revenue derived from different 

activities in 2006-07 by venue type 


Bar 

9.3 

11.4 

10.3 

32.5 

27.5 

30.0 

Clubs 

Hotel 

Total 


3.9 

17.6 

31.6 


22.1 

29.0 

35.6 

TAB 

0.4 

1.3 

0.8 

Keno 

1.1 

1.1 

1.1 


2.0 

** 

1.1 


and sporting events 

0.6 

0.5 

0.6 

Televised sporting events 

and/or movie nights 

0.1* 

0.1* 

0.1 

Memberships 

4.9 

0.1* 

2.5 

Accommodation 

0.2* 

3.9 

2.0 

Green fees 

0.2* 

2.9 

5.5 


2.3 

0.3* 

1.3 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 

Average proportion of revenue (%) 

Clubs and hotels had similar revenue sources. Food and catering, bar trade, takeaway 

alcohol and gaming machines contributed the most to venue gross revenue; no 

different to the 2006, 2005, 2004, 2002 and 2001 Surveys. 

There has been a slight decrease in the contribution to hotel revenue by gaming 

machines (down from 23.8% in the 2006 Survey to 22.1% in the 2007 Survey). 

Gaming machines continued to contribute more to club (35.6%) than hotel (22.1%) 

revenue. 

50

Table 5.4 shows the average proportion of gross revenue derived from gaming 

machines by venue type and size. 

Table 5.4 (a) 

Average proportion of gross revenue in 2006-07 derived from 

gaming machines by venue type and size 

Clubs 

Hotels 

Large 

% 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 

Large 

% 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 

57.4 39.1 20.3 28.1 20.3 15.2 

Gaming machines accounted for a higher proportion of revenue for large venues than 

smaller venues. Large clubs gained 57.4% of revenue from gaming machines. This 

contrasted to 39.1% of revenue of medium and 20.3% of revenue of small clubs. 

Likewise, large hotels reported 28.1% of their revenue was obtained through gaming 

machines compared to 20.3% of revenue for medium hotels and 15.2% of revenue 

for small hotels. 

Bar trade was another major source of venue revenue. Bar trade accounted for 

proportionally more revenue in small venues than larger venues, similar to the 2003, 

2004, 2005 and 2006 Surveys’ findings. This activity contributed 32.5% of revenue 

to clubs and 27.5% to hotels in 2007. Small clubs obtained 40.8% of their revenue 

and medium clubs derived 33.8% of their revenue from bar trade. In contrast, bar 

trade accounted for only 18.2% of revenue in large clubs. In small hotels, bar trade 

contributed 39.7% of revenue while this activity only accounted for 28.0% of revenue 

in medium hotels and 20.2% of revenue in large hotels. 

The third major source of venue revenue was take-away alcohol. Take-away alcohol 

accounted for 3.9% of club gross revenue; much less than the 31.6% it contributed to 

hotels. This disparity represented a continuation of a trend established in the 2001 to 

2006 Surveys. The differing regulations which apply to clubs and hotels may explain 

this disparity. Clubs and hotels are regulated via the Liquor Act 1992 for take-away 

alcohol. While clubs and hotels can both sell take-away alcohol, hotels can also 

have three take-away outlets within ten kilometres of their main premises. 

Like gaming machines and bar trade, take-away alcohol revenue also varied across 

venue size. Take-away alcohol contributed more to large (36.0%) and medium 

(32.0%) hotels compared to small hotels (22.9%). Similar proportions of large, 

medium and small club revenue came from take-away alcohol. 

Food and catering services were the last major source of revenue for venues. Food 

and catering services generated a slightly higher proportion of revenue for hotels 

than clubs; a finding consistent with past surveys. Food and catering services 

provided 11.4% of hotel revenue compared to 9.3% of revenue for clubs. Large 

clubs derived 12.2% of their revenue from food in catering services, a higher 

proportion than the 7.5% reported by small clubs. There were no significant 

differences in the proportion of revenue derived from food and catering between 

hotels of different sizes. 

Clubs and hotels provided several other revenue generating services. These were 

TAB, keno, bingo and other gambling activities, live entertainment, televised sporting 

events, memberships, accommodation and green fees. Membership fees and green 

fees provided significant revenue for clubs. Membership fees formed 4.9% and 

green fees formed 5.5% of club revenue. Small clubs in particular benefited from 

membership fees and green fees. Membership fees and green fees formed 7.8% 

and 9.6% of small club revenue. This compared to large clubs (1.4%) and medium 

51

clubs (3.6%) for membership fees and large clubs (0.8%*) and medium clubs (2.9%) 

for green fees. 

Accommodation generated 3.9% of hotel revenue. Smaller hotels acquired a higher 

proportion of their revenue through accommodation than large hotels. Medium and 

small hotels obtained 4.6% and 6.6% of their revenue respectively from 

accommodation compared to 1.6% for large hotels. 

Other identified revenue sources contributed an average of 1% or less to venue 

revenue. 



of regional boundaries. Table 5.4 (a) presents this analysis. 

Table 5.4 (b) 

Average proportion of gross revenue derived from different 

activities in 2006-07 by venue location 

Region 

Darling Downs 


Activity 

% 


Food and catering 9.3 11.2 10.5 10.8 9.7 

Bar 29.6 30.3 31.0 29.6 29.3 

Take-away alcohol 13.5 16.2 20.2 19.6 20.9 

Gaming machines 32.1 29.7 26.8 26.2 28.6 

TAB 0.7 1.1 0.8* 1.0 0.7 

Keno 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.3 0.9 


(e.g. bingo, raffles, Calcuttas, 

art unions, lucky envelopes) 

1.4 1.0 1.3 0.7 0.6 

Live entertainment 0.8* 0.4* 0.5* 0.3* 0.8* 


and/or movie nights 0.1* 0.1* ** ** 0.2* 

Memberships 3.7 3.0 1.7 2.2 1.4* 

Accommodation ** 0.9* 1.9 4.2 3.5* 

Green fees 3.9 2.7 3.0 2.2 1.7 

Other 1.8 1.4 0.8* 1.1* 1.5* 

Venues in Brisbane (32.1%) gained more of their revenue from gaming machines 

than venues in the Darling Downs (26.8%) and Fitzroy regions (26.2%). Gaming 

machines accounted for 29.7% of revenue for venues in the Moreton region, and 

28.6% of revenue in the Northern area. 

There were no significant differences across regions in the average proportion of 

revenue derived from bar trade. 

Venues in the Darling Downs (20.2%), Fitzroy (19.6%) and Northern (20.9%) regions 

gained more of their revenue from take-away alcohol than venues in Brisbane. 

Brisbane venues derived 3.7% of their revenue from membership fees, a higher 

proportion than Northern (1.4%*) and Darling Downs (1.7%) venues. Similarly, green 

fees contributed 3.9% of revenue to venues in the Brisbane region but only 1.7% for 

Northern venues. 

Fitzroy venues (4.2%) earned more from accommodation than venues in Moreton 

(0.9%*). 

52

38B5.5 Operating costs attributed to various services and expenses (Question 16) 

Like the past surveys, the 2007 Survey asked respondents about operating 

costs/expenditure for their venue. The survey requested respondents to identify the 

proportion of operating costs attributable to various venue services and expenses. 

Like Question 15, Question 16 aimed to contextualise gaming machine costs in the 

overall cost structure. Figure 5.5 outlines the findings. 


Average proportion of operating costs attributed to various 

services and expenses in 2006-07 by venue type 

Wages 

Rent/mortgage repayments 

3.5 

7.1 

10.7 

29.7 

26.0 

27.8 

Clubs 

Hotel 

Total 

Administration 

3.9 

6.5 

9.0 

Insurance 

2.8 

2.8 

2.8 

Marketing 

1.9 

2.5 

2.2 


6.4 

8.0 

7.2 

Bar 

17.5 

14.9 

16.2 


2.7 

9.4 

16.0 


7.5 

10.6 

13.8 

TAB 

Keno 

Other gaming activity 


and sporting events 


and/or movie nights 

Accommodation 

Sponsorships 

0.3 

0.9 

0.6 

0.6 

0.8 

0.7 

1.4 

0.2 

0.8 

1.8 

1.4 

1.6 

0.2 

0.4 

0.3 

0.1* 

1.7 

0.9 

2.1 

0.5 

1.3 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 

Average proportion of operating costs/ expenditure (%) 

53

Wages, bar trade, gaming machines and take-away alcohol were the major costs 

associated with operating a venue. Other costs included rent/mortgage, 

administration, marketing, food and catering, insurance, TAB, keno, live 

entertainment, televised sporting events or movie nights, accommodation, 

sponsorships, bingo and other gambling activities. The results of the 2007 Survey 

reflected the results in the 2006, 2005, 2004 and 2003 Surveys. 

Wages were the greatest cost for both clubs and hotels. Clubs spent 29.7% of 

outlays on wages, a greater proportion than hotels, who spent 26.0%. Size also 

influenced spending on wages. Small (31.0%) and medium (31.7%) clubs incurred 

proportionally more costs associated with wages than large (26.0%) clubs. Also, 

large hotels (29.1%) incurred a higher proportion of costs from wages compared to 

small (20.0%) hotels. Wages accounted for 25.3% of costs for medium hotels. 

Bar trade costs also accounted for a relatively large proportion of operating costs. 

Bar costs varied with establishment size. Smaller venues spent proportionally more 

on bar trade than larger venues. Clubs (17.5%) also incurred a greater proportion of 

costs from bar trade than hotels (14.9%). Bar trade costs accounted for 23.0% of 

small and 16.3% of medium club expenses, in comparison to only 9.8% of large 

clubs’ expenses. Small hotels spent 22.3% of their expenses on costs associated 

with bar trade, in comparison to 15.9% of medium and 10.8% of large hotel 

expenses. 

Large venues (15.8%) attributed a greater proportion of costs to gaming machines 

than medium (8.9%) and small (6.4%) venues. Gaming machines comprised 13.8% 

of club costs, a higher proportion than the 7.5% of hotel costs. While large clubs 

spent 25.4% of their expenditure on gaming machines, gaming machine costs 

accounted for a smaller proportion of overall costs for medium (13.2%) and small 

(6.7%) clubs. Similarly, 9.3% of large hotels’ costs were associated with gaming 

machines, in comparison to only 5.6% of small hotels’ costs. Table 5.5 displays this 

trend below. 

Table 5.5 (a) 

Average proportion of operating costs attributed to gaming 

machines by venue type and size 

Clubs 

Hotels 

Large 

% 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 

Large 

% 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 

25.4 13.2 6.7 9.3 6.4 5.6 

Like the 2006, 2005, 2004 and 2003 Surveys, take-away alcohol service costs for 

hotels were higher than for clubs. While take-away alcohol costs were 2.7% of clubs’ 

expenses, they were 16.0% of hotels’. This marked difference could be explained by 

the regulations governing clubs and hotels. Hotels can have three additional takeaway 

outlets within ten kilometres of their location. 

Rent/mortgage, administration and food and catering were minor costs for venues. 

Administration costs were higher for clubs than hotels. Administration comprised 

9.0% of club costs compared to 3.9% of hotel costs. Conversely, hotels dedicated 

more to rent/mortgage than clubs. Hotel rent/mortgage bills were 10.7% of their 

costs, higher than clubs at 3.7% of their overall costs. There were no significant 

differences in food and catering costs. 

There were a range of other costs for clubs and hotels including TAB, keno, live 

entertainment, televised sporting events and/or movie nights, insurance, marketing, 

54

accommodation, sponsorships, bingo and other gambling activities. Most contributed 

less than 2.0% to the total outlays of venues, however two are worthy of comment. 

Marketing and insurance were noticeable costs for clubs and hotels. Venues 

dedicated 2.8% of their outlays to insurance and 2.2% to marketing. Large (2.8%) 

and medium (2.4%) venues devoted more of their expenses to marketing than 

smaller venues (1.4%). Conversely, small venues dedicated more resources to 

insurance than large venues. While 1.7% of large venue outlays were on insurance, 

it comprised 2.9% of medium and 3.9% of small venue costs. 

There were some correlations between gaming, bar trade and take-away alcohol 

costs and revenues, as shown in Table 5.5 (a) below. 

Table 5.5 (b) 

Comparison of costs and revenue for major areas within 

venues by venue type and size 

Size 

Revenue 

% 

Bar Trade Gaming Machines Take-away Alcohol 

Clubs Hotels Clubs Hotels Clubs Hotels 

Cost 

% 

Revenue 

% 

Cost 

% 

Revenue 

% 

Cost 

% 

Revenue 

% 

Cost 

% 

Revenue 

% 

Cost 

% 

Revenue 

% 

Large 18.2 9.8 20.2 10.8 57.4 25.4 28.1 9.3 3.7 2.6 36.0 17.3 

Medium 33.8 16.3 28.0 15.9 39.1 13.2 20.3 6.4 4.4 3.1 32.0 15.0 

Small 40.8 23.0 39.7 22.3 20.3 6.7 15.2 5.6 3.9 2.5 22.9 15.0 

Cost 

% 

Where venue revenues were high compared to other venues of the same type, costs 

were also high. This strong positive correlation between costs and revenues of large, 

medium and small clubs and hotels was also reported in the 2003, 2004, 2005 and 

2006 Surveys. For example, large clubs gained 57.4% of their revenue from gaming 

machines, higher than medium (39.1%) and small clubs (20.3%). The proportion of 

large club costs (25.4%) associated with gaming machines was also higher than for 

medium (13.2%) and small (6.7%) clubs. This trend was repeated across bar trade 

and, less strongly, across take-away alcohol and suggests that venues dedicate 

more resources to the more profitable areas of their business. 

55



of regional boundaries. Table 5.5 (b) presents this analysis. 

Table 5.5 (c) 

Average proportion of operating costs attributed to activities by 

venue location 

Region 

Darling Downs 


Activity 

% 


Wages 28.8 26.7 27.1 28.6 27.9 

Rent/mortgage payments 7.1 6.6 7.9 7.2 6.9 

Administration 7.4 6.6 6.7 4.9 5.7 

Insurance 2.6 2.3 3.5 3.1 2.7 

Marketing 2.5 2.6 2.2 1.4 2.1 

Food and catering 7.1 6.9 7.5 7.5 7.3 

Bar 15.0 15.5 17.2 18.4 15.9 

Take-away alcohol 8.0 9.6 9.5 9.6 11.4 

Gaming machines 11.3 12.1 8.5 11.2 9.1 

TAB 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.6* 0.4* 

Keno 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.6 


(eg bingo, raffles) 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.5 1.0* 

Live entertainment and 

Sporting events 1.7 2.2 1.8 0.6* 1.3 


and/or movie nights 0.3 0.3 0.2* 0.2* 0.4* 

Accommodation 0.4* 0.5* 0.9* 1.5 2.0* 

Sponsorships 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.5* 1.3* 

Costs associated with gaming machines were proportionally less for Darling Downs 

venues (8.5%) compared to Brisbane (11.3%) and Moreton (12.1%) venues. 

Some regional variations in proportional costs associated with administration were 

also evident. Administration costs were a lower proportion of costs for venues in the 

Fitzroy region (4.9%) compared to venues located in Brisbane venues (7.4%). 

56

39B5.6 Gaming machine subsidisation of bar trade, meal trade and entertainment 

(Question 17) 

Question 17 was included in the 2003-2006 Surveys as well as in the 2007 Survey to 

gather data on the extent to which gaming machine revenue subsidised other 

activities. Table 5.6 presents the findings. 

Table 5.6 (a) 

Gaming machine subsidisation of bar trade, meal trade and 

entertainment 

Subsidisation 

Bar 

Trade 

% 

Meals 

% 

Clubs 

Entertainment 

% 


merchandising 

% 

Bar 

Trade 

% 

Meals 

% 

Hotels 

Entertainment 

% 


merchandising 

% 

Not subsidised 63.2 56.9 60.7 64.9 65.0 63.1 68.4 71.4 

Minor subsidy 23.5 22.4 19.1 11.4 20.3 20.8 13.4 5.4 

Major Subsidy 5.9 10.3 7.6 3.7 5.4 6.7 3.8 2.1 

Refused/ 

missing 7.4 10.4 12.7 20.1 9.3 9.4 14 20.7 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

For most clubs, gaming machine revenue did not subsidise bar trade (63.2%), meals 

(56.9%) or entertainment (60.7%). 

The proportion of hotels that did not subsidise bar trade (65.0%), meals (63.1%) or 

entertainment (68.4%) has risen significantly since the 2006 survey (48.4%, 45.5% 

and 51.4%, respectively). 

Several differences emerged for clubs and hotels when venue size was considered. 

Tables 5.6 (a) to 5.6 (c) present these findings. 

Table 5.6 (b) 

Cross-subsidisation of bar trade by venue type and size 

Bar Trade Subsidisation 

Large 

% 

Clubs 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 

Large 

% 

Hotels 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 

Not subsidised 71.1 60.1 59.8 74.8 57.4 52.7 

Minor subsidy 19.9 21.3 26.8 15.0 24.4 26.9 

Major Subsidy ** 11.0* 5.9* 2.3* 8.8* 7.6* 

Refused/missing 7.1* 7.6* 7.5 7.9 9.5* 12.8* 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 

More large hotels reported that their gaming machine revenue did not subsidise bar 

trade in contrast to medium or small hotels. While 74.8% of large hotels did not have 

gaming machine revenue subsidise their bar trade, this applied to only 57.4% of 

medium and 52.7% of small hotels. 

While there appear to be differences in the level to which large, medium and small 

clubs subsidise bar trade, these differences were not found to be statistically 

significant. 

57

Table 5.6 (c) 

Cross-subsidisation of meal trade by venue type and size 

Meal Trade Subsidisation 

Large 

% 

Clubs 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 

Large 

% 

Hotels 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 


Minor subsidy 34.5 25.4 13.5 17.7 23.2 24.5 

Major Subsidy 13.3 13.0 7.2 5.6* 10.1 3.4* 

Refused/missing 6.5* 6.8* 14.5 7.9 8.8* 14.7 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Large clubs were more likely than small clubs to subsidise their meal trade with 

gaming machine revenue. For 64.8% of small clubs, gaming machine revenue did 

not subsidise meal trade. In comparison, only 45.7% of large clubs did not subsidise. 

Medium hotels were more likely than large hotels to subsidise their meal trade with 

gaming machine revenue. Approximately two-thirds of large (68.7%) hotels did not 

use gaming machine revenue to subsidise meal trade, in comparison to only 58.0% 

of medium hotels. 

Table 5.6 (d) 

Cross-subsidisation of entertainment by venue type and size 

Clubs 

Hotels 

Entertainment Subsidisation 

Large 

% 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 

Large 

% 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 


Minor subsidy 21.5 28.6 13.1 12.7 14.2 14 

Major Subsidy 12.2* 10.9* 3.1* 2.3* 6.8* ** 

Refused/missing 8.4* 7.8* 17.6 10.6 13.9 23.1 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Similar to meal trade, gaming machine revenue did not subsidise entertainment for 

most venues. However for 28.6% of medium clubs, gaming machine revenue 

provided a minor subsidy for entertainment, compared to only 13.1% of small clubs. 

While there appear to be differences in the level to which large, medium and small 

hotels subsidise entertainment, these differences were not found to be statistically 

significant. 

58

7B6. Employment 


number and type of staff employed at gaming machine venues; 

proportion of time spent on gaming machine activities; 

employment trends 2002 to 2007; and 

expected changes in staffing levels for 2007-08. 

In past Surveys this employment section had asked how many personnel each venue 

employed in an apprenticeship or as a trainee. This question was omitted in the 

2007 Survey in an effort to shorten the length of the questionnaire. In past Surveys 

the employment question also examined which factors were believed to have been 

responsible for influencing venue staffing levels. This question was not asked in the 

2007 Survey. 


Queensland clubs and hotels operating gaming machines employed a significant 

number of people in a full-time, part-time and casual capacity. The primary outcomes 

of this section are: 

Overall there were 34,643 jobs provided by clubs (16,108 jobs) and hotels 

(18,535 jobs) with gaming machines in Queensland in the 2006-07 financial 

year, 198 fewer positions overall than were reported in 2005-06. It should be 

noted that the 2007 survey did not ask venues to specify how many trainees 

and apprentices they employed. This could account for the apparent 

decrease in overall staff numbers. 

Similar proportions of clubs and hotels expected to increase full-time 

employment in the 2007-08 financial year. 

Approximately half of all positions in clubs and two-thirds of all positions in 

 

hotels were casual. 

Approximately one-third of all venues expected to increase levels of casual 

staffing over the 2007-08 financial year. More clubs anticipated increasing 

part-time employment than hotels. 

Full-time and casual staff spent proportionally more work time devoted to 

gaming machine related activities compared to part-time employees. 




59

F F 


41B6.1 Number of staff employed as at 30 June 2007 (Question 18) 

Like the previous 2002 to 2006 Surveys, the 2007 Survey asked respondents to 

enumerate staff employed at their venue on 30 June 2007, excluding staff employed 

in take-away alcohol. This question aimed to gather information on the number of 

staff employed at gaming machine venues and contrast it to previous surveys. 

Venues were requested to provide details of full-time, part-time, casual contractor 

and volunteer staff numbers. The question asked in the 2006 Survey regarding 

number of staff members working in apprenticeships or traineeships was not asked in 

the 2007 Survey. 

Table 6.1 (a) presents the number of staff employed in venues as reported in the 

5 

2002 to 2007 SurveysF F. 

