"Leading up to opening there were a couple of issues around the visibility of the machines which are totally compliant, got signed off by Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) and got a licence to open. But then we had complaints that we were able to get 18 machines over here, but the law allows for that. Then there was a complaint that we've got a smoking area with six machines in it, but there is precedence for that, The Dinsdale Office has it, and in Australia it's very common place.
"Then we had a complaint about Gaming Trust spending here. They're limited in what they're allowed to spend money on but how anyone would know what had been spent, they're pretty detailed complaints that are coming out. But there are invoices to show that we paid for the signage. I don't know why there's such an issue with it. There a few allegations flying around that are completely unfounded," said Mr Lawrenson.
"It is a little bit strange. I don't think I've had this much interest in a bar that I've opened, ever. It's not that Clark from the department's not a nice bloke, but I just don't want to be meeting the DIA down here every week."
Hamilton City councillor Dave Macpherson said although he didn't make the alleged complaints he is against the move and blames a "loophole" in council policy for making it possible.
"I do know that council policy as it was originally set up prevented pokies being changed from one bar to another."
However, he said the wording in a recent update of the policy had created a "loophole" that "at least two bars have spotted and are exploiting it".
"The effect of the changed wording was never brought to our attention," he said.
"This is disappointing and only in the last couple of months has it finally been drawn to our attention, and then only unofficially," said Mr Macpherson.
"Many of the city's pokie machines had 'existing use' rights to remain where they were when the Gambling Act came in in 2003, but otherwise would not have been able to establish where they were. This was why our policy originally prevented bar owners feeling free to move the machines around, as a lot of the sites were in or near residential areas, and small suburban shopping centres, and council's policy was certainly designed to prevent any new sites in such areas, but rather limit them to the CBD and large suburban shopping centres, where access was not so easy, and the associated problems could be controlled better."
Clark McMichael, senior gambling inspector for the Department of Internal Affairs, said he has made several trips to Smokey's to investigated the anonymous complaints and found the site to be compliant.
"I can't be specific about the complaints as they came through anonymously through our head office. But in general the complaints were about the shift itself, someone questioning how they managed to move the machines over there. There was someone questioning general signage, and issues about the layout. But the signage and whatnot was paid for by John Lawrenson," he said.
"There's a piece of legislation that allows gaming machines to be moved now provided they've got the council consent, which they did. So essentially the bottom line was, the venue is compliant and we don't have an issue with it."
Mr Lawrenson said overall there are fewer gaming machines operating within his bars now than in previous years.
"I've had a number of bars that have had gaming rooms, which I took the gaming rooms out of and turned them into different venues.
"We have had three instances where we have surrendered 18-machine licences so that's 54 machines that are no longer in town because of the Lawrensen Group."