Table 6.1 (a) 

Employment in venues as reported in 2002 to 2007 SurveysF 

6, 

7 

Employment Type 

Survey Full-time Part-time Casual Contractor Volunteer Total 

2002 Survey 8,377 3,103 16,182 834 2,483 30,979 





2007 Survey 8,356 2,877 20,390 668 2,351 34,643 

Caution should be taken when interpreting these results. A proportion of employees 

may be working at more than one venue. This may cause double counting. 

From 2005-06 financial year to the 2006-07 financial year, there was a slight 

decrease in the overall number of employment positions. Employment declined from 

34,841 positions to 34,643 positions, representing a decrease of 198 positions. This 

was in contrast to the previous period when employment increased by 1,441 

positions. 

Although there was an overall decrease, some categories of employment type 

reported an increase in position numbers. Casual employment increased the most 

with 577 more casual positions on 30 June 2007 compared to the number of 

positions reported on 30 June 2006. Other employment types that increased were 

contractor positions which increased by 40 positions and volunteer positions which 

increased by 183 positions. 

Numbers of staff working in the remaining employment types declined during this 

period, as did the total number of positions reported by venues for the 2006-07 

financial year. The number of full-time positions fell by 302 positions from 8,658 in 

2005-06 to 8,356 in the 2006-07 financial year. Similarly the number of part-time staff 

employed dropped by 697 positions, from 3,574 in the 2005-06 to 2,877 positions in 

the 2006-07 financial year. 

5 Estimates were acceptable whenever details were not known or readily available. 

6 Note that totals from previous year’s reports have been recalculated due to the change in question 

format from the 2006 Survey onwards. 

7 Estimated totals may vary slightly from the sum of employment types due to rounding of 

numbers/estimates. 

60

Table 6.1 (b) presents employment figures by category of employment, as well as 

venue type, for 2006 and 2007. 

Table 6.1 (b) 

Positions in venues as at 30 June 2006 and 30 June 2007 by 

venue type 

2007 Survey 2006 Survey 

Clubs Hotels Clubs Hotels 

Employment Type No. % No. % No. % No. % 

Full-time 3,804 23.6 4,552 24.6 3,718 23.9 4,940 25.6 

Part-time 1,524 9.5 1,353 7.3 1,772 11.4 1,802 9.3 

Casual 8,107 50.3 12,283 66.3 7,539 48.5 12,274 63.6 

Contractor 368 2.3 300 1.6 377 2.4 251 1.3 

Voluntary 2,305 14.3 47 0.3 2,138 13.8 30 0.2 

Total 16,108 100.0 18,535 100.0 15,543 100.0 19,297 100.0 

The 2007 Survey results were comparable to those of the 2006 survey. 

In 2007, staff in clubs (50.3%) and hotels (66.3%) were most likely to be employed 

on a casual basis. 

There were more full-time positions compared to part-time positions in both clubs 

(23.6% and 9.5% respectively) and hotels (24.6% and 7.3% respectively). This was 

similar to the results of the 2006 survey when clubs reported that 23.9% of positions 

were full-time and 11.4% were part-time, while hotels reported 25.6% and 9.3%, 

respectively. 

Hotels (66.3%) also employed a higher proportion of casual employees than clubs 

(50.3%), while clubs (14.3%) were more likely to rely on volunteers than Hotels 

(0.3%), a difference which also closely reflects the results of the 2006 Survey. 

Overall, clubs reported an increase in employment of 3.6% (565 positions) compared 

to last year while hotels decreased by 3.9% (762 positions) compared to last year. 

Some contrasts also existed when data was examined across venue size. Table 6.1 

(c) presents this analysis by venue type and size. 

Table 6.1 (c) 

Positions in venues as at 30 June 2007 by venue type and size 

Clubs 

Hotels 

Employment type 

Large 

% 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 

Large 

% 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 

Full-time 27.7 18.2 15.7 26.5 20.8 20.1 

Part-time 11.6 6.8 5.4 7.2 5.8 13.8* 

Casual 57.0 47.7 33.7 64.8 71.0 62.7 

Contractor 1.5* 2.8 4.1 1.4 2.1* ** 

Voluntary 2.2 24.5* 41.1 ** ** 1.5* 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 

61

Results for the 2007 Survey reflected those reported in the 2006 Survey, with most 

proportions remaining stable in comparison. 

A greater proportion of employees were full-time in large clubs (27.7%) than in 

medium (18.2%) and small (15.7%) clubs. Furthermore, a greater proportion of 

employees were part-time in large clubs (11.6%) than in medium (6.8%) and small 

(5.4%) clubs. 

The largest type of employment supported by clubs was casual employees, with 

large clubs reporting 57.0% of employees as casual staff. This compared to 47.7% 

of medium club and 33.7% of small club employees who were identified as casual 

staff. 

Small (41.1%) and medium (24.5%) clubs had far more volunteers than large clubs 

(2.2%). 

Employment types were quite consistent across hotels of varying sizes. The only 

significant difference was that large hotels (26.5%) had a greater proportion of fulltime 

staff than medium (20.8%) or small (20.1%) hotels. 

Full-time employment was comparable for large venues with 27.7% of staff of large 

clubs and 26.5% from hotels being employed in a full-time capacity. The proportion 

of casual employees was also similar for large clubs and hotels (57.0 % and 64.8% 

respectively). 

62


Table 6.1 (d) presents the outcomes of the regional analysis for question 18 by 

venue location. 

Table 6.1 (d) 

Positions in venues as at 30 June 2007 by venue location 

Region 


Employment Type No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % 

Full-time 3,080 25.8 2,243 25.1 1,056 22.2 846 19.5 1,131 24.1 

Part-time 776 6.5 682 7.6 437 9.2 556 12.8 426 9.1 

Casual 7,070 59.3 5,217 58.3 2,612 54.9 2,579 59.5 2,912 62.1 

Contractor 232 1.9 227 2.5 86* 1.8* 48* 1.1* ** ** 

Voluntary 760 6.4 573 6.4 570 12.0 304 7.0 144 3.1 

Total 11,918 100.0 8,942 100.0 4,762 100.0 4,334 100.0 4,687 100.0 

There were an estimated 11,918 positions at venues in the Brisbane region. This 

compares to 8,942 in the Moreton, 4,762 in the Darling Downs, 4,334 in the Fitzroy 

and 4,687 in the Northern region. 

The number of positions in the Brisbane region and Moreton region has decreased 

since last survey, with 12,269 positions reported for Brisbane and 9,146 positions 

reported for Moreton in the 2006 Survey. Positions in the Northern region of 

Queensland have increased from 4,448 in the 2006 Survey to 4,687 representing an 

increase of 239 positions. 

There were some notable differences evident across regions: 

A lower proportion of full-time employees was reported by the Fitzroy region 

(19.5%) compared to Brisbane (25.8%), Moreton (25.1%) and Northern 

(24.1%) regions. 

Fewer employees from the Northern region (3.1%) worked as voluntary staff 

when compared with those from Darling Downs (12.0%). 

63

42B6.2 Staff time involved in gaming machine activities (Question 19) 

Respondents were asked to indicate, for each employee group, what percentage of 

their time was involved in gaming machine activities. In keeping with the format of 

the question from last year, only time spent by full-time, part-time or casual 

employees was included while time for contractor and voluntary employees was 

excluded from the question. 

Table 6.2 (a) represents the results from Question 19. 

Table 6.2 (a) 

Average proportion of time involved in gaming machine 

activities, by venue type 

Venue Type 

Employment Type Clubs Hotels Total 

Full-time staff 23.1 19.7 21.2 

Part-time staff 10.2 5.5 7.6 

Casual staff 20.3 21.2 20.8 

Overall the proportion of time spent on gaming machine activities by different staff 

types was reasonably similar for both clubs and hotels. Full-time and casual staff in 

clubs spent a higher proportion of time (23.1% and 20.3%, respectively) involved in 

gaming machine activity than part-time staff (10.2%). Similarly, full-time and casual 

staff in hotels spent a higher proportion of time (19.7% and 21.2%, respectively) 

involved in gaming machine activity than part-time staff (5.5%). 

One area where there was a difference was the amount of time spent by part-time 

employees on gaming machine activities in clubs and hotels. On average part-time 

club employees spent 10.2% of their time on gaming machine activities, 

approximately double the proportion of time spent by part-time hotel employees 

(5.5%). 

Table 6.2 (b) 


activities, by venue type and size 

Clubs 

Hotels 

Employment Type Large Medium Small Large Medium Small 

Full-time staff 34.3 28.5 13.0 24.0 17.7 11.4 

Part-time staff 20.3 7.8 4.7 7.9 3.0 3.7* 

Casual staff 28.7 23.5 13.2 26.9 18.6 10.0 

The 2007 Survey revealed that full-time staff working in large clubs spent a 

significantly higher proportion of their time on gaming machine activities (34.3%) than 

all other employee groups, with the exception of full-time staff in medium clubs 

(28.5%) and full-time staff in large hotels (24.0%). 

64


Table 6.2 (c) 


activities, by venue location 

Region 

Employment Type Brisbane Moreton Darling Downs Fitzroy Northern 

Full-time staff 23.2 20.1 17.9 22.6 22.4 

Part-time staff 10.5 6.4 6.4 5.7 7.5 

Casual staff 23.8 21.6 16.3 18.2 22.8 

The proportion of time spent on gaming machine activities by full-time employees 

was similar for most regions of Queensland (Brisbane 23.2%, Moreton 20.1%, 

Darling Downs 17.9%, Fitzroy 22.6% and Northern 22.4%).. 

Part-time staff reportedly spent the lowest proportion of time on gaming machine 

activities throughout all Queensland regions. 

65

43B6.3 Anticipated change in staffing in the 2007-08 financial year (Question 20) 

The 2007 Survey asked respondents to rate the direction of change they expected to 

see occur with their staffing levels over the 2007-08 financial year. Overall, the 

results from the 2007 Survey parallelled the data reported by past Surveys. Table 

6.3 (a) presents the findings for this year. 

Table 6.3 (a) Anticipated change in staffing, by venue type, 2007-08 

Increase 

% 

Stable 

% 

Decrease 

% 

Clubs 

Don’t Know 

% 

Missing 

% 

Total 

% 


Full-time 18.0 61.7 3.1* 16.1 1.1* 100.0 

Part-time 15.6 47.2 1.0* 35.1 1.1* 100.0 

Casual 28.2 50.0 4.2 16.6 1.1* 100.0 

Contractor 3.4 42.4 0.8* 52.4 1.1* 100.0 

Voluntary 5.2 48.6 1.0* 44.0 1.1* 100.0 

Increase 

% 

Stable 

% 

Decrease 

% 

Hotels 

Don’t Know 

% 

Missing 

% 

Total 

% 


Full-time 20.1 57.8 1.6* 19.2 1.3* 100.0 

Part-time 8.1 40.8 1.9* 48.0 1.3* 100.0 

Casual 35.3 41.9 3.9 17.7 1.3* 100.0 

Contractor ** 37.0 1.9* 58.9 1.3* 100.0 

Voluntary ** 31.9 ** 66.0 1.3* 100.0 

Both clubs and hotels were more likely to anticipate an increase in casual staff than 

other types of staff during 2007-08. 

Figure 6.3 (a) outlines results from Question 20 by venue type for full-time staff. 

Figure 6.3 (a) Anticipated change in full-time staffing by venue type, 2007-08 

100 

90 

Clubs 

Hotels 

Total 


80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

64.7 

57.8 

59.5 

20.1 

18.0 19.1 19.217.8 

16.1 

10 

0 

Increase 


same 

3.1* 

1.6* 2.3* 

1.1* 1.3* 1.2* 

Decrease Don't know Missing 

66

The majority of venues (59.5%) expected no change in full-time staffing levels in the 

2007-08 financial year. This was similar to the 2006 survey response (59.4%). 

About 17.8% of venues were uncertain whether there would be change to full-time 

staffing levels in the 2007-08 financial year. Unlike the 2004, 2005 and 2006 

Surveys, similar proportions of clubs (64.7%) and hotels (57.8%) expected no 

change to full-time staffing in the 2007-08 financial year. In addition, similar 

proportions of clubs (18.0%) and hotels (20.1%) anticipated an increase in full-time 

staffing levels. Few clubs (3.1%*) and hotels (1.6%*) anticipated a decline in fulltime 

staffing. 

Figure 6.3 (b) outlines results from Question 20 by venue type for part-time staff. 

Figure 6.3 (b) Anticipated change in part-time staffing by venue type, 2007-08 

100 

90 

80 

Clubs 

Hotels 

Total 

70 


60 

50 

40 

47.2 

43.7 

40.8 

35.1 

48.0 

42.2 

30 

20 

10 

0 

15.6 

11.4 

8.1 

Increase 


same 

1.0* 1.9* 1.5* 1.1* 1.3* 1.2* 


There was minimal variation between venue types for anticipated change in part-time 

staffing levels in the 2007-08 financial year. Similar proportions of clubs (47.2%) and 

hotels (40.8%) expected there to be no change to part-time staffing levels. A further 

35.1% of clubs and 48.0% of hotels indicated that they were unsure. More clubs 

(15.6%) than hotels (8.1%) expected an increase in the number of part-time 

employees, while 1.0%* of clubs and 1.9%* of hotels expected a decrease in the 

number of part-time workers. 

67

Figure 6.3 (c) outlines results from Question 20 by venue type for casual staff. 

Figure 6.3 (c) Anticipated change in casual staffing by venue type, 2007-08 

100 

90 

80 

Clubs 

Hotels 

Total 

70 


60 

50 

40 

30 

35.3 

32.1 

28.2 

50.0 

45.5 

41.9 

20 

16.6 17.717.2 

10 

0 

Increase 


same 

4.2 3.9 4.0 

1.1* 1.3* 1.2* 


One half of clubs (50.0%) and almost one half of hotels (41.9%) expected no change 

to the number of casual staff. About 28.2% of clubs and 35.3% of hotels expected an 

increase in casual staffing levels, while 4.2% of clubs and 3.9% of hotels expected a 

decrease. Approximately 16.6% of clubs and 17.7% of hotels were not sure if the 

number of casual staff would change. 


There were more Brisbane venues (23.7%) than Darling Downs venues (12.4%) that 

expected an increase in the number of full-time staff. 

There were no significant differences between regions for expected change in parttime 

staffing levels. 

More venues in Brisbane (40.2%) and Moreton (38.4%) than in Darling Downs 

(20.2%) and Fitzroy (23.2%) anticipated an increase in their casual staff. Accordingly, 

more Darling Downs (50.4%) and Fitzroy (52.6%) venues than Brisbane venues 

(36.9%) expected casual staffing levels to remain steady. 

68

8B7. Building Projects/Facility Improvements 


estimated amount spent on building/facility improvements in the last financial 

year (2006-07); 

types of building/facility improvements undertaken in the last financial year 

(2006-07); 

motives for undertaking building/facility improvements in the last financial year 

(2006-07); and 

estimated expected spending on building/facility improvements in this 

financial year (2007-08) and in the financial years of 2008-2011. 


The key findings of this section follow: 

Clubs and hotels spent approximately $302 million on building projects or 

facility improvements in the 2006-07 financial year, a decrease of $17 million 

from the previous financial year. 

Clubs were more likely than hotels to have undertaken building projects or 

facility improvements in 2006-07. 

Of the clubs and hotels that undertook building projects or facility improvements in 

the 2006-07 financial year: 

The most common building/facility improvement for both clubs and hotels 

related to designated outdoor smoking areas. 

Similar proportions of clubs and hotels refurbished their gaming areas in 

2006-07, with large and medium venues more likely to have done so than 

small venues. 

 

Higher proportions of large venues refurbished their TAB areas than medium 

venues, with hotels more likely to do so than clubs. 

The most common reasons for undertaking building/facility improvements, 

nominated by more than half of venues, were to attract new customers, 

modernise facilities and accommodate changes in legislation. 

 

Clubs and hotels expected to spend $433 million on building/facility projects 

in 2007-08, an anticipated decrease of $189 million compared with the 

previous financial year. 

In the coming financial years of 2008-2011, venues projected a total 

expenditure of almost $996 million on building/facility projects. 

69


45B7.1 Building or facility improvements (Questions 21-24) 

The 2007 Survey collected information on building or facility improvements. This 

information was collected in previous surveys to estimate the benefit to customers of 

new or improved facilities. Question 21 asked venues whether they had made any 

building or facility improvements in the 2006-07 financial year. Table 7.1 (a) details 

the percentage of venues, by type and size, which have made building or facility 

improvements in the 2006-07 financial year. 

Table 7.1 (a) 

Venues with building or facility improvements by venue type 

and size, 2006-07 

Size 


Large 

% 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 

Total 

% 

Clubs 61.1 48.6 44.1 50.2 

Hotels 38.5 46.9 36.6 41.0 

Total 46.0 47.5 41.7 45.1 

Clubs (50.2%) were more likely than hotels (41%) to have made building or facility 

improvements in the 2006-07 financial year. Additionally, large clubs (61.1%) were 

more likely than small clubs (44.1%) and large (38.5%) and small (36.6%) hotels to 

have undertaken improvements. Comparable proportions of large and medium clubs 

(61.1% and 48.6%) and medium hotels (46.9%) undertook building or facility 

upgrades. 


Little divergence in building or facility improvements was evident upon analysis of 

venues across the five Queensland regions covered in the 2007 Survey. Table 7.1 

(b) displays the proportion of venues in each region that undertook venue 

improvements. 

Table 7.1 (b) 

Venues with building or facility improvements by venue 

location, 2006-07 

Region 

Brisbane 

% 

Moreton 

% 

Darling Downs 

% 

Fitzroy 

% 


% 

45.3 44.2 43.1 48.7 45.3 

70

Expenditure on building or facility improvements 

Question 22 asked those venues that had undertaken building or facility 

improvements last financial year about the approximate total amount spent on such 

projects. Table 7.1 (c) displays the total expenditure on building or facility 

improvements in the 2006-07 financial year by venue type. 

Table 7.1 (c) 

Total expenditure on building or facility improvement by venue 

type, 2006-07 

Clubs 

($) 

Hotels 

($) 

Total 

($) 

138,304,767 163,920,340 302,225,107 

Clubs and hotels spent a total of approximately $302 million on building or facility 

improvements in the 2006-07 financial year. This reflected a decrease of $17 million 

from the previous financial year. The amount of $302 million actually spent in 2006- 

07 was slightly more than the $276 million venues expected to spend in the 2006-07 

financial year, as reported in the 2006 Survey. 

Table 7.1 (d) displays the average amount spent in 2006-07 on building or facility 

improvements by venue type and size. Venues that did not make building or facility 

improvements in 2006-07 have been excluded from the analysis for the purpose of 

calculating average spend. 

Table 7.1 (d) 

Average amount spent on building or facilities improvements 

by venue type and size, 2006-07 

Size 

Clubs 

($) 


Hotels 

($) 

Total 

($) 

Large 1,031,460 874,784 943,828 

Medium 328,237* 381,404 362,216 

Small 114,353* 213,408* 141,888 

Total 492,468 578,697 535,767 

The average amount spent by venues that made building or facility improvements in 

the last financial year (2006-07) decreased in comparison with the previous financial 

year (2005-06). In 2006-07 the total average expenditure for those clubs and hotels 

that made building/facilities improvements was $535,767 compared with $613,297 in 

2005-06. Similarly, average expenditure on improvements by clubs in 2006-07 

($492,468) decreased in comparison with 2005-06 ($850,453*). By contrast, average 

expenditure on venue improvements by hotels was higher in 2006-07 ($578,697) 

compared with 2005-06 ($395,248). 

Large venues had significantly higher average expenditure on building/facility 

improvements than both medium and small venues. Large venues that made 

improvements spent, on average, $943,828 compared with $362,216 for medium 

venues and $141,888 for small venues. 

Large clubs showed a decrease in average expenditure on facility improvements in 

2006-07 (down by $576,550 to $1,031, 460), as did small clubs (down $53,797 to 

$114,353 All other sizes and types of venues showed an increase in average 

71

expenditure on facility improvements in 2006-07 compared with the previous 

financial year (2005-06). Medium clubs spent an average of $328,237 (up 

$172,331), large hotels spent $874,784 (up $298,770), medium hotels spent 

$381,404 (up $157,740) and small hotels spent $213,408 (up $122,831) on average 

for venue upgrades. 


Figure 7.1 (a) presents the findings by region. Venues that did not make building or 

facility improvements in 2006-07 have been excluded from the analysis for the 

purpose of calculating average spend. 


Average amount spent on building and facilities improvements 

by venue location, 2006-07 

$900,000 

$800,000 

$809,144 

$700,000 

$621,749 

Average Expenditure 

$600,000 

$500,000 

$400,000 

$300,000 

$367,800 

$255,714* 

$403,404 

$200,000 

$100,000 

$0 


The average expenditure of Brisbane venues for building/facility upgrades ($809,144) 

was significantly higher than venues in Fitzroy ($255,714). 

Types of building or facility improvements 

Question 23 asked venues about the types of building or facility improvements 

undertaken in the 2006-07 financial year. This question allowed respondents to 

provide multiple responses. In the 2003 Survey, this was an open-ended, qualitative 

question. The 2003 Survey results were utilised to formulate a checkbox quantitative 

question for the 2004 Survey. This question was further revised in the 2005 Survey to 

include other building or facility improvements commonly identified in the 2004 

Survey. The same question was repeated in the 2006 Survey, with the addition of 

the option ‘not applicable’ for each type of building/facility improvement, an option 

which a high proportion of venues chose in each category. In the 2007 Survey, 

categories of building or facility improvements were revised to include two new 

categories (‘designated outdoor smoking area’ and ‘breakout area’) commonly 

identified in the 2006 Survey. In addition, the options for ‘no’ and ‘not applicable’ 

were removed from the checkbox so that it captured only those types of 

improvements actually undertaken by venues. Caution should therefore be taken if 

comparing 2007 Survey results of this question with responses from previous years. 

72

Figure 7.1(b) presents the proportion of venues by type that conducted building or 

facility improvements. Percentages in the table are based on those venues that 

conducted building or facility improvements. As venues could nominate more than 

one type of improvement, percentages in the table add to more than 100%. 

Figure 7.1 (b) Venue improvements by venue type, 2006-07 

Complete refurbishments 

Gaming area refurbishments 

TAB area refurbishment 

10.2 

15.2 

12.8 

8.3 

14.5 

20.6 

27.6 

33.0 

38.3 

Clubs 

Hotels 

Total 

Keno area refurbishment 

9.8 

13.2 

11.5 

Indoor dining area refurbishment 

25.6 

29.4 

27.5 

Outdoor dining area refurbishment 

17.5 

26.7 

22.1 

Entertainment area refurbishment 

17.7 

14.5 

16.1 

Function area refurbishment 

19.4 

17.6 

18.5 

Bar area refurbishment 

29.9 

36.2 

33.0 

New or refurbished accommodation 

1.5* 

11.0 

20.4 

New sporting facilities 

1.6** 

9.7 

18.0 

Kitchen refurbishment 

19.6 

23.9 

21.7 

Restroom refurbishment 

13.7 

16.0 

14.8 

Entrance refurbishment 

15.3 

18.8 

17.0 

Designated outdoor smoking area 

62.1 

58.2 

60.2 

Breakout area 

12.7 

7.8 

10.3 


13.1 

18.3 

23.5 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 


In the 2006-07 financial year, a majority of clubs (62.1%) and hotels (58.2%) that 

undertook venue upgrades did so in relation to designated outdoor smoking areas. 

Of the venues that undertook upgrades, similar proportions of large clubs (64.4%) 

and large (54.8%), medium (58.9%) and small (66.6%) hotels upgraded their 

designated outdoor smoking areas. Medium clubs (75.7%) were more likely than 

small clubs (53.1%) to have done so. 

73

Of the venues that undertook upgrades, large (43.3%) and medium (35.4%) venues 

were more likely than small venues (15.8%) to refurbish their gaming area. Similar 

proportions of clubs (27.6%) and hotels (38.3%) that carried out venue improvements 

refurbished their gaming areas. Large clubs (36.9%) and large hotels (48.4%) were 

more likely to have refurbished their gaming area than either small clubs (16.0%) or 

small hotels (15.3%*). Higher proportions of medium sized hotels (36.0%) undertook 

gaming area upgrades than small clubs (16.0%). 

While large venues (29.9%) that undertook upgrades were more likely to refurbish 

their TAB areas than medium (7.7%*) venues, significantly higher proportions of 

hotels (20.6%) than clubs (8.3%) upgraded this area. 

Notably higher proportion of large venues (19.7%) upgraded their Keno areas than 

either medium (8.1%*) or small (3.6%*) venues. 

While few clubs (1.5%*) had new or refurbished accommodation, 20.4% of hotels 

that undertook upgrades improved this area in the 2006-07 financial year. Similar 

proportions of large (12.2%*), medium (23.7%) and small (35.4%*) hotels either 

replaced or refurbished their accommodation. 


There were no significant differences of note in the types of building or facility 

improvements undertaken across the five Queensland regions in 2006-07. Table 7.1 

(e) presents the results. Percentages in the table are based on those venues that 

conducted building or facility improvements. As venues could nominate more than 

one type of improvement, percentages in the table add to more than 100%. 

Table 7.1 (e) Venue improvements by venue location, 2006-07 

Region 

Venue improvements 

Brisbane 

% 

Moreton 

% 

Darling Downs 

% 

Fitzroy 

% 


% 

Complete refurbishment 14.6 13.5 9.5* 12.7* 12.2* 

Gaming area refurbishment 41.1 27.5 36.1 25.2 30.1* 

TAB area refurbishment 17.2 15.2 17.3* 11.6* 7.3* 

Keno area refurbishment 16.2* 12.0 13.7* ** ** 

Indoor dining area refurbishment 32.2 26.4 30.2 23.5* 20.4* 

Outdoor dining area refurbishment 20.7 19.7 32.8 17.1* 20.0* 

Entertainment area refurbishment 21.8 14.6 18.1* 7.9* 13.9* 

Function area refurbishment 24.4 17.4 23.9 9.8* 10.8* 

Bar area refurbishment 36.8 33.8 34.1 26.6 30.1* 

New or refurbished accommodation 3.7* ** 14.5* 18.1* 25.5* 

New sporting facilities 9.0* 13.5 8.9* 10.0* 6.0* 

Kitchen refurbishment 20.1 19.0 31.0 20.3 18.4* 

Restroom refurbishment 18.7 11.8* 19.8* 8.0* 13.3* 

Entrance refurbishment 22.8 7.9* 20.0 15.7* 18.2* 

Designated outdoor smoking area 55.5 64.6 67.9 62.4 48.8 

Breakout area 9.4* 11.8* 13.6 9.4* 6.0* 

Other 10.6* 20.0 19.6 21.1 25.7 

In 2006-07, approximately two-thirds of venues in Moreton (64.6%), Darling Downs 

(67.9%) and Fitzroy (62.4%) that undertook upgrades made improvements related to 

designated outdoor smoking areas. 

74

Reasons for building or facility improvements 

Question 24 asked those respondents who had made building or facility 

improvements in the 2006-07 financial year to identify the reasons for carrying out 

these improvements. This question was first included in the 2004 Survey and was 

again employed in the 2005 Survey. In 2006 the checkbox for this question was 

revised to include the option ‘not applicable’ (in addition to ‘yes’ and ‘no’) for each 

category, an option which a high proportion of venues chose in each category in the 

2006 Survey. In the 2007 Survey, the checkbox was simplified by removing the 

option ‘not applicable’. Caution should therefore be taken if comparing results of this 

question across Surveys for different years. Figure 7.1 (c) presents the results. 

Percentages in the table are based on those venues that conducted building or 

facility improvements. As venues could nominate more than one reason for 

undertaking improvements, percentages in the table add to more than 100%. 


Reasons building or facility improvements undertaken by 

venue type, 2006-07 

Attract new customers 

Local population 

change 

16.2 

18.8 

17.5 

63.3 

65.2 

64.3 

Clubs 

Hotels 

Total 

Modernise venue 

63.3 

67.6 

65.5 

Accommodate 

responsible gambling 

initiatives 

20.2 

19.6 

19.9 

Accommodate 

changes in smoking 

legislation 

60.4 

54.5 

57.4 

New water restrictions 

16.1 

13.7 

14.9 

` 

Accommodate 

increase in gaming 

machines 

Accommodate other 

legislative change 

5.5* 

9.3 

6.6 

6.8* 

6.7 

13.2 


10.8 

5.6 

8.2 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 


75

Similarly to the 2004, 2005 and 2006 Surveys, the most common reasons for 

undertaking building or facility improvements were to: 

attract new customers (63.3% of clubs and 65.2% of hotels); 

modernise the venue (63.3% of clubs 67.6% of hotels); and 

accommodate changes in smoking legislation (60.4% of clubs and 54.5% of 

hotels). 

Large clubs (74.4%) were more likely than small clubs (53.7%) to carry out venue 

improvements to modernise their facilities. Similarly, a significantly higher proportion 

of large hotels (76%) than small clubs (53.7%) and medium hotels (58.4%) undertook 

building projects to modernise their venue. 

Large clubs (70.9%) were more likely than either small clubs (48.6%) or medium 

hotels (49.1%) to accommodate changes in smoking legislation with building/facility 

upgrades. 

While small proportions are involved, significantly higher proportions of small clubs 

(18.0%*) and large hotels (21.4%) than medium hotels (5.3%*) undertook venue 

improvements related to new water restrictions. 

While small proportions are involved, a significantly higher proportion of clubs 

(13.2%) than hotels (5.5%*) undertook venue improvements to accommodate an 

increase in gaming machines in 2006-07. 


There were few significant regional differences in the reasons for building or facility 

improvements undertaken in the 2006-07 financial year. Table 7.1 (f) presents the 

results. Percentages in the table are based on those venues that conducted building 

or facility improvements. As venues could nominate more than one reason for 

undertaking improvements, percentages in the table add to more than 100%. 

Table 7.1 (f) 

Reasons building or facility improvements undertaken by 

venue location, 2006-07 

Region 

Reasons for improvement 

Brisbane 

% 

Moreton 

% 

Darling Downs 

% 

Fitzroy 

% 


% 

Attract new customers 60.6 65.8 64.4 69.6 62.7 

Local population change 18.1 12.6* 15.8 17.2* 27.4* 

Modernise venue 67.2 62.6 59.3 71.4 68.4 

Accommodate responsible gambling initiatives 18.4 21.4 25.5 24.3 7.4* 

Accommodate changes in smoking legislation 55.4 62.1 58.5 59.3 50.0 

New Water Restrictions 24.0 18.4 9.9* 11.1* 1.9** 

Accommodate increase in gaming machines 7.8* 8.3* 8.5* 11.9* 12.4* 

Accommodate other legislative change 10.3* 4.9* 6.1* 6.6* 3.4** 

Other 6.1* 5.7* 8.8* 9.0* 14.8* 

Venues in Moreton (21.4%) were more likely than those in the Northern (7.4%*) 

region to have undertaken venue improvements to accommodate responsible 

gambling initiatives. 

Brisbane venues (24.0%) were more likely than those in the Darling Downs (9.9%*) 

to carry out building/facilities improvements because of new water restrictions. 

76

High proportions of venues in each region undertook venue upgrades to attract new 

customers (from 60.6% in Brisbane to 69.6% in Fitzroy), modernise their venue (from 

59.3% in Darling Downs to 71.4% in Fitzroy) and accommodate changes in smoking 

legislation (from 50.0% in Northern to 62.1% in Moreton). 

46B7.2 Anticipated building or facility improvements this financial year 

(2007-08) and in the next three financial years (2008-2011) (Question 25) 

Question 25 asked respondents to estimate spending on building or facility 

improvements in the 2007-08 financial year and in the next three financial years 

(2008-2011). Table 7.2 (a) presents findings for the 2007-08 financial year. 

Table 7.2 (a) 

Total anticipated expenditure on building or facility 

improvements by venue type, 2007-08 

Clubs 

($) 

Hotels 

($) 

Total 

($) 

201,046,755 231,702,510 432,749,265 

Venues anticipated spending more on building or facility improvements in the 2007- 

08 financial year than they spent in the previous financial year (2006-07). Clubs and 

hotels spent approximately $302 million on building or facility improvements in the 

2006-07 financial year (refer Table 7.1 (c)) and estimated they would spend a total of 

approximately $433 million on building or facility improvements in the 2007-08 

financial year (Table 7.2 (a)). 

Table 7.2 (b) presents the average anticipated expenditure on building or facility 

improvements for the 2007-08 financial year by venue type and size. The average 

expenditure has been calculated based on those venues that anticipated spending 

something in 2007-08 (i.e. the calculation excludes clubs or hotels that anticipated 

spending $0 on building or facility improvements in 2007-08). 

Table 7.2 (b) 

Average anticipated expenditure on building or facility 

improvements by venue type and size, 2007-08 

Size 

Clubs 

($) 


Hotels 

($) 

Total 

($) 

Large 1,053,718 679,264 810,608 

Medium 344,393 235,167 277,061 

Small 119,691* 234,011* 157,488 

Total 483,288 457,630 469,203 

For those venues that anticipated spending money on building or facility or 

improvements in 2007-08: 

Large venues ($810,608) expected significantly higher average expenditure 

than both medium ($277,061) and small ($157,488) venues. 

Large clubs ($1,053,718) anticipated significantly higher average expenditure 

than medium and small clubs ($344,393 and $119,691*) and medium and 

small hotels ($235,167 and $234,011). 

Large hotels ($679,264) expected to spend a significantly higher amount, on 

average than medium ($235,167) and small ($234,011*) hotels and small 

($119,691*) clubs. 

77


Figure 7.2 (a) presents the findings for average anticipated expenditure for 2007-08 

for each the regions. The average expenditure has been calculated based on those 

venues that anticipated spending something in 2007-08 (i.e. the calculation excludes 

clubs or hotels that anticipated spending $0 on building or facility improvements in 

2007-08). 


Average anticipated expenditure per venue on building or 

facility improvements by venue location, 2007-08 

$700,000 

$600,000 

$636,799 

$586,326 

$500,000 


$400,000 

$300,000 

$200,000 

$372,532* 

$319,101 

$405,239 

$100,000 

$0 


There were no significant differences across regions in anticipated expenditure on 

building or facility improvements for 2007-08. 

Table 7.2 (c) presents total anticipated expenditure on building or facility 

improvements for 2008-11. 

Table 7.2 (c) Total anticipated expenditure on building or facility 

improvements in the coming financial years (2008-2011) by 

venue type 

Clubs 

($) 

Hotels 

($) 

Total 

($) 

486,675,992 508,638,766 995,314,758 

Planned spending on venue upgrades in the next three financial years (2008-2011) 

was more than double the projected expenditure for the 2007-08 period. Overall, 

venues planned to spend approximately $995 million on building and facility 

improvements in the next three financial years (2008-2011). Given venues estimated 

they would spend a total of approximately $433 million in 2007-08 alone, this 

suggested venues predicted a slowing of expenditure on building projects in the next 

three financial years. Hotels expected to spend approximately $509 million on venue 

upgrades in the financial years of 2008-2011 while clubs projected an approximate 

expenditure of $487 million for the same period. In the 2006 Survey, venues were 

78

asked to estimate spending on building projects for future financial years (2007-2008 

onwards), rather than for the next three financial years, therefore data cannot be 

compared across years. 

Table 7.2 (d) displays average anticipated expenditure for 2008-11 by venue type 

and size. The average expenditure has been calculated based on those venues that 

anticipated spending something in 2008-11 (i.e. the calculation excludes clubs or 

hotels who anticipated spending $0 on building or facility improvements in 2008-11). 

Table 7.2 (d) Average anticipated expenditure on building or facility 

improvements in future financial years (2008-2011) by venue 

type and size 


Size 

Clubs 

($) 

Hotels 

($) 

Total 

($) 

Large 2,145,580 1,250,673 1,566,049 

Medium 603,912 604,861 604,519 

Small 499,422 578,996* 524,595 

Total 1,051,535 919,241 979,496 

For those venues that anticipated spending money on building or facility or 

improvements in 2008-11: 

Large venues ($1,566,049) anticipated significantly higher average 

expenditure than either medium ($604,519) or small ($524,595) venues. 

Large clubs ($2,145,580) expected to spend significantly more, on average, 

for venue improvements in 2008-2011 financial years than all other venue 

types. 

Large hotels ($1,250,673) predicted significantly higher average expenditure 

on venue upgrades in 2008-2011 than small clubs ($499,422). 

79


Figure 7.2 (b) shows average expenditure on building or facility improvements for the 

financial years of 2008-2011. The average expenditure has been calculated based 

on those venues that anticipated spending something in 2008-11 (i.e. the calculation 

excludes clubs or hotels who anticipated spending $0 on building or facility 

improvements in 2008-11). 

Figure 7.2 (b) Average anticipated expenditure on building or facility 

improvements in future financial years (2008-2011) by venue 

location 

$1,800,000 

$1,600,000 

$1,545,251* 

$1,400,000 


$1,200,000 

$1,000,000 

$800,000 

$600,000 

$947,398 

$980,691 

$845,625 

$680,331 

$400,000 

$200,000 

$0 


There were no significant differences in anticipated average expenditure for 2008-11 

across regions. 

80

9B8. Business Impacts 


rating of competitors by venues; 

regulatory and other factors impacting the financial performance of venues in 

the last financial year (2006-07); 

factors likely to influence the level of trade of venues in the current financial 

year (2007-08); and 

types of venue patrons. 


Clubs and hotels operate in a varied and challenging environment. A range of social, 

economic, environmental and governmental factors influence the performance of 

clubs and hotels operating gaming machines. Key findings of the 2007 Survey 

include: 

Clubs and hotels considered other local clubs and hotels as major 

competitors. 

Approximately one quarter of clubs and one third of hotels believed the 

Queensland Responsible Gambling Code of Practice had had a positive 

impact on their financial performance in the 2006-07 financial year Almost 

two-thirds of clubs and one half of hotels suggested there had been no 

financial impacts from this factor. 

Clubs and hotels were more likely to have believed that inflationary pressures 

and smoking legislation had negatively rather than positively impacted their 

financial performance in 2006-07. 

Clubs were more likely than hotels to have believed venue membership and 

sporting events were likely to influence their level of trade in the current 

financial year (2007-08). 

Higher proportions of hotels than clubs suggested local population changes 

were likely to impact their 2007-08 level of trade. 

Nearly three-quarters of clubs and hotels suggested the general economic 

climate would be likely to influence trade levels in 2007-08. 

Approximately three-quarters of club and hotel patrons were local residents, 

with considerably lower proportions of patrons being tourists, day trippers and 

(for clubs) reciprocal members. 




81


48B8.1 Rating of competitors (Question 26) 

Question 26 aimed to identify who venues thought were their major or minor 

competitors as well as non-competitors. 

Club analysis 

Figure 8.1 (a) displays club ratings of competitors. 


8 

Club rating of competitorsF 

Major Minor Not a competitor Don't know Refused/Missing 

100 

90 

** ** 

** 

** 

** 

** 

** 

** 

** 

1.7* ** 

0.8* 

1.7* 

2.7 

2.7 

2.3* 

1.7* 

6.2 

11.1 

13.1 

80 

37.2 

42.2 

39.7 

70 

35.5 29.4 


60 

50 

40 

76.4 

44.3 

36.5 

76.9 76.9 

28.4 

92.5 

30 

52.4 

56.2 

20 

10 

0 

11.3 

10.2 

16.4 18.2 

15.7 14.4 

4.3 5.9 

Casino Hotels Clubs Restaurants Bars Nightclubs Shopping 

centres 

29.8 

Take-away 

bottle 

shops 

** 


** 

Similar to findings in the 2002 to 2006 Surveys, clubs were most likely to have rated 

hotels and other clubs as major competitors. Approximately one half of clubs 

considered local hotels (52.4%) and local clubs (56.2%) to be major competitors. 

Restaurants were more likely to have been considered by clubs as minor (44.3%) 

rather than major competitors (16.4%). 

Those venues most likely to be rated as non-competitors were nightclubs (76.9%), 

shopping centres (76.9%) and casinos (76.4%). Additionally, greater proportions of 

clubs rated take-away bottle shops as non-competitors (39.7%) as opposed to major 

(29.8%) or minor (28.4%) sources of competition. 

Local bars were more likely to have been seen as non-competitors (42.2%) or minor 

competitors (36.5%) than major (18.2%) competition. 

8 Total percentages for Clubs, Shopping Centres and Other do not add to 100.0% as a result of 

rounding. 

82

Figure 8.1 (b) displays the proportion of clubs that perceive other businesses 

as major competitors by club size. 


Perceived major competitors by club size 


80 

70 

70.7 70.2 

64.5 

60 

Percentage (% ) 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

21.1 

10.2* 

3.5* 

44.7 

44.6 

43.6 

23.6 

21.4 

17.4 18.5 

16 

11.5 

7.2 

3.8* 2.6* 


centres 

15 

4.7* 

** 

43.1 

28.3 

22.3 

Take-away 

bottle shops 

** 


** 

Several differences in club ratings of competitors emerged for clubs of different size. 

Large clubs (70.7%) were more likely to have viewed hotels as major competitors 

than either medium (44.7%) or small clubs (44.6%). Both large (70.2%) and medium 

(64.5%) clubs were more likely than small clubs (43.6%) to have perceived other 

clubs as major competitors. Additionally, higher proportions of large (43.1%) as 

opposed to small (22.3%) clubs believed take-away bottle shops were a major 

source of competition. 

Higher proportions of large (23.6%) rather than small (11.5%) clubs viewed 

restaurants as major competition. However, it should be noted that large (58.3%), 

medium (55.4%) and small (30.3%) clubs were more likely to have viewed 

restaurants as minor rather than major competitors. Moreover, significantly higher 

proportions of small clubs (55.5%) rated restaurants as non-competitors rather than 

major (11.5%) or minor (30.3%) competition. 

Large clubs (21.1%) were more likely than their small (3.5%*) counterparts to have 

perceived casinos as major competitors. However, greater proportions of large 

(52.8%), medium (80.7%) and small (89.1%) clubs did not consider casinos to be 

competitors. 

While small percentages are involved, large clubs (15%) were more likely than 

medium (4.7%*) clubs to have identified shopping centres as major competition. 

However, significantly higher proportions of large (57.1%), medium (77.5%) and 

small (88.9%) clubs rated shopping centres as non-competitors rather than major or 

minor competitors. 

Medium clubs (44.1%) were more likely than their large (26.7%) counterparts to have 

believed hotels were minor competitors. Moreover, large (49.6%) and medium (43.1) 

clubs were more likely than their small (25.2%) counterparts to have believed bars 

were minor sources of competition. 

83

Hotel analysis 

Figure 8.1(c) displays hotel rating of competitors. 


9 

Hotel rating of competitorsF 

Major Minor Not a competitor Don't know Refused/Missing 

100 

90 

** 

** 

** 

** 

** 

** 

** 

** 

1.9* ** 0.9* ** 1.7* 1.5* 

2.0* 

1.3* 

10.2 

16.5 

** 

6.9 

80 

24.7 

28.1 

35.5 

31.1 


70 

60 

50 

40 

69.3 

31.5 

49.1 31.6 

55.9 

70.2 

22.9 

91.6 

30 

20 

10 

0 

15.8 

12.3 

63.8 

50.5 

21.0 


centres 

30.5 

24.9 

17.1 

21.1 

6.1 

44.0 

Take-away 

bottle shops 


0.8* 

Similar to the findings for clubs in the 2007 Survey and the results for hotels in the 

2002 to 2006 Surveys, hotels nominated several sources of competition. Significantly 

greater percentages of hotels believed other hotels (63.8%) and clubs (50.5%) posed 

major competition rather than minor or no competition. Hotels were also more likely 

to have thought that take-away bottle shops (44.0%) were major competitors as 

opposed to minor (22.9%) or non-competitors (31.1%). 

Notably higher proportions of hotels nominated restaurants (49.1%) as minor 

competitors with only 21.0% having rated them as major competition. 

Those venues most likely to be rated as non-competitors were shopping centres 

(70.2%), casinos (69.3%) and nightclubs (55.9%). 

Comparable proportions of hotels thought bars were major (30.5%) and minor 

(31.6%) competitors and non-competitors (35.5%). 

9 Total percentages for casinos, restaurants, bars, take-away bottle shops and ‘other’ do not add to 

100.0% as a result of rounding. 

84

Figure 8.1 (d) displays the proportion of hotels that perceive other businesses as 

major competitors by hotel size. 


Perceived major competitors by hotel size 


80 

76.0 

70 

60 

54.5 

62.3 


50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

20.3 

6.9* 

** 

48.2 

43.9 

31.5 

38.7 

23.2 25.5 

23.6 

17.8 

19.8 

15.8 

10.2* 12.1* 

6.5* 

7.1* 

5.0* 


centres 

46.8 

42.7 

39.1 

Take-away 

bottle shops 

** 

** 


There were few significant differences in hotel ratings of competitors between hotels 

of different size. 

Significantly greater proportions of large hotels (76.0%) than their medium (54.5%) or 

small (48.2%) counterparts nominated other hotels as major competitors. Similarly, 

large hotels (62.3%) were more likely than either medium (43.9%) or small (31.5%) 

hotels to have viewed clubs as major forms of competition. 

Large hotels (38.7%) were more likely than small hotels (17.8%) to have nominated 

bars as major competitors, whereas greater proportions of large hotels (20.3%) than 

medium hotels (6.9%*) believed casinos were sources of major competition. 

Similar percentages of large (46.8%), medium (42.7%) and small (39.1%) hotels 

considered take-away bottle shops as major sources of competition. 

Restaurants were seen by similar proportions of large (55.2%), medium (46.6%) and 

small (37.6%) hotels as minor competitors. 

Few hotels of any size nominated nightclubs or shopping centres as forms of major 

competition, however large hotels suggested nightclubs (33.5%) and shopping 

centres (25.9%) were minor rather than major competitors. 

85


The responses from venues to Question 26 were stratified into regions. Table 8.1 (a) 

presents the findings for major competitors. 

Table 8.1 (a) 

Rating of major competitors by venue location 

Major Competitor 

Brisbane 

% 

Moreton 

% 

Region 

Darling Downs 

% 

Fitzroy 

% 


% 

Casino 13.8 18.9 ** ** 20.5 

Hotels 62.1 59.8 51.0 59.0 60.5 

Clubs 60.1 61.3 39.5 46.4 52.4 

Restaurants 19.2 25.4 13.2 12.5 23.1 

Bars 31.7 28.6 17.1 21.7 20.4 

Nightclubs 13.8 14.0 9.9 7.9* 7.7* 

Shopping Centres 6.2 8.9 4.8* 5.6* 3.0* 

Take-Away Bottle Shops 38.2 41.9 37.0 31.3 37.1 

Other ** ** ** ** 0.0 

There were few regional differences in the rating of competitors. 

More than half of venues in all regions believed that hotels were major competitors. 

Venues in Brisbane (62.1%) were more likely than those in Darling Downs (51.0%) to 

have considered hotels as major competitors. 

Venues across all regions were more likely to have believed clubs posed major 

competition rather than no competition, from 39.5% in Darling Downs to 61.3% in 

Moreton. Venues in Brisbane (60.1%) and Moreton (61.3%) were more likely than 

those in Darling Downs (39.5%) to have nominated clubs as a major front of 

competition. 

Brisbane venues (31.7%) were more likely than those in Darling Downs (17.1%) to 

have nominated bars as major competition. 

Greater proportions of venues in Moreton (25.4%) than in Darling Downs (13.2%) or 

Fitzroy (12.5%) suggested restaurants posed major competition. 

There were no significant regional differences in the rating of casinos as competitors, 

with the majority of venues in all regions having suggested casinos were not 

competitors, from 59.2% in Brisbane to 93.2% in Fitzroy. 

Similarly, venues across all regions were more likely to have rated nightclubs as noncompetitors, 

rather than major or minor competitors, ranging from 57.7% in Moreton 

to 73.8% in Darling Downs. 

Venues located in the Moreton region were more likely to have viewed take-away 

bottle shops as major competitors (41.9%) rather than minor competitors (29.0%). 

Similarly, venues located in the Darling Downs region (37.0%) were more likely to 

have viewed take-away bottle shops as major rather than minor competitors (20.2%). 

Higher proportions of Fitzroy and Northern venues believed take-away bottle shops 

were not competitors (43.2% and 41.3% respectively) as opposed to minor 

competitors (21.% and 20.9% respectively). 

Greater proportions of venues in all regions believed shopping centres posed no 

competition, rather than major or minor competition, ranging from 67.6% in Brisbane 

to 78.0% in Darling Downs. 

86

49B8.2 Regulatory and other factors impacting on venue financial performance in 

the 2006-07 financial year (Question 27) 

Question 27 asked venues to rate the impact of a selection of regulatory, economic, 

commercial and environmental factors on their financial performance in the last 

financial year (2006-07). The list of categories used in the 2006 Survey was 

significantly revised for the 2007 Survey, with the removal of nine categories and the 

addition of three new ones (‘water restrictions’, ‘inflationary pressures’, and ‘venues 

over the NSW border’). Two of the categories included in Question 27 in the 2007 

Survey (‘smoking legislation’ and ‘hotel gaming machine reallocation scheme’) were 

also included in the 2005 and 2006 Surveys, allowing comparison on these elements 

across the three-year period. Additionally, the category ‘Queensland Responsible 

Gambling Code of Practice’ was first introduced in the 2002 Survey and has featured 

in all subsequent Surveys (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006), including the 2007 Survey, 

allowing comparison on this element across an eight-year period. 

Club analysis 

Figure 8.2 (a) presents the findings of this question for clubs. 


Impact of regulations and other factors on the financial 

10 

performance of clubs in 2006-07F 

Missing Don't Know Not Applicable No Impact Negative Positive 

Smoking legislation 

0.9* 

0.8 

23.5 

57.3 

15.8 

1.7* 

Queensland Responsible 

Gambling Code of Practice 

0.9* 

1.7* 

2.5* 

63.9 

7.1 

24.0 

Hotel gaming machine 

reallocation scheme 

0.9* 

12.1 

19.2 

52.3 

11.7 

3.8 

Advertising and promotion: 

guidelines and restrictions 

0.9* 

6.8 

5.6 

61.4 

15.1 

10.2 

0.9* 

Water restrictions 

4.3 

9.8 

53.8 

25.5 

5.8 

0.9* 

2.3* 

Inflationary pressures 

7.0 

14.8 

64.0 

11.0 

0.9* 

1.4* 

Venues over the NSW border 

5.1 

26.1 

59.0 

7.5 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 


10 Total percentages for Queensland Responsible Gambling Code of Practice and water restrictions add 

up to 100.1% as a result of rounding. 

87

Negative factors 

Only two factors – inflationary pressures and smoking legislation – were seen by 

more than one half of clubs to have negatively impacted their financial performance 

in the 2006-07 financial year. 

The majority of clubs (64%) nominated inflationary pressures as having had a 

negative impact on 2006-07 financial performance. Less than one fifth of clubs 

identified this factor as having had a positive (11.0%) or no impact (14.8%). Large 

clubs (82.9%) were more likely than medium (65.8%) or small (51.5%) clubs to have 

felt that inflationary pressures negatively affected their financial performance in the 

2006-07 year. 

Similarly, most clubs (57.3%) believed smoking legislation had had a negative effect 

on their financial performance, a result reminiscent of findings in the 2006 Survey 

(53.6%) and the 2005 Survey (52.4%). Similar to the findings for inflationary 

pressures, higher proportions of large (77.5%) clubs as opposed to their medium 

(57.2%) or small (44.8%) counterparts thought smoking legislation had negatively 

affected their financial performance. 

Water restrictions were more likely to be seen by clubs as having had negative 

(25.5%) rather than positive (5.8%) impacts on 2006-07 financial performance. 

However, it should be noted that a significantly higher proportion of clubs saw these 

restrictions as having had no financial impact (53.8%). Similar proportions of large 

(23%), medium (22.4%) and small (28.4%) clubs perceived water restrictions as 

having had a negative effect on their venue’s financial performance. However, large 

(59.8%), medium (56.5%) and small (48.7%) clubs were more likely to have seen 

water restrictions as having had no financial impact. 

While clubs were more likely to have rated the Hotel Gaming Machine Reallocation 

Scheme as having had a negative (11.7%) rather than positive (7.1%) effect on their 

financial performance, overall greater proportions of clubs rated this factor as having 

had no financial impact (52.3%). Similarly, large (51.3%), medium (50%) and small 

(54.1%) clubs were more likely to have believed this scheme had no impact rather 

than a negative impact (19.4%, 12.1%* and 6.8%* respectively) on their 

performance. 

Approximately 15 percent of clubs (15.1%) believed advertising and promotions 

guidelines had negatively affected their financial performance, with a majority 

(61.4%) suggesting no impact from this factor. 

Only small proportions of clubs thought venues over the New South Wales border 

(7.5%) and the Queensland Responsible Gambling Code of Practice (7.1%) had 

negatively impacted their financial performance. 

Positive factors 

Only small proportions of clubs believed the seven factors listed in the 2007 Survey 

had had positive effects on their financial performance in the financial year of 2006- 

07. 

The Queensland Responsible Gambling Code of Practice was more likely to have 

been rated by clubs as having had a positive (24.0%) than negative (7.1%) impact on 

their financial performance in 2006-07. However, 63.9% of clubs suggested this 

factor had had no financial impact. Large clubs (33.2%) were more likely than their 

small (17.7%) counterparts to have thought the Code of Practice had been a positive 

factor for their financial performance. 

88

More than 15% of clubs suggested smoking legislation had been a positive factor 

(15.8%) for their 2006-07 financial performance, with medium (17.9%) and small 

(17.3%) clubs more likely to do so than their large (11.9%) counterparts. 

More than a tenth of clubs nominated inflationary pressures (11.0%) and advertising 

and promotions guidelines and restrictions (10.2%) as having had positive financial 

impacts. Large (15.0%) and medium (15.3%) clubs were more likely than their small 

(4.9%*) counterparts to have thought advertising and promotions guidelines and 

restrictions had had a positive effect on financial performance, while small clubs 

(22.2%) were more likely than large clubs (5.4%*) to have suggested inflationary 

pressures had had no financial impact. 

Less than 10 percent of clubs (5.8%) thought water restrictions had had positive 

financial effects and less than 5 percent (3.8%) thought the hotel gaming machine 

reallocation scheme was a positive financial factor. 

89

Hotel analysis 

Figure 8.2 (b) outlines the results of Question 27 for hotels. 


Impact of regulations and other factors on the financial 

11 

performance of hotels in 2006-07F 

Missing Don't Know Not Applicable No Impact Negative Positive 

** ** 

Smoking legislation 

15.3 

62.3 

19.2 

1.6* 


Gambling Code of Practice 

** 

6.0 

1.9* 

48.5 

5.7 

36.8 



** 

14.5 

11.8 

53.3 

8.1 

11.3 

** 


guidelines and restrictions 

7.4 

4.0 

52.9 

17.9 

16.7 

** 

Water restrictions 

7.0 

10.8 

56.6 

21.2 

3.3 

** 


4.7 3.3* 

16.6 

65.7 

8.5 

** 

Venues over the NSW border 

7.4 

24.7 

61.5 

4.6 

** 

Negative factors 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 


Only two out of the seven listed factors – inflationary pressure and smoking 

legislation – were believed by more than one half of hotels to have negatively 

impacted their 2006-07 financial performance. 

Approximately two-thirds of hotels (65.7%) thought inflationary pressures had 

negatively influenced their financial performance in 2006-07. Moreover, large hotels 

(76.7%) were more likely than medium (56.7%) or small (53.2%) hotels to have 

nominated pressure from inflation as a negative financial factor. These results are 

similar to those found for clubs in the 2007 Survey, as noted earlier. 

Similar to clubs (57.3%) and reminiscent of the results from the 2006 Survey, 

smoking legislation was identified by a large proportion of hotels (62.3%) as having 

had a negative financial impact. There were no significant differences in this finding 

when considered by hotel size, with high proportions of large (68.1%), medium 

11 Total percentages for smoking legislation, hotel gaming machine reallocation scheme and inflationary 

pressures add up to 99.9% or 100.1% as a result of rounding. 

90

(58.3%) and small (53.8%) hotels having identified smoking legislation as a negative 

financial factor in 2006-07. 

While more than a fifth of hotels (21.2%) nominated water restrictions as having had 

negative rather positive (3.3%) effects on financial performance, it is important to 

note that higher proportions of hotels (55.4%) suggested these restrictions had had 

no financial impact. 

Less than one fifth (17.9%) of hotels nominated advertising and promotions 

guidelines and restrictions as negatively affecting financial performance, with around 

half (52.9%) having suggested no impact from this factor. 

Positive factors 

There were no factors identified by a majority of hotels as having positively impacted 

their 2006-07 financial performance. However, hotels were more likely to have 

suggested that the Queensland Responsible Gambling Code of Practice had 

positively (36.8%) rather than negatively (5.7%) affected financial performance. 

Nevertheless, a significantly larger proportion (48.5%) of hotels believed it had had 

no financial impact. Large hotels were more likely to report that the Code of Practice 

had had positive impacts (43.6%) or no impacts (42.5%) as opposed to negative 

(6.6%) financial effects in 2006-07. At the same time, similar proportions of medium 

(52.6%) and small (57%) hotels believed they had experienced no financial impacts 

from the Code of Practice as opposed to either positive (32.1% and 27.5%) or 

negative (3.2%* and 7.8%*) effects. 

While smoking legislation was identified by a high proportion of hotels (62.3%) as a 

negative financial factor, almost a fifth of hotels (19.2%) saw this factor as having 

positively influenced trade, a proportion comparable to those who believed it had not 

impacted financial performance (15.3%). Similar proportions of large, medium and 

small hotels believed smoking legislation had had positive effects (16.9%, 19.7%, 

and 24.3% respectively) or no impact (11.3%, 17.5% and 21.9% respectively) on 

their financial performance. 

While almost 18% of hotels (17.9%) identified advertising and promotions guidelines 

and restrictions as a negative influence on trade in 2006-07, a similar proportion 

(16.7%) saw this factor as a positive financial factor in the same period. Almost one 

fifth of large (17.0%) and medium (18.9%) hotels and a little more than a tenth of 

small hotels (11.9%*) viewed this factor as having had a positive financial impact. 

Only a few hotels nominated the hotel gaming machine reallocation scheme (11.3%), 

inflationary pressures (8.5%) or water restrictions (3.3%) as positive factors for trade. 

91


There were a few regional differences of significance across the seven factors 

measured in Question 27. 

Figure 8.2 (c) Impact of inflationary pressures, water restrictions and 

advertising and promotion guidelines and restrictions on venue 

financial performance in 2006-07 by venue location 


Guidelines and restrictions 

Brisbane 

Moreton 

Darling Downs 

Fitzroy 


15.0 

14.1 

11.4 

14.2 

14.1 

51.8 

50.7 

66.1 

63.2 

55.9 

19.3 4.9* 7.0 

20.6 5.8* 8.3 

10.4 4.3* 7.9 

3.8* 

12.6 4.9* 

18.1 4.2* 6.9* 

2.0* 

** 

** 

** 

Positive 

No Impact 

Negative 

Not Applicable 

Don't Know 

Missing 

Brisbane 

5.7 

50.0 

33.4 

2.9* 

6.2* 

2.0* 

Inflationary pressures Water Restrictions 

Moreton 

Darling Downs 

Fitzroy 


Brisbane 

Moreton 

Darling Downs 

Fitzroy 

8.1 

2.6* 

** 

** 

7.0 

11.9 

12.5 

9.5* 

14.8 

6.4 

16.3 

25.9 

51.0 

55.2 

65.8 

62.3 

27.6 

23.9 

11.7* 

6.1* 

71.7 

71.6 

60.7 

56.6 

6.0* 6.7 

11.7 6.5* 

3.2* 

16.9 

24.0 5.2* 

3.9* 

** 

6.3 

3.2* 

8 

2.5* 

4.5* 

** 

** 

** 

** 

2.0* 

0.5 

** 


7.1* 

22.3 

55.4 

7.9* 

6.5* 

** 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 


Venues across all regions were more likely to see inflationary pressures as having 

had a negative impact rather than no impact or a positive effect on their 2006-07 

financial performance, ranging from 55.4% of Fitzroy venues to 71.7% of venues in 

Brisbane. A greater proportion of venues in Brisbane (71.7%) and Moreton (71.6%) 

than venues in both Fitzroy (56.6%) and Northern (55.4%) believed inflationary 

pressures had a negative impact on their financial performance in 2006-07. 

Venues in Brisbane (33.4%), Moreton (27.6%) and Darling Downs (23.9%) were 

more likely than those in Fitzroy (11.7%*) and Northern (6.1%*) to believe water 

restrictions had negatively impacted their 2006-07 financial performance. However, it 

is important to note that venues in Brisbane, Moreton and Darling Downs were more 

likely to believe there had been no impact (50.0%, 51.0% and 55.2% respectively) 

than a negative impact from these restrictions. Additionally, significantly greater 

proportions of Fitzroy (65.8%) and Northern (62.3%) venues judged water restrictions 

92

as having had no impact as opposed to a negative effect (11.7%* and 6.1%* 

respectively) on their financial performance in the same period. 

While venues in Brisbane (19.3%) and Moreton (20.6%) were more likely than those 

in Darling Downs (10.4%) to believe advertising and promotion guidelines and 

restrictions had negatively impacted 2006-07 financial performance, greater 

proportions of Darling Downs venues (66.1%) than Brisbane (51.8%) or Moreton 

(50.7%) venues thought these factors had had no impact. However, it should be 

noted that venues across all regions were more likely to report these factors as 

having had no impact on their 2006-07 financial performance than either positive or 

negative impacts, ranging from 50.7% of venues in Moreton to 66.1% in Darling 

Downs. 


Impact of smoking legislation, the Queensland Responsible 

Gambling Code of Practice, hotel gaming maching reallocation 

scheme and venues over the NSW border, by venue location 


Gambling Code of Practice Smoking Legislation 

Brisbane 

Moreton 

Darling Downs 

Fitzroy 


Brisbane 

Moreton 

Darling Downs 

Fitzroy 


15.0 

17.4 

17.1 13.5 

22.5 

19.9 

17.2 

22.1 

17.5 

26.7 

32.1 

34.0 

24.7 

36.9 

27.0 

62.3 

67.5 

55.2 

57.5 

52.8 

54.1 

50.1 

60.9 

54.0 

60.4 

** 

2.0* 

2.5* 

** 

** 

** 

** 

** 

** 

** 

** 

** 

2.5* 

** 

4.9* 4.4* 2.0* 

** 

7.5 6.4 ** 

2.1* 

7.7 4.5* 

** 

5.0* ** 

** 

** 

6.6* ** 

4.2* 

Positive 

No Impact 

Negative 

Not Applicable 

Don't Know 

Missing 



Brisbane 

Moreton 

Darling Downs 

Fitzroy 


8.1 

7.8* 

8.4* 

10.7 

4.0* 

52.0 

49.1 

54.0 

53.2 

59.1 

8.7 

11.9 

8.9 

9.6* 

9.2* 

16.3 

15.3 

11.7 

15.1 

17.1 

12.8 

15.3 

17.0 

10.2 

9.8 

2.0* 

** 

** 

** 

Venues over the NSW 

border 

Brisbane 

Moreton 

Darling Downs 

Fitzroy 


** 

2.5* 

** 

72.0 

59.4 

56.4 

55.8 

49.6 

** 

4.5* 

** 

2.8* 

16.1 

30.2 

33.5 

43.2 

18.7 

13.3 

3.9* 

8.1 

7.7 

7.8* 

4.8* 

2.0* 

** 

** 

** 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 


93

There were no significant regional differences in the reported impact of smoking 

legislation on venue financial performance in 2006-07. Venues across all regions 

were more likely to believe this factor had had negative effects rather than positive or 

no effects on their financial performance in this period, ranging from 52.8% in 

Northern to 67.5% in Moreton. This is reminiscent of the 2006 Survey where high 

proportions of venues in most regions believed that legislation related to smoking had 

had a negative impact on venue overall gross profit in the 2005-06 financial year. 

Venues in all regions were more likely to believe that the Queensland Responsible 

Gambling Code of Practice had had no impact rather than a negative or positive 

effect on their 2006-07 financial performance, ranging from 50.1% of venues in 

Moreton to 60.9% in Darling Downs. 

Notably higher proportions of venues in all regions (from 49.1% in Moreton to 59.1% 

in Northern) thought the hotel gaming machine reallocation scheme had had no 

effect rather than a negative or positive impact on financial performance in the 2006- 

07 financial year. 

While Moreton venues (16.1%) were more likely than those in Brisbane (2.8%*) or 

Darling Downs (4.5%*) to suggest venues over the NSW border had generated a 

negative impact on their financial performance, it should be noted that significantly 

higher proportions of venues across all Southeast Queensland regions (72.0% in 

Brisbane, 56.4% in Darling Downs, and 59.4% in Moreton) reported no impact as 

opposed to negative financial impacts from this factor. 

94

50B8.3 Factors likely to influence venue level of trade in the 2007-08 financial year 

(Question 28) 

Question 28 asked venues to indicate factors which are likely to influence their level 

of trade in the current financial year (2007-08). Question 28 is a new question 

introduced in the 2007 Survey. Figure 8.3 (a) displays the findings for this question 

by venue type. Venues could select multiple factors, so percentages across 

categories add to more than 100%. 

Figure 8.3 (a) Factors likely to influence venue level of trade in the current 

financial year (2007-08) by venue type 

Venue membership 

level 

12.5 

43.2 

81.2 

Clubs 

Hotels 

Local population 

change 

60.4 

73.2 

67.5 

Total 

Venue facilities (eg. 

accommodation, 

functions) 

51.3 

49.9 

50.5 

General economic 

climate 

72.6 

74.4 

73.6 

Interest rates 

58.2 

70.7 

65.1 

Industrial Relations 

law 

17.3 

22.2 

20.0 

Other legislation (eg. 

smoking legislation, 

3am lockouts) 

39.3 

45.8 

42.9 

Seasonal variation 

42.4 

46.1 

44.5 

Sporting event(s) 

40.7 

29.8 

34.7 


2.1 

4.0* 

3.1* 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 


A clear majority of clubs (81.2%), as opposed to hotels (12.5%), nominated venue 

membership as likely to influence their financial performance in the 2007-08 financial 

year. By contrast, hotels (73.2%) were more likely than clubs (60.4%) to have 

identified local population change as a potential influence on 2007-08 trade. 

95

Additionally, a higher proportion of hotels (70.7%) than clubs (58.2%) felt interest 

rates would impact upon financial performance. 

Despite the proportions involved, clubs (40.7%) were more likely than hotels (29.8%) 

to have suggested sporting events would be likely to influence level of trade in the 

2007-08 financial year. Comparably high proportions of clubs (72.6%) and hotels 

(74.4%) thought the general economic climate would impact upon 2007-08 trade. 

Approximately half of clubs (51.3%) and hotels (49.9%) believed venue facilities 

would be likely to impact trade. 

Less than half of clubs and hotels suggested that seasonal variation (42.4% and 

46.1% respectively) and other legislation (39.3% and 45.8%) would be likely to affect 

trade in the 2007-08 financial year. Approximately a fifth of clubs (17.3%) and hotels 

(22.2%) thought industrial relations law would have an effect on financial 

performance in the same period. 

Table 8.3 (a) presents the findings for Question 28 by venue type and size. 

Table 8.3 (a) 

Factors likely to influence venue level of trade in the current 

financial year (2007-08) by venue type and size 

Clubs 

Hotels 

Factors 

Large 

% 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 

Large 

% 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 

Venue membership level 81.2 77.8 82.8 17.7 7.8* 7.3* 

Local population change 63.2 57.6 60.0 76.9 68.7 71.8 

Venue facilities (e.g. accommodation, 

functions) 61.8 53.7 43.7 53.6 50.8 38.2 

General economic climate 90.1 77.4 59.4 81.5 67.2 69.2 

Interest rates 86.9 64.2 37.6 81.4 60.0 62.0 

Industrial Relations law 33.0 13.1 9.4 24.7 21.3 17.0 

Other legislation (e.g. smoking 

legislation, 3 AM lockouts) 59.4 38.7 27.2 45.9 45.8 45.4 

Seasonal variation 52.6 40.5 37.0 45.4 49.7 41.2 

Sporting events 36.7 46.0 40.6 36.1 25.9 20.1* 

Other 1.9** - 3.1* 2.7* 4.4* 6.4* 

Small venues (58.9%) were more likely than large (38.8%) or medium (32.5%) 

venues to have identified venue membership level as likely to impact on 2007-08 

trade. By contrast, higher proportions of large (56.3%) than small (42%) venues 

nominated venue facilities as potentially affecting trade for the same time frame. 

Large venues were more likely than medium or small venues to have nominated the 

following factors as potentially affecting trade in 2007-08: 

the general economic climate (84.4%, 70.8% and 62.5%, respectively); and 

interest rates (83.2%, 61.5% and 45.4%). 

Large clubs were more likely than medium or small clubs to have believed the 

following factors would influence their level of trade in 2007-08: 

the general economic climate (90.1%, 77.4% and 59.4%, respectively); 

interest rates (86.9%, 64.2% and 37.6%); 

other forms of legislation (59.4%, 38.7% and 27.2%); and 

industrial relations law (33.0%, 13.1% and 9.4%). 

96

Large hotels were more likely than medium or small hotels to have believed the 

following factors would influence their level of trade in 2007-08: 

interest rates (81.4%, 60.0% and 62.0%, respectively); and 

the general economic climate (81.5%, 67.2% and 69.2%). 

Regional Analysis 

Table 8.3 (b) displays the results of Question 28 by region. 

Table 8.3 (b) 

Factors likely to influence venue level of trade in the current 

financial year (2007-08) by venue regional location 

Region 

Factors 

Brisbane 

% 

Moreton 

% 

Darling 

Downs 

% 

Fitzroy 

% 


% 

Venue membership level 50.0 43.6 43.0 37.5 35.4 

Local population change 62.2 71.0 64.2 71.6 72.6 

Venue facilities (e.g. accommodation, 

functions) 

58.3 47.7 42.9 43.2 58.9 

General economic climate 77.7 78.5 70.5 70.0 65.3 

Interest rates 68.6 75.9 62.4 55.2 54.3 

Industrial Relations law 19.8 24.9 15.4 18.1 20.7 

Other legislation (e.g. smoking legislation, 3 

am lockouts) 

44.6 49.2 43.4 38.4 32.7 

Seasonal variation 35.4 52.0 45.2 45.0 48.2 

Sporting events 39.4 42.9 27.9 26.3 30.1 

Other 1.5* 3.0* 5.2* 3.2** 3.3* 

There were several regional differences apparent in the factors likely to influence 

2007-08 trade. 

Brisbane venues were more likely than those in Fitzroy and Northern regions to have 

believed trade levels in the current financial year (2007-08) would be affected by 

venue membership (50.0%, 37.5% and 35.4% respectively) and the general 

economic climate (77.7%, 70.0% and 65.3%, respectively). 

Higher proportions of Brisbane venues (58.3%) than those in Darling Downs (42.9%) 

and Fitzroy (43.2%), nominated venue facilities as likely to impact trade in 2007-08. 

Venues in Moreton (78.5%) were more likely than those in Darling Downs (70.5%) to 

have believed the general economic climate would impact 2007-08 trade. 

Other forms of legislation (e.g. smoking legislation and 3 am lockouts) were more 

likely to be identified by Moreton (49.2%) venues than Northern (32.7%) venues as 

potentially impacting trade levels. 

A larger proportion of venues in Moreton (52.0%) as opposed to those in Brisbane 

(35.4%) felt seasonal changes would be likely to influence their level of trade. 

Moreton venues (42.9%) were also more likely than those in Darling Downs (27.9%), 

Fitzroy (26.3%) and Northern (30.1%), to have suggested sporting events would 

influence trade. 

97

Large proportions of venues across all regions believed local population changes 

would potentially impact their trade levels in the current financial year (2007-08), 

ranging from 62.2% in Brisbane to 72.6% in Northern. Similarly, the general 

economic climate was identified by 65.3% (Northern) to 78.5% (Moreton) of venues 

as potentially impacting level of trade in the same period. Interest rates were also 

selected by a large proportion of venues as a factor likely to influence trade levels, 

ranging from more than half of venues in the Northern region (54.3%) to just over 

three-quarters (75.9%) of venues in Moreton. 

98

51B8.4 Venue patron type (Question 29) 

Question 29 asked venues to estimate the proportion of patrons of different types 

attending their venue. This question was introduced in the 2004 Survey and again 

employed in the 2005 Survey as a qualitative question. This question was modified in 

the 2006 Survey to become a quantitative question and to include three categories of 

patrons: ‘local residents’, ‘day-trippers’ and ‘tourists’. In the 2007 Survey this question 

was further revised with the addition of the category ‘reciprocal members’ for clubs 

only. Table 8.3 (a) details the results by venue type and size. 

Table 8.4 (a) 

Estimated average proportion of patron type by venue type and 

sizeF 

12 

Local Residents 

% 

Day-trippers 

% 

Tourists 

% 

Reciprocal 

Members 

% 


% 

Total 

% 

Clubs 

Large 70.9 5.0 9.6 13.9 0.8* 100.0 

Medium 70.8 4.5 10.0 13.2 1.4* 100.0 

Small 75.7 4.8 5.3 13.0 1.3* 100.0 

Total Clubs 73.2 4.8 7.6 13.3 1.2* 100.0 

Hotels 

Large 79.2 8.0 9.6 0.0 3.2 100.0 

Medium 74.6 10.1 12.5 0.0 2.8* 100.0 

Small 73.6 9.7 13.9 0.0 ** 100.0 

Total Hotels 76.6 9.0 11.4 0.0 3.0 100.0 

A clear majority of venues catered for local residents. Around three-quarters of club 

(73.2%) and hotel (76.6%) patrons were local residents. Though the proportions are 

small, day trippers comprised a higher proportion of hotel patrons (9.0%) than club 

patrons (4.8%). Similarly, 11.4% of hotel patrons were tourists compared with 7.6% 

for clubs. 

While there were no differences in patron type between hotels of different sizes, large 

(9.6%) and medium (10.0%) clubs were more likely than small clubs (5.3%) to have 

had tourist patrons. 

12 As a result of rounding, total percentages for large, medium and small clubs add up to a fraction of 

one percent more or less than 100.0%. 

99


A few regional variances emerged in venue patron types. Figure 8.4 (a) presents 

these findings. 


Average proportion of patron type by venue location 

100 

90 

80 

70 

76.4 76.7 

77.6 

71.1 74.4 

Brisbane 

Moreton 

Darling Downs 

Fitzroy 


Average percentage (%) 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

13.3 

12.4 12.1 

10.8 

8.49.2 

8.9 

6.6 

6.1 

4.34.8 

3.4 

4.65.0 

3.0 

Local residents Day trippers Tourists Reciprocal 

members 

4.2* 

3.0 1.2* 

1.1 1.3* 

Oother 

While small proportions are involved, venues in Brisbane (8.4%) and Moreton (9.2%) 

had, on average, higher proportions of patrons who were day trippers than venues in 

Fitzroy (4.3%) and Northern (4.8%). 

Venues in Moreton (12.4%), Darling Downs (10.8%), Fitzroy (12.1%) and Northern 

(13.3%) were more likely to have had tourist patrons than Brisbane venues (3.4%). 

Brisbane venue patrons were more likely to be reciprocal members (8.9%) than in 

Moreton (6.1%), Darling Downs (4.6%) or Northern (3.0%). 

100

10B9. Community 

Support 


the proportion of venues providing community support to sporting clubs, other 

local organisations, groups or projects and/or charitable organisations; 

type of contributions to sporting clubs, other local organisations, groups or 

projects or charitable organisations; and 

the cash/cheque and non-cash value of contributions from venues to sporting 

clubs, other local organisations, groups or projects and/or charitable 

organisations. 

Please note: 

Clubs and hotels operate under substantially different conditions as venues. These 

differences are both philosophical and regulatory. Direct comparison of clubs and 

hotels in their support of community organisations is both unfair and misleading. 

However, with this in mind, some broad conclusions can be drawn about each venue 

type. 


Revenue from gaming machines is used to provide direct support to community 

organisations. Key conclusions from this survey are: 

More than eight in ten clubs and hotels provided community support. 

Venues were most likely to provide community support to sports and 

recreational groups and/or schools. 

Clubs and hotels most typically provided community support in the form of 

cash or cheque, vouchers, fundraising events and/or donation tins. 

Clubs contributed similar amounts overall in cash contributions in the 2005-06 

($31.2 million) and 2006-07 ($30.7 million) financial years. They also 

contributed similar amounts in non-cash contributions in 2005-06 ($10.8 

million) and 2006-07 ($9.3 million). 

Hotels contributed less overall in cash contributions in the 2006-07 financial 

year ($2.6 million) than they did in 2005-06 ($6.7 million). They also 

contributed less in non-cash contributions in 2006-07 ($2.3 million) than in 

2005-06 ($4.0 million). 




101


53B9.1 Provision of community support by venues (Question 30) 

Question 30 asked respondents to indicate whether their venue provides any form of 

community support. This question was introduced into the 2005 Survey and again 

employed in the 2006 and 2007 Surveys. Table 9.1 (a) presents these findings. 

Table 9.1 (a) Provision of community support by venues, 2006-07 

Large 

% 

Medium 

% 

Clubs 

Small 

% 

Total 

% 

Large 

% 

Hotels 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 

Total 

% 

Yes 99.4 89.6 75.2 85.6 84.4 80.3 75.7 81.5 

No ** 10.4* 24.8 14.4 15.6 19.7 24.3 18.5 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

A high proportion of clubs (85.6%) and hotels (81.5%) provided community support. 

In comparison to the 2005 Survey, fewer clubs and hotels provided community 

support in 2007. In 2005, 91.4% of clubs and 87.4% of hotels provided community 

support: a decrease of 5.8 percentage points for clubs and 5.9 percentage points for 

hotels. 

Large clubs were more likely to have provided community support than smaller clubs. 

Almost all large clubs (99.4%), 89.6% of medium clubs and 75.2% of small clubs that 

responded to the 2007 Survey provided community support. 

Most hotels of all sizes also provided community support. Over three quarters of 

large (84.4%), medium (80.3%) and small (75.7%) hotels provided some form of 

community support. 


Across regions, similar proportions of venues provided community support. Table 

9.1 (b) presents the results. 

Table 9.1 (b) Provision of community support by venue location, 2006-07 

Region 

Brisbane 

% 

Moreton 

% 

Darling Downs 

% 

Fitzroy 

% 


% 

Yes 80.9 86.4 80.3 86.6 83.9 

No 19.1 13.6 19.7 13.4 16.1 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

102

54B9.2 Community organisations supported by clubs and hotel cash/cheque and 

non-cash contributions (Question 31) 

Past surveys have asked venues that provided community support to nominate the 

community organisation to which they made cash/cheque or non-cash contributions. 

The 2004 to 2007 Surveys modified the question to ask respondents to simply 

denote the types of community organisation they support. Figure 9.2 (a) presents 

the outcomes of this modified question. This question allowed respondents to 

provide multiple responses, so percentages across categories add to more than 

100%. 


Community organisations supported by clubs and hotels by 

venue type, 2006-07 

100 

Clubs 

90 

80 

80.4 78.6 

77.1 

87.1 

85.2 

83.0 

Hotels 

Total 

70 


60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

43.1 

35.1 

28.3 

25.0 

24.2 24.7 

32.9 

26.3 

20.7 

43.9 

36.7 

30.6 

36.8 36.1 

35.4 

32.7 

31.2 

30.0 

10 

0 

Aged Care Church Veteran's 

Affairs 

Welfare Schools Health Sports and 

recreation 

Individuals 

4.0 2.7* 3.3* 


(please 

specify) 

Don't know 

0.6** 

0.2 0.4** 

Missing 

Most venues that provided community support supported sports and recreational 

groups and/or schools. Of the venues that provided support, about 85.2% provided 

support to sports and recreational groups and 78.6% provided assistance to schools. 

In addition, more than one third of venues made donations to welfare groups 

(36.7%), health (36.1 %) and aged care (35.1%). 

Several differences were evident for clubs and hotels across venue size. Table 9.2 

(a) presents these findings. 

Table 9.2 (a) 


venue type and size, 2006-07 

Community Organisation 

Large 

% 

Clubs 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 

Large 

% 

Hotels 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 

Aged Care 67.7 36.6 26.6 23.5 36.1 27.1 

Church 42.5 17.6* 13.0 24.1 27.3 23.4 

Veteran Affairs 46.2 24.5 26.7 20.0 22.5 19.3* 

Welfare 58.7 36.1 36.2 32.8 28.4 28.5 

Schools 92.7 70.8 75.7 76.8 76.4 79.7 

Health 51.8 25.2 31.2 38.9 31.4 32.8 

Sports and Recreation 95.4 88.1 70.0 85.2 90.6 86.0 

Individuals 42.5 28.0 27.3 30.9 28.4 30.3 

Other 3.2* 7.1* 2.9* 3.3* ** ** 

103

Large and medium clubs that provided community support were more likely to 

support sports and recreational groups than small clubs. Almost all large clubs 

(95.4%) and most medium clubs (88.1%) that provided community support made 

cash/cheque or non-cash contributions to sports and recreational groups compared 

to 70.0% of small clubs. 

More large clubs than medium and small clubs provided cash/cheque or 

non-cash support to schools, aged care, welfare groups, health, veteran affairs, 

individuals, and churches. Of the large clubs that provided community support, 

almost all (92.7%) supported schools, 67.7% supported aged care, 58.7% 

contributed to welfare groups, 51.8% contributed to health, 46.2% provided 

assistance to veteran affairs, 42.5% assisted individuals, and 42.5% provided 

assistance to churches. 

There were no significant differences in the types of community organisations 

supported by large, medium and small hotels. 


No differences were evident across regions. Table 9.2(b) exhibits the results. 

Table 9.2 (b) 


venue location, 2006-07 

Region 

Brisbane 

% 

Moreton 

% 

Darling Downs 

% 

Fitzroy 

% 


% 

Aged Care 34.7 38.7 39.5 31.0 28.2 

Church 26.8 22.8 23.4 26.4 23.8 

Veteran Affairs 24.4 25.0 25.2 30.4 29.4 

Welfare 41.0 39.2 39.8 30.2 27.1 

Schools 81.7 75.1 75.3 84.7 76.6 

Health 32.6 36.7 36.2 39.4 37.9 

Sports and Recreation 83.8 86.5 83.6 85.7 87.7 

Individuals 28.2 38.5 32.6 29.2 24.3 

Other 3.2* 2.6* 3.7* ** 4.7* 

104

55B9.3 Type of community support provided by venues (Question 32) 

Question 32 asked clubs and hotels who had indicated they provided community 

support to note the type of community support they provided. This question was 

introduced into the 2005 Survey and again employed in the 2006 and 2007 Surveys. 

Figure 9.3 (a) displays these findings. Respondents were able to provide multiple 

responses to this question, so percentages across categories add to more than 

100%. 

Figure 9.3 (a) Type of community support provided by venue type, 2006-07 

Cash/cheque 

71.2 

66.5 

68.7 

Vouchers 

57.8 

75.5 

67.4 

Free or subsidised 

goods 

37.7 

48.7 

58.1 


services 

21.0 

33.8 

48.7 


advertising 

16.2 

10.9 

13.3 


sports coaching 

1.3 

16.1** 

33.6 

Clubs 

Hote ls 

Total 

Professional 

expertise 

15.8 

6.9 

11.0 

Fundraising events 

70.1 

59.1 

64.2 

Donation tins 

59.3 

66.9 

63.4 

Other (please 

specify) 

1.7 

1.4* 

1.5** 

Don't know 

0.3 

0.3** 

0.3** 

Missing 

0.6 

0.3** 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 


Cash/cheque contributions, vouchers, fundraising events, and donation tins were the 

most common forms of support provided by venues. Of the venues that provided 

community support, about 68.7% provided cash or cheques, 67.4% provided 

vouchers, 64.2% held fundraising events for community organisations and 63.4% 

had donation tins on their premises. 

Since 2005, more venues provided cash or cheques (up 4.2 percentage points) and 

vouchers (up 5.6 percentage points) as forms of community support. Also, more 

venues had donations tins on their premises (up 3.4 percentage points). Fewer 

105

venues held fundraising events for community organisations (down 4.8 percentage 

points) in 2007 compared to 2005. 

A number of differences appeared for clubs and hotels across venue size. Table 9.3 

(a) displays the findings. 

Table 9.3 (a) 

Type of community support provided by clubs and hotels by 

venue size, 2006-07 

Clubs 

Hotels 

Community Support 

Large 

% 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 

Large 

% 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 

Cash/cheque 92.2 69.3 55.1 60.5 71.8 74.2 

Vouchers 87.6 56.6 34.0 80.1 72.5 67.6 

Free or Subsidised Goods 58.2 39.1 20.0 56.7 59.9 58.8 

Free or Subsidised Services 63.4 41.2 40.8 19.5 24.4 18.9* 

Free or Subsidised Advertising 24.8 14.8* 10.0 10.2 11.9* 10.7* 

Free or Subsidised Sports Coaching 26.9 31.9 40.1 ** ** ** 

Professional Expertise 24.1 13.8* 10.1 7.0* 6.2* 7.9* 

Fundraising Events 75.8 69.3 65.8 58.7 60.9 56.9 

Donation Tins 70.0 65.0 47.3 65.7 66.5 71.0 

Other ** ** ** ** 0.0 ** 

The majority of clubs that provided support to community organisations did so 

through cash/cheque contributions, fundraising events, donation tins and/or 

vouchers. 

Approximately 71.2% of clubs that provided support gave cash or cheque donations 

to community organisations. Most large clubs (92.2%) provided this form of support. 

In comparison, over one half of medium (69.3%) and small (55.1%) clubs gave cash 

or cheque donations to community organisations. 

Many clubs held fundraising events. More than one half of clubs (70.1%) that 

provided community support held fundraising events. About 75.8% of large, 69.3% 

of medium, and 65.8% of small clubs that provided community support held 

fundraising events. 

More than one half of clubs that provided community support had donation tins on 

their premises (59.3%) and/or supplied community organisations with vouchers 

(57.8%). More large clubs (70.0%) kept donation tins on site than small clubs 

(47.3%). Over one half of medium clubs (65.0%) had donation tins on their 

premises. Large clubs were also more inclined to supply vouchers to community 

organisations than their smaller counterparts. About 87.6% of large clubs gave 

vouchers to community organisations compared to 56.6% of medium and 34.0% of 

small clubs. 

Only a minority of clubs provided free or subsidised services, free or subsidised 

goods, free or subsidised sports coaching, free or subsidised advertising, and/or 

professional expertise to community organisations. Over one third of clubs that 

provided support did so through free or subsidised services (48.7%), free or 

subsidised goods (37.7%), or free or subsidised sports coaching (33.6%). Less than 

one quarter of clubs that provided free or subsidised advertising (16.2%) and/or 

professional expertise (15.8%) to community organisations. 

Like clubs, the most common methods by which hotels provided community support 

were through vouchers, donation tins on site, cash or cheque contributions, and/or 

fundraising events. In addition, a large percentage of hotels supplied community 

106

organisations with free or subsidised goods. Approximately three-quarters of hotels 

that supported community organisations did so through the provision of vouchers 

(75.5%). More than one half of large (80.1%), medium (72.5%), and small (67.6%) 

hotels donated vouchers to community organisations. 

About 66.9% of hotels that provided community support did so through the provision 

of on site donation tins. Similarly, 66.5% of hotels that provided support made 

cash/cheque donations to community organisations. More than one half of hotels 

(59.1%) that provide support hosted fundraising events to support community 

organisations while 58.1% provided free or subsidised goods. No differences were 

evident across venue size. 

Like clubs, only a minority of hotels provided contributions to community 

organisations in the form of free or subsidised services, free or subsidised 

advertising, free or subsidised sports coaching, and/or professional expertise. Of 

those hotels that provided support, approximately 21.0% of hotels provided free or 

subsidised services, 10.9% offered free or subsidised advertising and 6.9% provided 

professional expertise. 


Variations were evident across regions. Table 9.3 (b) displays the results. 

Table 9.3 (b) 

Type of community support provided by venue location 

Region 

Community Support 

Brisbane 

% 

Moreton 

% 

Darling Downs 

% 

Fitzroy 

% 


% 

Cash/cheque 57.8 70.4 76.4 76.4 67.4 

Vouchers 65.6 69.5 63.0 70.8 69.3 

Free or Subsidised Goods 48.0 44.9 45.2 61.9 46.8 

Free or Subsidised Services 39.7 35.8 31.7 32.0 23.4 

Free or Subsidised Advertising 13.7 12.0 18.6 10.7* 10.5 

Free or Subsidised Sports Coaching 21.8 14.9 13.4 15.0 12.4 

Professional Expertise 13.9 11.4 9.5* 10.1* 7.9* 

Fundraising Events 62.8 69.4 64.9 60.6 60.6 

Donation Tins 65.8 66.1 61.0 62.8 57.9 

Other 2.2* ** ** ** ** 

Of the venues that provided support, those located in the Fitzroy (76.4%), Darling 

Downs (76.4%), and Moreton (70.4%) regions were more likely to provide 

cash/cheque donations to community organisations than venues located in the 

Brisbane region (57.8%). 

Fitzroy venues (61.9%) were more likely than venues located in the Darling Downs 

(45.2%) and Moreton (44.9%) regions to provide free or subsidised goods. 

Of the venues that provided support, Brisbane venues (39.7%) were more likely to 

offer free or subsidised services to community organisations than venues in the 

Northern (23.4%) region. 

107

56B9.4 Cash/cheque and non-cash support for community organisations in the 

previous financial year (2006-07) (Questions 33-34) 

The 2007 Survey, like the 2001 to 2006 Surveys, collected information on the 

cash/cheque or non-cash contributions made to community organisations. Figure 9.4 

(a) presents the total cash/cheque and non-cash contributions made by clubs and 

hotels to community organisations as reported in the 2001 to 2007 Surveys. 


Total cash/cheque and non-cash support for community 

organisations from 2001 to 2007 by venue type 

$40,000,000 

$35,000,000 

$30,000,000 

Total Cash/cheque 

contribution 

Clubs Cash/cheque 

contribution 

Dollars ($) 

$25,000,000 

$20,000,000 

$15,000,000 

Total Non-cash 

contribution 

Clubs Non-cash 

contribution 

$10,000,000 

$5,000,000 

$0 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

Years 

Hotels Cash/cheque 

contribution 

Hotels Non-cash 

contribution 

Table 9.4 (a) 

Total cash/cheque and non-cash support for community 

organisations from 2001 to 2007 by venue type 

Cash/cheque 

contribution 

$ 

Clubs Hotels Total 

Non-cash 

contribution 

$ 

Cash/cheque 

contribution 

$ 

Non-cash 

contribution 

$ 

Cash/cheque 

contribution 

$ 

Non-cash 

contribution 

$ 

2001 26,000,000 4,600,000 2,500,000 1,400,000 28,500,000 6,000,000 

2002 19,100,000 5,400,000 4,100,000 2,600,000 23,200,000 8,000,000 

2003 20,623,000 4,024,000 2,565,000 1,539,000 23,188,000 5,563,000 

2004 25,666,925 6,572,930 4,344,906 1,784,096 30,011,831 8,357,026 

2005 30,066,847 10,181,970 5,969,936 5,157,493 36,036,783 15,339,463 

2006 31,221,362 10,750,313 6,743,762 3,988,731 37,965,124 14,739,044 

2007 30,682,579 9,302,451 2,648,719 2,342,773 33,331,298 11,645,224 

Clubs contributed similar amounts overall in cash contributions in the 2005-06 ($31.2 

million) and 2006-07 ($30.7 million) financial years. They also contributed similar 

amounts in non-cash contributions in 2005-06 ($10.8 million) and 2006-07 ($9.3 

million). 

108

X in 

F in 

Hotels contributed less overall in cash contributions in the 2006-07 financial year 

($2.6 million) than they did in 2005-06 ($6.7 million). They also contributed less in 

non-cash contributions in 2006-07 ($2.3 million) than in 2005-06 ($4.0 million). 

While the total value of cash/cheque contributions and non-cash contributions has 

been trending downward since 2005, overall contributions are still higher than they 

were in the 2001 Survey. Venues provided a total of approximately $33.3 million in 

cash/cheque contributions and approximately $11.6 million in non-cash contributions 

to community organisations in the 2006-07 financial year. This was approximately 

$4.8 million more in cash/cheque contributions and $5.7 million more in non-cash 

contributions than reported in the 2001 Survey. 

Figure 9.4(b) details the average contributions made to community organisations. 

The average for cash/cheque support has been calculated including only those 

venues that made a cash/cheque contribution in 2006-07. Similarly, the average for 

non-cash support has been calculated including only those venues that provided 

non-cash support in 2006-07. 


Average cash/cheque and non-cash support for community 

organisations by venue type, 2006-07 

$120,000 

$100,000 

$96,666 

Clubs 

Hotels 

Total 

$80,000 

$60,000 

$51,225 

$40,000 

$25,908 

$20,000 

$7,948 

$5,368 

$14,640 

$0 

Cash /cheque contribution 

Non-cash contribution 

On average, clubs reported donating more to community organisations in the 2006- 

07 financial year compared to the previous financial year (2005-06). On average, 

clubs donated $96,666 to community organisations in the 2006-07 financial year. 

13 

This compared with $55,624F the previous financial year. Clubs also donated an 

average of $25,908 in non-cash contributions to community organisations. This was 

13 

similar to non-cash contributions for the previous year ($21,123X 

X). 

Hotels provided similar average contributions to community organisations in the 

2006-07 and 2005-06 financial years. In 2006-07, hotels donated an average of 

$7,948 in cash or cheque contributions to community organisations compared to 

13 

$9,280X the previous financial year (2005-2006). While non-cash support from 

13 Figures published here for 2005-06 differ slightly from figures published in the Summary Report – 

Results of the 2006 Gaming Machine Venue Survey, as the method of calculation to obtain the average 

has been modified. In the 2006 report, the average was calculated including venues that usually made 

this form of contribution, but that had not made that form of contribution in 2005-06. In this report, the 

average is calculated only based on those venues that actually made contributions in the relevant year. 

109

X in 

hotels to community organisations averaged to $5,368 in 2006-07, in the previous 

13 

financial year hotels on average donated $5,918X non-cash support. 

Large differences in donations to community organisations appeared when venue 

size was considered. Table 9.4 (b) presents this analysis. The average for 

cash/cheque support has been calculated including only those venues that made a 

cash/cheque contribution in 2006-07. Similarly, the average for non-cash support 

has been has been calculated including only those venues that provided non-cash 

support in 2006-07. 

Table 9.4 (b) 

Average cash/cheque and non-cash contribution to community 

organisations by venue type and size, 2006-07 

Clubs 

Hotels 

Contribution Large Medium Small Large Medium Small 

Cash/cheque $191,107 ** $4,652* $11,669 $5,412 $4,538 

Non-cash $54,715 $7,348 $6,004 $7,562 $3,905 $2,572 

Large clubs provided higher average contributions to community organisations than 

all other venue types. 

Large clubs contributed on average approximately $191,107 in cash or cheque to 

community organisations. In contrast, small clubs donated about $4,652*. Large 

clubs contributed an average of $54,715 in non-cash support to community 

organisations whereas medium and small clubs provided on average $7,348 and 

$6,004 in non-cash support, respectively. 

Large hotels donated on average $11,669 in cash or cheque to community 

organisations, compared to $5,412 from medium hotels and $4,538 from small 

hotels. Large hotels also provided higher average contributions in non-cash support 

to community organisations than small hotels. Large hotels donated on average 

approximately $7,562 in non-cash support to community organisations. In contrast, 

small hotels donated about $2,572. 

110


Figure 9.4 (c) presents a summary of contributions by region. The average for 

cash/cheque support has been calculated including only those venues that made a 

cash/cheque contribution in 2006-07. Similarly, the average for non-cash support 

has been has been calculated including only those venues that provided non-cash 

support in 2006-07. 


Average cash/ cheque and non-cash contributions to 

community organisations by venue location, 2006-07 

$120,000 

$100,000 

$101,899 

Cash/cheque contribution 

Non-cash contribution 

$80,000 

$60,000 

$40,000 

$20,000 

$64,625 

$18,255 

$36,358 

$21,348 

$14,652 $14,730 

$12,812 $12,292 $9,836 

$0 

Brisbane Moreton Darling 

Downs 

Fitzroy 


Venues in Moreton ($101,899) and Brisbane ($64,625) contributed higher average 

cash/cheque contributions to community organisations than venues in the Darling 

Downs ($12,812) and Fitzroy ($21,348) regions in the 2006-07 financial year. 

Venues across regions provided on average similar amounts of non-cash support to 

community organisations. 

111

11B10. Responsible Gambling Practices 


 

Whether venues consider that responsible gambling practices in their venue 

provide a supportive environment for gamblers, are positive or negative for 

businesses and whether they help to promote the sustainability of the gaming 

industry. 

Venue perceptions of the degree to which the six stated outcomes of the 

Responsible Gambling Code of Practice have been achieved successfully. 

Number of employees who have used the Responsible Gambling Industry 

training kit for training purposes since receiving the kit, and an analysis of the 

reasons for non-use of the teaching kit given by those who reported not yet 

having used the training kit. 

Perceived effectiveness of different methods of providing information to 

gamblers and the preferred locations within venues to display this information. 

 

Perceived usefulness of the Exclusions Brochure, the Responsible Gambling 

Industry Training Kit and the Advertising and Promotions guideline. 


The Queensland Government initiatives to encourage responsible gambling include 

the Responsible Gambling Code of Practice. The key findings of the survey in 

relation to responsible gambling practices are: 

 

Most venues considered that a responsible gambling environment provided a 

supportive environment for customers, promoted sustainability of the 

gambling industry and was good for business. 

The majority of venues agreed that the six outcomes of the Responsible 

Gambling Code of Practice had been achieved effectively by gaming venues 

implementing responsible gambling practices. 

 

 

 

Clubs and hotels believed the most effective ways of providing information to 

gamblers was for the information to be 'displayed on a sign' or for 'one 

brochure containing information on all topics' to be provided. 

All venues were most likely to say that the preferred location for displaying 

information to gamblers was ‘in designated gambling areas’. 

Large clubs and hotels were more likely than small clubs and hotels to prefer 

displaying information to gamblers at a cashier. 




112


57B10.1 Perception of responsible gambling (Question 35) 

The 2007 Survey followed its predecessors and asked questions about responsible 

gambling. These questions will help inform policy and project work being conducted 

by the Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing. While previous Surveys also included 

questions concerning responsible gambling practices, these questions were 

extensively revised in the 2005 Survey allowing for limited comparison across years. 

Although numbered differently, Question 35 has been asked in a similar format since 

the 2005 survey with one exception. The 2007 Survey asked venues whether they 

considered responsible gambling practices were having a negative impact on their 

businesses which was not asked in earlier versions of this survey. Question 35 

aimed to gather information on the perceived impacts that responsible gambling 

practices were having in venues. 

Table 10.1 (a) presents the results for venues’ perceptions of whether responsible 

gambling practices provide a supportive environment for their customers by venue 

size and type. 

Table 10.1 (a) Perception of whether responsible gambling provides a 

supportive environment for customers by venue type and size 

Large 

% 

Clubs 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 

Total 

% 

Large 

% 

Hotels 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 

Total 

% 

Yes 100.0 99.1 92.5 96.3 98.2 93.8 92.6 95.7 

No - 0.9 7.1 3.6 1.4 4.4 6.4 3.3 

Missing - - ** ** ** ** ** ** 

Most venues (96.3% Clubs and 95.7% Hotels) believed responsible gambling 

practices provided a supportive environment for customers. All large clubs (100%) 

and most medium (99.1%) and small clubs (92.5%) believed that responsible 

gambling provided a supportive environment for customers. Similarly for hotels, 

98.2% of large hotels, 93.8% of medium hotels and 95.7% of small hotels felt that 

responsible gambling provided a supportive environment for customers. 


No differences were evident across regions. Table 10.1 (b) presents these results. 

Table 10.1 (b) Perception of whether responsible gambling provides a 

supportive environment for customers by venue location 

Brisbane 

% 

Moreton 

% 

Region 

Darling Downs 

% 

Fitzroy 

% 


% 

Yes 95.9 96.5 94.4 98.5 94.4 

No 3* 3.5* 5.1 ** 4.8* 

Missing ** - ** ** ** 

113

Table 10.1 (c) presents the results for venues’ perceptions of responsible gambling 

practices being good for business by venue size and type. 

Table 10.1 (c) 

Perception of whether responsible gambling is good for 

business by venue type and size 

Large 

% 

Clubs 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 

Total 

% 

Large 

% 

Hotels 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 

Total 

% 

Yes 94.2 93.6 86.3 90.2 92.2 85.7 78.1 87.6 

No 5.8* 6.4* 12.9 9.3 7.3 12.5 20.8 11.4 

Don't know - - ** ** ** ** ** ** 

Missing - - ** ** ** ** ** ** 

A high proportion of clubs (90.2%) and hotels (87.6%) believed that responsible 

gambling practices were good for business. A high percentage of large (94.2%), 

medium (93.6%) and small (86.3%) clubs regarded responsible gambling practices 

as good for business. The majority of large (92.2%) medium (85.7%) and small 

(78.1%) hotels believed likewise. 


Table 10.1 (d) presents the results for venues’ perceptions of responsible gambling 

practices being good for business by venue location. 

Table 10.1 (d) Perception of whether responsible gambling is good for 

business by venue location 

Brisbane 

% 

Moreton 

% 

Region 

Darling Downs 

% 

Fitzroy 

% 


% 

Yes 88.6 89.9 88.4 90.6 85.6 

No 10.2 10.1 11.1 8.7* 12.9 

Don't Know - - - - ** 

Missing ** - ** ** ** 

Across all survey regions, the majority of venues believed that responsible gambling 

was good for business. 

114

Table 10.1 (e) presents the results for venues’ perceptions of whether responsible 

gambling promotes sustainability of the gambling industry by venue size and type. 

Table 10.1 (e) Perception of whether responsible gambling promotes 

sustainability of the gambling industry by venue type and size 

Large 

% 

Medium 

% 

Clubs 

Small 

% 

Total 

% 

Large 

% 

Medium 

% 

Hotels 

Small 

% 

Total 

% 

Yes 90.2 92.0 79.6 85.5 92.1 82.5 84.2 87.4 

No 9.8 8.0* 20 14.1 7.4 15.7 14.8 11.4 

Don’t know - - ** ** ** ** ** ** 

Missing - - ** ** ** ** ** ** 

Overall, a similar percentage of clubs (85.5%) and hotels (87.4%) believed that 

responsible gambling did promote the sustainability of the gambling industry. Large 

(90.2%) and medium clubs (92.0%) both held a similar level of belief that responsible 

gambling was helping to promote the sustainability of the gambling industry, 

compared to 79.6% of small clubs. An estimated 92.1% of large hotels believed that 

responsible gambling did promote the sustainability of the gambling industry 

compared to 82.5% of medium hotels and 84.2% of small hotels. 


The majority of venues surveyed agreed that responsible gambling had assisted in 

promoting sustainability of the gambling industry however there were no significant 

differences across regions. Table 10.1 (f) presents the results. 

Table 10.1 (f) 

Perception of whether responsible gambling promotes 

sustainability of the gambling industry by venue location 

Brisbane 

% 

Moreton 

% 

Region 

Darling Downs 

% 

Fitzroy 

% 


% 

Yes 89.5 84.1 86.3 89.3 82.5 

No 9.3 15.9 13.1 10.0 16.7 

Missing ** ** ** ** ** 

115

58B10.2 Support for responsible gambling by the Queensland Responsible 

Gambling Code of Practice (Question 36) 

In previous surveys this question had investigated implementation of the practices of 

the Responsible Gambling Code of Practice. To reflect the project stage which the 

Responsible Gambling Code of Practice has now reached in the community, the 

2007 Survey Question 36 shifted focus to the outcomes of the Responsible Gambling 

Code of Practice. The question attempted to gauge the degree to which Responsible 

Gambling Code of Practice outcomes are believed to have been realised by 

Queensland gaming machine venues. The six proposed outcomes of the 

Responsible Gambling Code of Practice are: 

Individuals, communities, the gambling industry and the Government have a 

shared understanding of responsible gambling practices. 

Individuals, communities, the gambling industry and the Government have an 

understanding of their rights and responsibilities in relation to responsible 

gambling practices. 

The gambling industry provides safe and supportive environments for the 

delivery of gambling products and services. 

Customers make informed decisions about their gambling practices. 

Harm from gambling to individuals and the broader community is minimised. 

People adversely affected by gambling have access to timely and appropriate 

assistance and information. 

Question 36 has a section for each of the six individual outcomes listed above and 

provides a corresponding rating of the degree to which each outcome is believed to 

have been achieved. Support for each statement is indicated using a scale that 

ranged from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’. 

In this section, comments on significant differences have been limited to where 

differences occur in the “total agree” and/or “total disagree” categories. 

116

Code of Practice Outcomes 1: Individuals, communities, the gambling industry and 

the Government have a shared understanding of responsible gambling practices. 

Table 10.2 (a) presents the results. 

Table 10.2 (a) 

Perception that individuals, communities, the gambling 

industry and the Government have developed a shared 

understanding of responsible gambling practices (Q36a) 

Clubs 

Hotels 

Large 

% 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 

Total 

% 

Large 

% 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 

Total 

% 

Strongly agree 39.0 33.8 32.4 34.7 35.5 27.8 28.5 31.7 

Somewhat agree 48.0 48.4 46.6 47.4 47.2 45.9 33.1 44.3 

Total agree 87.0 82.3 79.0 82.1 82.7 73.8 61.6 75.9 

Neutral 7.9* 13.8* 15.1 12.7 10.3 16.8 26.8 15.3 

Somewhat disagree 3.9* ** 2.3* 2.9* 3.3* 3.2* ** 3.1* 

Strongly disagree ** - ** ** ** ** 4.8* 1.5* 

Total disagree 4.5* ** 3.2* 3.5 4.1* 3.8* 7.0* 4.5 

Don't know ** ** 2.7* 1.7* ** 3.8* ** 2.8* 

Missing - - - - ** ** ** 1.3* 

Ratings overall from clubs and hotels were relatively similar. Similar proportions of 

clubs (82.1%) and hotels (75.9%) agreed that individuals, communities, the gambling 

industry and the Government had developed a shared understanding of responsible 

gambling. 

Small hotels (61.6%) were less likely than large hotels (82.7%) and large, (87.0%) 

medium (82.3%) and small (79.0%) clubs to have agreed that individuals, 

communities, the gambling industry and the Government had developed a shared 

understanding of responsible gambling. 

Medium hotels (73.8%) were less likely than large clubs (87.0%) to have agreed that 

individuals, communities, the gambling industry and the Government had developed 

a shared understanding of responsible gambling. 

Less than 8% of venues of all types and sizes disagreed with the statement that 

individuals, communities, the gambling industry and the Government had developed 

a shared understanding of responsible gambling practices, as outlined in the Code of 

Practice. 

117


There were no differences evident across regions. Figure 10.2 (a) presents the results. 

Figure 10.2 (a) Perception that individuals, communities, the gambling industry and the Government have developed a shared 

understanding of responsible gambling practices (Q36a) 

100 

90 

80 

70 

85.2 

78.9 

77.2 77.4 

68.5 

Brisbane 

Moreton 

Darling Dow ns 

Fitzroy 



60 

50 

40 

30 

37.1 

35.7 

29.0 29.2 30.1 

48.1 48.2 48.2 

43.2 

38.4 

20 

18.9 

15.2 15.4 16.3 

10 

0 

9.1 

7.5* 

5.0* 

1.8* 3.1* ** 3.1* 

2.5* 4.0* ** 4.7* 

** ** 2.3* ** 3.3* 

** ** ** 

** 

Strongly agree Somewhat agree TOTAL AGREE Neutral Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree TOTAL DISAGREE Don't know 

** 

118

Code of Practice Outcomes 2: Understanding of rights and responsibilities 

Question 36 (b) provides a rating of the degree to which venues agree that 

individuals, communities, the gambling industry and the Government have an 

understanding of their rights and responsibilities in relation to responsible gambling 

practices. Table 10.2 (b) presents the results of question 36(b). 

Table 10.2 (b) Perception that individuals, communities, the gambling 

industry and the Government have an understanding of their 

rights and responsibilities in relation to responsible gambling 

practices (Q36b) 

Clubs 

Hotels 

Large 

% 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 

Total 

% 

Large 

% 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 

Total 

% 



Total agree 91.5 80.3 81.6 84.3 83.4 81.8 63.2 79.2 

Neutral 5.3* 14.2* 12.1 10.5 10.7 10.6 26.7 13.5 

Somewhat disagree 2.6* 5.6* 2.2* 3.1* 4.5* 4.4* ** 4.3 

Strongly disagree ** - ** ** - - ** ** 

Total disagree 3.2* 5.6* 3.1* 3.7 4.5* 4.4* 6.7* 4.9 

Don't know - - 3.2* 1.4* ** ** ** ** 

Missing - - - - ** ** ** ** 

Similar proportions of clubs (84.3%) and hotels (79.2%) agreed that individuals, 

communities the gambling industry and the Government had gained an 


practices. 

Small clubs (81.6%) were less likely than large clubs (91.5%) to have agreed that 

individuals, communities the gambling industry and the Government had gained an 


practices. 

Small hotels (63.2%) were less likely than medium (81.8%) and large (83.4%) hotels 

and small (81.6%) and large (91.5%) clubs to have agreed with the statement. 

Less than 7% of venues of all types and sizes disagreed with the statement. 

119


There were no differences evident across regions. 

Figure 10.2 (b) presents the results. 

Figure 10.2 (b) Perception that individuals, communities, the gambling industry and the Government have an understanding of their 

rights and responsibilities in relation to responsible gambling practices (Q36b), by Region 

Brisbane 

100 

Moreton 

90 

80 

70 

84.4 84.4 

81.5 80.0 

75.4 

Darling Downs 

Fitzroy 



60 

50 

40 

30 

32.6 31.8 

27.6 

25.3 26.0 

58.4 

54.7 

52.7 

48.9 

47.8 

20 

10 

0 

14.5 14.0 

10.4 11.5 11.8 

5.4* 5.7* 

2.8* ** 4.8* 

6.6* 

3.7* ** 

** 

** ** 0.0 ** ** 

** 

1.5* ** ** ** 


** 

120

Code of Practice Outcomes 3: Safe and Supportive Environment 

Question 36 (c) provides a rating of whether gambling venues believe that the 

gambling industry provided safe and supportive environments for the delivery of 

gambling products and services. Table 10.2 (c) presents the results. 

Table 10.2 (c) Perception that the gambling industry provides safe and 

supportive environments for the delivery of gambling products 

and services (Q36c) 

Large 

% 

Clubs 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 

Total 

% 

Large 

% 

Hotels 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 



Total agree 93.5 86.8 85.1 88.0 91.1 85.7 74.0 86.2 

Neutral 5.2* 13.2* 10.0 9.3 5.1* 7.4* 15.7 7.8 

Somewhat disagree ** - ** ** 1.9* ** ** 2.3* 

Strongly disagree - - ** ** - ** ** 0.9* 

Total disagree ** - ** 1.5* 1.9* 3.7* 5.9* 3.2 

Don't know ** - 2.2* 1.2* ** ** ** 1.4* 

Missing - - - - ** ** ** 1.3* 

Total 

% 

A comparable percentage of clubs (88.0%) and hotels (86.2%) agreed that the 

gambling industry provided safe and supportive environments for the delivery of 

gambling products and services to patrons. 

Small hotels (74.0%) were less likely than large hotels (91.1%) and large clubs 

(93.5%) to have agreed that the gambling industry provided safe and supportive 

environments for the delivery of gambling products and services to patrons. 

Less than 6% of venues of all types and sizes disagreed with the statement. 

121


There were no differences evident across regions. Figure 10.2 (c) presents the results. 

Figure 10.2 (c) Perception that the gambling industry provides safe and supportive environments for the delivery of gambling 

products and services (Q36c), by Region 

100 

90 

80 

70 

91.1 

88.2 

86.2 

84.4 

81.4 

Brisbane 

Moreton 


Fitzroy 

Northe rn 


60 

50 

40 

48.9 

46.7 

39.6 38.8 

33.0 

53.2 

44.8 

42.2 41.5 42.6 

30 

20 

10 

0 

12.5 

9.6* 9.9* 

7.2 

5.2 

** 2.2* 3.5* 

** 

** 

3.2* 

** ** 0.0 

** 

3.2* 4.4* 

** 

** 

** 

1.3* ** ** ** 


** 

122

Code of Practice Outcomes 4: Informed Decision Making 

Question 36 (d) provides a rating for whether gambling venues believe that 

customers make informed decisions about their gambling practices. Table 10.2 (d) 

details the results. 

Table 10.2 (d) Perception that customers make informed decisions about their 

gambling practices (Q36d) 

Clubs 

Hotels 

Large 

% 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 

Total 

% 

Large 

% 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 

Total 

% 



Total agree 85.1 70.7 69.8 74.5 73.1 76.1 69.7 73.5 

Neutral 10.3 24.2 18.9 17.5 18.1 13.7 21.1 17.2 

Somewhat disagree ** 5.1* 6.3 5.3* 5.0* 4.5* ** 4.3* 

Strongly disagree - - ** ** ** ** ** 1.6* 

Total disagree ** 5.1* 6.7 5.5 6.0 5.7* 5.7* 5.8 

Don't know ** - 4.6* 2.4* 1.8* 2.5* ** 2.2* 

Missing - - - - ** ** ** 1.3* 

A similar proportion of clubs (74.5%) and hotels (73.5%) agreed that customers do 

make informed decisions about their gambling practices. 

Large clubs (85.1%) were more likely than small clubs (69.8%) to have agreed that 

customers make informed decisions about their gambling practices. 

Less than 7% of venues of all types and sizes disagreed that customers make 

informed decisions about their gambling practices. 

123



Figure 10.2 (d) presents the results. 

Figure 10.2 (d) Perception that that customers make informed decisions about their gambling practices (Q36d) 

100 

90 

80 

70 

77.6 76.4 

72.9 73.6 

70.0 

Brisbane 

Moreton 


Fitzroy 



60 

50 

40 

30 

35.2 34.1 

31.3 32.8 

29.0 

47.4 

41.6 42.4 

40.8 

35.9 

20 

10 

0 

18.1 19.1 18.3 

16.2 

14.2 

8.3 8.3 

5.3* 6.0 

** ** 

4.4* 4.1* 5.2* 

** 

** ** ** 

2.2* 

4.0* 

1.8* 2.1* 

0.0 ** 


** 

124

Code of Practice Outcome 5: Gambling Related Harm is Minimised 

Question 36 (e) provides a rating for whether gambling venues agree that harm from 

gambling to individuals and the broader community is minimised. Table 10.2 (e) 

details the results. 

Table 10.2 (e) 

Perception that gambling related harm to individuals and the 

community is minimised, by venue type and size (Q36e) 

Clubs 

Hotels 

Large 

% 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 

Total 

% 

Large 

% 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 

Total 

% 



Total agree 77.8 73.7 66.9 71.7 70.2 68.8 63.3 68.5 

Neutral 15.2 20.6 22.3 19.8 20.5 16.8 17.2 18.7 

Somewhat disagree 5.2* 5.6* 6.1* 5.7* 5.1* 5.5* 8.4* 5.9 

Strongly disagree ** - 2.3* 1.3* ** 3.8* 5.5* 2.7 

Total disagree 5.8* 5.6* 8.4 7.0 6.1* 9.4* 13.9 8.6 

Don't know ** - 2.3* 1.5* 2.3* 3.2* 4.6* 3.0* 

Missing - - - - ** ** ** ** 

A similar proportion of clubs (71.7%) and hotels (68.5%) agreed that gambling 

related harm to individuals and the community had been minimised through 

responsible gambling practices being implemented in venues. 

There were no significant differences between venues of different types and sizes in 

relation to overall agreement that gambling related harm to individuals and the 

community had been minimised through responsible gambling practices being 

implemented in venues. 

Less than 9% of clubs and hotels disagreed that gambling related harm to individuals 

and the community had been minimised through responsible gambling practices 

being implemented in venues. 

125


There were no differences evident across regions. Figure 10.2 (e) presents the results. 

Figure 10.2 (e) Perception that gambling related harm to individuals and the community is minimised, by venue type and size 

Brisbane 


100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Moreton 


Fitzroy 

74.0 72.4 


69.3 

66.7 

62.4 

48.1 

44.6 

41.2 40.7 40.7 

29.4 28.2 

26.0 

24.3 

21.7 

22.4 23.5 

21.0 

16.1 16.0 

10.6 

6.4 

8.3 8.4* 

4.9* 5.8* 5.7* 6.1* 7.3* 

6.9* 

1.5* 2.4* 2.7* 3.3* 

2.7* ** 2.6* 4.0* 

** 

** 


126

Code of Practice Outcome 6: Timely Access to Information 

Question 36 (f) provides a rating for whether venues believed that people adversely 

affected by gambling have access to timely and appropriate assistance and 

information. Table 10.2 (f) details the results. 

Table 10.2 (f) 

Perception that people adversely affected by gambling have 

access to timely and appropriate assistance and information 

(Q36f) 

Clubs 

Hotels 

Large 

% 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 

Total 

% 

Large 

% 

Medium 

% 

Small 

% 



Total agree 95.0 90.6 82.6 88.1 92.5 84.5 83.6 88.2 

Neutral 3.2* 6.7* 11.2 7.8 3.7* 9.3 8.5* 6.5* 

Somewhat disagree ** ** 3.1* 1.8* ** ** ** 1.9* 

Strongly disagree - ** ** ** - ** ** 1.1* 

Total disagree ** ** 3.5* 2.2* 2.3** 3.1* 4.7* 3.0* 

Don't know ** ** 2.7* 1.9* ** ** ** 1.0* 

Missing - - - - ** ** ** 1.3* 

Total 

% 

Most clubs (88.1%) and hotels (88.2%) agreed that people adversely affected by 

gambling have access to timely and appropriate assistance and information. 

Large clubs (95.0%) were more likely to have strongly agreed than small clubs 

(82.6%), medium hotels (84.5%) and small hotels (83.6%). 

Less than 5% of venues of all types and sizes disagreed that people adversely 

affected by gambling were able to access timely and appropriate assistance and 

information if required. 

127



Figure 10.2 (f) presents the results. 

Figure 10.2 (f) Perception that people adversely affected by gambling have access to timely and appropriate assistance and 

information (Q36f) 

Brisbane 

100 

90 

80 

90.5 91.2 

89.1 

84.4 

82.7 

Moreton 


Fitzroy 



70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

61.7 

59.8 

53.6 

49.3 49.8 

39.3 

35.1 

30.7 29.5 29.1 

20 

10 

0 

9.6 

5.5* 5.7* 

7.1* 

8.7* 

** ** 

2.9* ** ** 

** ** 

1.4* 2.7* 3.5* ** 3.5* 

** ** ** 

1.8* 

** 

2.0* ** 


** 

128

F 

59B10.3 

How Many Employees in your Venue have used the Responsible Gambling 

14 

Industry Training Kit (Question 37) F 

Question 37 asked how many employees in their venue had used the Responsible Gambling 

Industry Training Kit for training purposes since receiving it. A total of 948 venues provided 

answers to Question 37. 

On average nine employees per venue reported using the Responsible Gambling Training 

Kit. The most frequent response (or mode response) received from individual venues was 

that two employees had used the I ndustry Training Kit. The median or ‘middle’ response 

was that fiv e employees had used the training kit per venue. Six large venues reported 

having more than 100 employees who had used the Industry Training Kit for training 

purposes, in contrast to 69 venues who reported that none of their employees had used the 

Responsible Gambling Training Kit. Because of the six venues who reported such large 

numbers of people who have used the kit, the mean average of nine should be used with 

caution as this result will have been biased by extreme values reported by a small number of 

venues. 


Reasons for not having used the Responsible Gambling Industry 

Training Kit (Q37b) 

Reason for not using Training Kit Number Percent 

Externally trained 28 40.6 

Already trained 16 23.2 

Never received/lost 16 23.2 

Never needed to use 4 5.8 

Internal training 3 4.3 

Intend to use in the future 2 2.9 

Total 69 100.0 

Of the 69 venues who reported their employees did not use the kit, 40.6% received training 

from a registered training provider, 23.2% had already participated in Responsible Gambling 

training and 23.2% didn’t receive a Training Kit or lost the kit. A further 5.8% of venues had 

never needed to use the kit, 4.3% of venues conducted internal training, and the remaining 

2.9% intended to use the kit in the future. 

14 The results provided in this section are based on raw response frequencies. Results reported here 

should not be compared to results presented elsewhere in the report. 

129

60B10.4 Most effective ways of providing information to gamblers to assist them in 

making better informed decisions regarding their gambling behaviours 

(Question 38) 

Question 38 was the first of two questions aimed at examining the methods of information 

provision perceived by venues to be most effective in communicating information to 

gamblers. The intended outcome from communicating information to gamblers was that by 

increasing levels of gambling related awareness and knowledge, individual gamblers will be 

able to make better decisions about personal gambling behaviours. Answers to this 

question will also be used to better inform the current project focussing on the redesign of 

the responsible gambling signage used in Queensland gaming venues. 

Question 38 provides an analysis of the different methods that venues perceive to be the 

most effective in providing customers with information that could assist them in making more 

informed decisions about their gambling behaviours. Table 10.4 (a) details the results. 

Although respondents were asked to nominate one response only, many respondents 

nominated more than one response. Percentages in the table therefore add to more than 

100%. 


Most effective way of providing customers with information to assist 

them in making informed decisions about their gambling behaviours 

(Q38) 

Large 

% 

Medium 

% 

Clubs 

Small 

% 

Total 

% 

Large 

% 

Medium 

% 

Hotels 

Small 

% 

Displayed on a sign 50.2 60.2 58.4 56.4 49.4 70.7 68.4 60.0 

Displayed on a large 

information display 

board 27.2 20.6 18.4 21.5 23.0 24.0 12.6 21.5 

One brochure 

containing information 

on all topics 64.4 48.4 41.0 49.6 51.6 44.1 39.5 46.9 

One brochure for each 

topic (multiple 

brochures) 18.3 11.4* 9.5 12.5 7.6* 10.8 6.6* 8.5 

On a sticker 10.9 10.8* 13.6 12.1 8.4 13.8 14.2* 11.3 

Other (please specify) 5.8* ** 3.1* 3.9 5.2 4.3* 7.2* 5.2 

Don't know - - - - - - - - 

Missing - - - - ** ** ** 1.2* 

Total 

% 

The most effective ways of displaying information to gamblers as perceived by clubs of all 

size categories were for the information to be ‘displayed on a sign’ (large 50.2%, medium 

60.2% and small 58.4%) or in ‘one brochure containing information on all topics’ (large 

64.4%, medium 48.4% and small 41.0%). On average, information being displayed on a 

sign was considered most effective by 56.4% of clubs compared to 49.6% of clubs who felt 

the most effective way of communicating information to gamblers was ‘one brochure 

containing information on all topics’. 

Similar to clubs, the methods seen as most effective by hotels were for information to be 

‘displayed on a sign’ (Large 49.4%, Medium 70.7%, Small 68.4%) or in ‘one brochure 

containing information on all topics’ (Large 51.6%, Medium 44.1%, Small 39.5%). More 

medium and small hotels (70.7% and 68.4% respectively) than large hotels (49.4%) 

considered that the most effective way to provide information was to have the information 

‘displayed on a sign’. 

130

61B10.5 Preferred location in venue to display information to gamblers (Q39) 

Following on from Question 38, Question 39 investigated location preference within the 

venue for the information to be displayed to gamblers. Although respondents were asked to 

nominate one response only, many respondents nominated more than one response. 

Percentages in the table therefore add to more than 100%. 

Table 10.5 (a) details the results. 


Preferred location in venue to display information to gamblers (Q39) 

Large 

% 

Medium 

% 

Clubs 

Small 

% 

Total 

% 

Large 

% 

Medium 

% 

Hotels 

Small 

% 

In designated gambling 

areas 64.5 63.8 80.6 72.0 63.2 78.6 83.1 72.0 

Cashier 45.6 42.8 19.4 32.5 43.8 24.8 11.5* 31.6 

ATM 33.0 32.4 14.1 23.8 35.6 30.8 21.2 31.4 

Presented in brochure 

display cabinet in venue 

(brochures only) 20.8 8.2* 9.4 12.5 8.7 11.4* 6.6* 9.3 

Reception 21.0 20.7 8.4 14.9 9.4 9.5* 6.8* 9.0 

Other (please specify) 3.9* 5.5* 4.0* 4.3 4.2* ** ** 3.2 

Don't know - - - - - - - 0.0 

Missing - - - - ** ** ** 1.4* 

Total 

% 

The location most preferred by clubs to display information to gamblers was ‘in designated 

gambling areas’ (Large 64.5%, Medium 63.8% and Small 80.6%). Lesser percentages of 

clubs from all size categories favoured displaying information to gamblers at an ATM (Large 

33.0%, Medium 32.4% and Small 14.1%) or at the cashier (Large 45.6%, Medium 42.8% 

and Small 19.4%). Large clubs (45.6%) were considerably more likely to prefer displaying 

information to gamblers at the cashier than small clubs (19.4%). 

Hotels displayed a similar pattern of belief regarding effective venue locations for displaying 

information to gamblers. Hotels from all size categories believed that the most effective 

location for displaying information within a venue was ’in designated gambling areas’ (large 

63.2%, medium 78.6%, small 83.1%). Lesser percentages of all hotels preferred to display 

information at the cashier (large 43.8%, medium 24.8% and small 11.5%*) or at an ATM 

(large 35.6%, medium 30.8%, small 21.2%). 

131

12BAppendix A. Survey Questionnaire 

Queensland Office of 

Gaming Regulation 

Office of Economic and 

Statistical Research 

2007 Survey of Queensland Gaming 

Machine Venues 

INFORMATION: Since 2001, the Queensland Office of Gaming Regulation conducts a 

survey which looks at the dynamics of the Queensland club and hotel gaming machine 

industry. These surveys provide an overview of club and hotel services, employment, 

revenue and expenditure, building projects, community support and responsible 


This survey is conducted under the Queensland Government’s Statistical Returns Act 

1896 and is an opportunity for you to assist decision-making by the Queensland 

Government. 

All responses will be treated as strictly confidential. 

Your assistance in completing this survey is appreciated. 

INSTRUCTIONS: The manager responsible for the venue should complete the 

survey. Details recorded in this questionnaire should be for this venue only. 

Please complete the questionnaire by circling the code number next to your answers 

or writing on the lines provided. 

Please return your completed questionnaire by 31 October, 2007 using the reply paid 

envelope to: 


PO Box 15037 

CITY EAST QLD 4002 

CONTACTS: If you have any queries you can contact Dragica Sarich from the Office of 

Economic and Statistical Research on 1800 068 587 or by email on 

HUdragica.sarich@treasury.qld.gov.auUHU. 

132

SECTION ONE: VENUE PRODUCTS AND SERVICES 

Q.1 Do you anticipate that in this financial year (2007-2008) the number of gaming machines at your venue will: 

Increase............................................................................................................................................................................1 

Decrease ..........................................................................................................................................................................2 

Remain the same .............................................................................................................................................................3 

Don't know ........................................................................................................................................................................98 

Q.2 Which of the following gambling activities, apart from gaming machines, are currently provided at your 

venue? (Please circle all that apply) 

Keno .................................................................................................................................................................................1 

TAB...................................................................................................................................................................................2 

Bingo ................................................................................................................................................................................3 

Raffles (Art Unions, sweeps etc) ......................................................................................................................................4 

Lucky Envelopes ..............................................................................................................................................................5 

Other (please specify) ......................................................................................................................................................6 

No other gambling activities .............................................................................................................................................7 

Q.3 What services, other than gambling activities, does your venue provide? (Please circle all that apply) 

Food and catering services ..............................................................................................................................................1 

Café/Coffee lounge...........................................................................................................................................................2 

Bar ....................................................................................................................................................................................3 

Take-away alcohol............................................................................................................................................................4 

Live entertainment ............................................................................................................................................................5 

Live sporting events..........................................................................................................................................................6 

Televised sporting events.................................................................................................................................................7 

Courtesy bus ....................................................................................................................................................................8 

Kids’ entertainment room..................................................................................................................................................9 

Childminding facilities .......................................................................................................................................................10 

Function centre.................................................................................................................................................................11 

Accommodation................................................................................................................................................................12 

Sporting facilities ..............................................................................................................................................................13 

Vending machines ............................................................................................................................................................14 

ATMs ................................................................................................................................................................................15 

Other (please specify e.g. poker tournaments, trivia nights, promotional games) ...........................................................16 

Q.4 Does your venue have a loyalty reward program for your patrons? 

Yes ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 ..........Go to Q.5 

No ........................................................................................................................................................... 2 ..........Go to Q.7 

133

Q.5 If yes to Q.4, where can your patrons accrue and redeem their loyalty rewards points? (Please tick all that apply) 

Gaming machines ............................................................................................... 

Other gambling activities..................................................................................... 

Food and catering services ................................................................................. 

Café / Coffee lounge ........................................................................................... 

Bar....................................................................................................................... 

Take-away alcohol .............................................................................................. 

Live entertainment............................................................................................... 

Poker nights ........................................................................................................ 

Childminding facilities.......................................................................................... 

Function centre ................................................................................................... 

Accommodation .................................................................................................. 

Sporting facilities ................................................................................................. 

Other (please specify) ......................................................................................... 

Accrue 

Redeem 

Q.6 If yes to Q.4, how many registered players and active players do you have in your loyalty reward 

program? 

Registered players .................. 

Active players (used card in past 12 months) 

Number of 

Players 

Q.7 Do you anticipate that any of the following improvements will be made to your venue this financial year 

(2007-2008)? 

Additional gaming machines ......................................................................................... 

New/Upgraded gaming software................................................................................... 

Yes 

No 

Don’t 

Know 

New/Upgraded gambling activities (bingo, TAB, Keno, other) ...................................... 

New/Upgraded food or catering facilities ...................................................................... 

New/Upgraded entertainment activities (live or televised) ............................................ 

New/Upgraded courtesy bus system ............................................................................ 

New/Upgraded childminding or kids’ entertainment room............................................. 

New/Upgraded loyalty reward program......................................................................... 

New/Upgraded/relocated ATM/cash facility .................................................................. 

Other (please specify) ................................................................................................... 

Q.8 Is your venue a member of an industry association? 

Yes ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 ..........Go to Q.9 

No ........................................................................................................................................................... 2 ..........Go to Q.12 

134

Q.9 If yes to Q.8, of which industry association(s) is your venue a member? (Please circle all that apply) 

Australian or Queensland Hotels Association ..................................................................................................................1 

Chambers of Commerce (i.e. Queensland Chamber of Commerce) ...............................................................................2 

Clubs Queensland ............................................................................................................................................................3 

Bowls association (i.e. QDBA)..........................................................................................................................................4 

Golf association (i.e. Queensland Golf Union) .................................................................................................................5 

Return Services League ...................................................................................................................................................6 

Surf Life Saving Australia .................................................................................................................................................7 


Don’t know........................................................................................................................................................................98 

Q.10 Do you seek/receive advice from your industry association(s) on any of the following (Please circle all that apply)? 

Responsible Gambling ................................................................................................................................................... 1 

Responsible Gambling Code of Practice..........................................................................................................................2 

Exclusions Provisions.......................................................................................................................................................3 

Advertising and Promotions Guideline .............................................................................................................................4 

Responsible Gambling Training .......................................................................................................................................5 

Responsible Gambling Resources ...................................................................................................................................6 

Compliance with gaming legislation .................................................................................................................................7 


Q.11 If you do not currently seek/receive assistance on any of the above, would you see a benefit from this type of 

assistance? 

Yes ...................................................................................................................................................................................1 

No .....................................................................................................................................................................................2 

Not applicable...................................................................................................................................................................3 

Don’t know........................................................................................................................................................................98 

135

SECTION TWO: GROSS REVENUE 

Q.12 Please estimate your venue's GROSS REVENUE for the last financial year (2006-2007). 

$ 

Q.13 Did your venue’s GROSS REVENUE increase, decrease or remain the same last financial 

year (2006-2007) compared to 2005-2006? 

Increase ..............................................................................................................................................1 

Decrease.............................................................................................................................................2 

Remain the same................................................................................................................................3 

Please provide any additional comments. 

Questions 12 to 15 

are about your 

venue’s GROSS 

REVENUE. 

GROSS REVENUE is all 

sources of revenue 

for your venue 

including from food 

and beverages, takeaway 

and bar alcohol 

sales, entertainment, 

gambling metered 

win, memberships 

and so on. 

............................................................................................................................................................. 

. 

. 

Q.14 Do you believe your venue’s GROSS REVENUE will increase, decrease or remain the same this 

financial year (2007-2008) compared to last financial year (2006-2007)? 

Increase .........................................................................................................................................................................1 

Decrease........................................................................................................................................................................2 

Remain the same...........................................................................................................................................................3 

Don’t know .....................................................................................................................................................................98 

Please provide any additional comments as to the factors you feel have influenced this change (if any) e.g. new smoking 

legislation. 

....................................................................................................................................................................................... 

....................................................................................................................................................................................... 

....................................................................................................................................................................................... 

Q.15 What percentage did the following items contribute to your venue’s GROSS REVENUE last financial 

year (2006-2007)? (Estimates are acceptable) 

Food and catering.................................................................................................................................. 

Bar ......................................................................................................................................................... 

Take-away alcohol................................................................................................................................. 

Gaming machines.................................................................................................................................. 

TAB........................................................................................................................................................ 

Keno ...................................................................................................................................................... 

% 

Other gambling activities (e.g. bingo, raffles, Calcuttas, art unions, lucky envelopes).......................... 

Live entertainment and sporting events ................................................................................................ 

Televised sporting events and/or movie nights ..................................................................................... 

Memberships ......................................................................................................................................... 

Accommodation..................................................................................................................................... 

Green fees............................................................................................................................................. 

Other (please specify) ........................................................................................................................... 

............................................................................................................................................................... 

Total ...................................................................................................................................................... 100% 

136

Q.16 What percentage of your venue’s operating costs/expenditure went towards the following services 

and expenses last financial year (2006-2007)? (Reasonable estimates are acceptable). 

Please include all wages in the “Wages” category, regardless of whether they are incurred as a result of 

catering, administration, marketing etc. 

% 

Wages 

Rent/mortgage repayments 

Administration 

Insurance 

Marketing 


Bar 



TAB 

Keno 

Other gaming activity (e.g. bingo, raffles, Calcuttas, art unions, lucky envelopes, promotional 

activities) 

Live entertainment and sporting events 

Televised sporting events and/or movie nights 

Accommodation 

Sponsorships (e.g. contributions to sporting teams, public/town projects etc)...................................... 

Other (please specify) 

Total 100% 

Q.17 Please indicate in the table below to what extent your gaming machine revenue subsidises any of the 

following trade areas - 

Not Minor Major 

subsidised 

subsidy 

subsidy 

Bar trade ...............................1 ...............................................................2 ..............................................................3 

Meals trade ...............................1 ...............................................................2 ..............................................................3 

Entertainment ...............................1 ...............................................................2 ..............................................................3 

Other merchandising......................1 ...............................................................2 ..............................................................3 

137

SECTION THREE: EMPLOYMENTY 

T 

Q.18 How many full-time, part-time, casual, contractor and voluntary staff were employed at your venue as at 

30 June 2007? 

Full-time ............................................................. 

Part-time ............................................................ 

Casual................................................................ 

Contractor .......................................................... 

Voluntary............................................................ 

Questions 18 to 

20 refer to all 

staff employed 

at your venue. 

Estimates are 

acceptable 

whenever 

actual details 

are not known 

or readily 

available. 

Total Number of Staff ....................... 

Q.19 For each employee group, what percentage of their time is involved in gaming machine activities? 

% 

Full-time .................................................................. 

Part-time ................................................................. 

Casual..................................................................... 

Q.20 What change, if any, do you believe there will be in your staffing levels at your venue this financial year (2007- 

2008)? (Please circle one response on each line) 

Remain 

Don’t 

Increase Decrease the Same Know 

Full-time .........................................1 ......................................... 2 ........................................... 3 ...................................98 

Part-time ........................................1 ......................................... 2 ........................................... 3 ...................................98 

Casual............................................1 ......................................... 2 ........................................... 3 ...................................98 

Contractor ......................................1 ......................................... 2 ........................................... 3 ...................................98 

Voluntary........................................1 ......................................... 2 ........................................... 3 ...................................98 

138

SECTION FOUR: BUILDING OR FACILIT TY IMPROVEMENTS 

Q.21 Did your venue make any building or facility improvements last financial year (2006-2007)? 

Yes 1Go to Q.22 

No 2Go to Q.25 

Q.22 What was the approximate total amount spent on building or facility improvements last financial year (2006-2007)? 

$ 

Q. 23 What type of building or facility improvements did your venue make last financial year (2006-2007)? 

Complete refurbishments.................................................................................................................... 

Gaming area refurbishments .............................................................................................................. 

TAB area refurbishment...................................................................................................................... 

Keno area refurbishment .................................................................................................................... 

Indoor dining area refurbishment ........................................................................................................ 

Outdoor dining area refurbishment ..................................................................................................... 

Entertainment area refurbishment ...................................................................................................... 

Function area refurbishment ............................................................................................................... 

Bar area refurbishment ....................................................................................................................... 

New or refurbished accommodation ................................................................................................... 

New sporting facilities ......................................................................................................................... 

Kitchen refurbishment ......................................................................................................................... 

Restroom refurbishment ..................................................................................................................... 

Entrance refurbishment....................................................................................................................... 

Designated outdoor smoking area...................................................................................................... 

Breakout area ..................................................................................................................................... 

Other (please specify)......................................................................................................................... 

Yes 

No 

Q.24 Which of the following describes why your venue carried out these building or facility improvements? 

(Please tick all that apply) 

Attract new customers ........................................................................................................................ 

Local population change ..................................................................................................................... 

Modernise venue ................................................................................................................................ 

Accommodate responsible gambling initiatives .................................................................................. 

Accommodate changes in smoking legislation ................................................................................... 

New Water restrictions........................................................................................................................ 

Accommodate increase in gaming machines ..................................................................................... 

Accommodate other legislative change (please specify).................................................................... 

Other (please specify)......................................................................................................................... 

YES 

NO 

Q.25 What is the estimated amount to be spent on building or facility improvements this financial year (2007-2008)? 

$ 

In the next 3 financial years (i.e. 2008-2011)? 

$ 

139

SECTION FIVE: BUSINESS IMPACTS 

Q. 26 Please rate the following local competitors indicating whether they are a major competitor, minor competitor or 

not a competitor for your venue. (Please circle one response on each line) 

Major Minor Not a Don’t 

Competitor Competitor Competitor Know 

Casinos.......................................................1 .................................... 2......................................3 ................................98 

Hotels..........................................................1 .................................... 2......................................3 ................................98 

Clubs...........................................................1 .................................... 2......................................3 ................................98 

Restaurants.................................................1 .................................... 2......................................3 ................................98 

Bars.............................................................1 .................................... 2......................................3 ................................98 

Nightclubs ...................................................1 .................................... 2......................................3 ................................98 

Shopping centres........................................1 .................................... 2......................................3 ................................98 

Take Away Bottle shops .............................1 .................................... 2......................................3 ................................98 

Other (please specify).................................1 .................................... 2......................................3 ................................98 

Q.27 How would you describe the impact of the following factors on your venue’s financial performance during 

last financial year (2006-2007)? (Please circle one response on each line). 

Positive Negative No Not Don’t 

Impact Impact Impact Applicable Know 

Smoking legislation....................................1 .......................... 2........................ 3........................... 4...........................98 

The Queensland Responsible 

Gambling Code of Practice........................1 .......................... 2........................ 3........................... 4...........................98 


reallocation scheme...................................1 .......................... 2........................ 3........................... 4...........................98 


Guidelines and restrictions.........................1 .......................... 2........................ 3........................... 4...........................98 

Water restrictions.......................................1 .......................... 2........................ 3........................... 4...........................98 


(e.g. rising petrol prices, 

interest rates and unemployment levels) ...1 .......................... 2........................ 3........................... 4...........................98 

Venues over the NSW border....................1 .......................... 2........................ 3........................... 4...........................98 

Other (please specify)................................1 .......................... 2........................ 3........................... 4...........................98 

Q.28 What factors are likely to influence your level of trade this financial year (2007-2008)? (Please circle all that apply) 

Venue membership level ...............................................................................................................................................1 

Local population change................................................................................................................................................2 

Venue facilities (eg. accommodation, functions) ...........................................................................................................3 

General economic climate .............................................................................................................................................4 

Interest rates ..................................................................................................................................................................5 

Industrial Relations law..................................................................................................................................................6 

Other Legislation (e.g. smoking legislation, 3 AM lockouts) ..........................................................................................7 

Seasonal variation .........................................................................................................................................................8 

Sporting event(s)............................................................................................................................................................9 

Other (please specify)....................................................................................................................................................10 

Don’t know .....................................................................................................................................................................98 

140

Q.29 On average, what proportion of your customers are: 

Local Residents ............................................................................................................................ 

Day Trippers ................................................................................................................................. 

Tourists (other than day trippers).................................................................................................. 

Reciprocal members (clubs only).................................................................................................. 

Other (please specify) ................................................................................................................. 

Total 100% 

% 

141

SECTION SIX: COMMUNIT TY SUPPORTT 

Q.30 Does your venue provide community support (i.e. cash or non-cash contributions to groups, organisations or projects that 

operate externally to your venue)? 

Yes 1Go to Q.31 

No 2Go to Q.35 

Q.31 What type of groups, organisations or projects does your venue contribute to? (Please circle all that 

apply) 

Aged Care......................................................................................................................................................................1 

Church ...........................................................................................................................................................................2 

Veteran affairs................................................................................................................................................................3 

Welfare...........................................................................................................................................................................4 

Schools ..........................................................................................................................................................................5 

Health.............................................................................................................................................................................6 

Sports and recreation.....................................................................................................................................................7 

Individuals......................................................................................................................................................................8 


Q.32 What type of community support does your venue provide to these groups, organisations or projects? 

(Please circle all that apply) 

Cash/cheque..................................................................................................................................................................1 

Vouchers........................................................................................................................................................................2 

Free or subsidised goods...............................................................................................................................................3 

Free or subsidised services ...........................................................................................................................................4 

Free or subsidised advertising.......................................................................................................................................5 

Free or subsidised sports coaching ...............................................................................................................................6 

Professional expertise....................................................................................................................................................7 

Fundraising events.........................................................................................................................................................8 

Donation tins..................................................................................................................................................................9 

Other (please specify) 10 

Don't know 98 

Q.33 What was the total value of your cash/cheque (i.e. item 1 in Q32 above) community support last financial year 

(2006-2007)? If the response is $0, please write ‘0’ or ‘Nil’ in the box. 

Cash/cheques: 

$ 

Q.34 What was the total value of your non-cash/in-kind (i.e. items 2-10 in Q.32 above) community support last 

financial year (2006-2007)? If the response is $0, please write ‘0’ or ‘Nil’ in the box (amounts should be based 

on prevailing market rates). 

Non-cash: 

$ 

142

SECTION SEVEN: RESPONSIBLE GAMBLING 

Q.35 Do you consider that responsible gambling practices in your venue: 

Provide a supportive environment for your patrons ................................................................................ 

Are good for your business..................................................................................................................... 

Promote sustainability of the gambling industry ..................................................................................... 

Have a negative impact on your business .............................................................................................. 

Yes 

No 

Other (please provide any additional comment) .............................................................................................................. 

......................................................................................................................................................................................... 

......................................................................................................................................................................................... 

Q.36 The Queensland Responsible Gambling Code of Practice establishes practices to support responsible gambling 

in Queensland venues. Since its introduction, how would you rate the following:- 

Individuals, communities, the gambling industry and the Government have developed a shared understanding of responsible 


Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Don’t 

agree agree disagree disagree know 

............... 1..............................2 ............................. 3..............................4 ............................. 5 ............................. 98 

Individuals, communities, the gambling industry and the Government have an understanding of their rights and 

responsibilities in relation to responsible gambling practices. 



............... 1..............................2 ............................. 3..............................4 ............................. 5 ............................. 98 

The gambling industry provides safe and supportive environments for the delivery of gambling products and services. 



............... 1..............................2 ............................. 3..............................4 ............................. 5 ............................. 98 

Customers make informed decisions about their gambling practices. 



............... 1..............................2 ............................. 3..............................4 ............................. 5 ............................. 98 

Harm from gambling to individuals and the broader community is minimised. 



............... 1..............................2 ............................. 3..............................4 ............................. 5 ............................. 98 

People adversely affected by gambling have access to timely and appropriate assistance and information. 



............... 1..............................2 ............................. 3..............................4 ............................. 5 ............................. 98 

143

Q.37 How many employees in your venue have used the Responsible Gambling Industry Training Kit for training purposes 

since receiving it? 

If NO employees have used the Responsible Gambling Industry Training Kit, please provide reasons why:.................. 

.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 

.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 

Q.38 What do you consider the Umost effectiveU way of providing customers with information to assist them in making informed 

decisions about their gambling behaviours (i.e. information provided would include the odds of winning a major prize, 

exclusions, responsible gambling policy, financial transactions policy)? (Please circle only one response) 

Displayed on a sign........................................................................................................................................................1 

Displayed on a large information display board.............................................................................................................2 

One brochure containing information on all topics.........................................................................................................3 

One brochure for each topic (multiple brochures) .........................................................................................................4 

On a sticker....................................................................................................................................................................5 


Q.39 What would be your preferred location in your venue to display this information? (Please circle only one response) 

Cashier...........................................................................................................................................................................1 

ATM ...............................................................................................................................................................................2 

Reception.......................................................................................................................................................................3 

In designated gambling areas........................................................................................................................................4 

Presented in a brochure display cabinet to be placed in the venue (brochures only) ...................................................5 


Q.40 The Queensland Office of Gaming Regulation (QOGR) has developed the Exclusions Brochure, 

Advertising and Promotions Guideline and the Industry Training Kit to assist your venue to provide a safer 

and supportive gambling environment. 

In order to better assist your venue, please rate the usefulness of each of the following products: 

Very Of some Of little Not Don’t 

useful use use useful use 

Exclusions Brochure .......................1 ............................. 2 3... ....................4 ................................5 

Industry Training Kit........................1 ............................. 2 3... ....................4 ................................5 

Advertising and 

Promotions Guideline......................1 ............................. 2 3... ....................4 ................................5 

Do you have any suggestions on how to improve any of QOGR’s publications? (Please comment)............................... 

144

The Queensland Office of Gaming Regulation is considering conducting the Survey of Queensland Gaming Machine 

Venues (this survey) online in future years. QOGR believes an online survey will improve the running of the survey and 

promote information sharing with the Queensland gambling industry and the community. 

Q.41 How would you prefer this Survey to be conducted in future years? 

Internet ...............................................................................................................................................................1 

By post ...............................................................................................................................................................2 

Telephone ...............................................................................................................................................................3 


Q.42 Would you like to receive an email telling you when findings from the 2007 survey are publicly available? 

Yes (please provide an email address) .........................................................................................................................1 

No ..................................................................................................................................................................................2 

Please indicate how much time was spent completing this questionnaire: 

Do have any further comments on how the Queensland Government could 

improve this survey? 

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE 

Please return your completed questionnaire using the reply paid envelope to: 


PO Box 15037 

CITY EAST QLD 4002 

Results of previous surveys can be found at: 

Uwww.responsiblegambling.qld.gov.au/research/industry-surveys/index.shtml 

145

146

Summary Report - Results of the 2007 Gaming Machine Venue Survey

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?