One of the key questions from the Rosehill Select Committee report is how Racing NSW became such a major focus of a parliamentary inquiry that, at its heart, involved two key bodies, the Australian Turf Club and the NSW government.
While Racing NSW wasn’t specifically mentioned in any of the 10 findings of the final report, it was front and centre when it came to two of the five recommendations.
One recommendation was quite pointed: “That the Legislative Council give consideration to establishing an inquiry into the operations of Racing NSW.”
The other recommendation looked at the legislative context in which Racing NSW operates: “That the NSW Government conduct a thorough review of the Thoroughbred Racing Act 1996 which, among other things, considers whether the Act is fit for purpose.”
Before digging into more detail as to how and why Racing NSW has become such a principal player in this whole saga, it is important to note what a Select Committee report can do.
The NSW government has three months, until March 6, to respond in writing to the 10 findings and five recommendations made in the final report. It does not need to act on these findings, but must explain why it is, or not, choosing to act.
To those who may think that the report's publication is the end of the matter, and the Minns government may want to sweep the report under the carpet, it is also important to remember that this was a bi-partisan Committee.
The three members of the ruling Labor party on the Committee, Bob Nanva, Sarah Kaine and Peter Primrose, did publish a dissenting statement surrounding five of the 10 findings, but did not highlight objections to any of the recommendations.
Perhaps more significant was that, according to the full report, it was Nanva who successfully moved that the following paragraph, highlighting whistleblower allegations about Racing NSW, be included in the final report.
“While noting that the matters did not fall within the Terms of Reference, the committee was particularly concerned by the significant volume of confidential evidence we received from whistleblowers within the industry, which raised serious concerns about Racing NSW, including allegations of illegal activity and other conduct that is plainly not acceptable from a regulatory body.
“The committee grappled with how to address these allegations without breaching the confidentiality of those who came forward, many of whom feared retribution for their actions. The committee believes that these matters are worthy of further investigation,” it read.
That formed a vital aspect of the rationale behind the recommendation of a Legislative Council inquiry into Racing NSW.
Also included in the report in this section were the following notes:
“Racing NSW as both the regulator and commercial operator of the industry is in a very unique position. Large amounts of evidence were received by the committee both public and confidential, from a wide range of participants who are involved in the racing industry concerning Racing NSW,” the section in chapter 2 read.
“This evidence alleged serious concerns with Racing NSW and in particular its Chief Executive Officer, many of which were denied by representatives of Racing NSW in their evidence before the committee and subsequent correspondence to the committee.
“While this evidence was received by the committee and ventilated in many of the hearings, it falls outside the terms of reference before the committee in this instance.”
Bren O’Brien
Racing NSW and CEO Peter V’landys argued on several occasions in both the written and in-person submissions that the committee inquiry stepped outside its remit.
Indeed, the involvement of Racing NSW and its high-profile CEO became a lightning rod for political intrigue and whistleblower disclosures.
However, the Committee is within its powers to recommend further investigation of issues outside of what the inquiry has uncovered. It chose to do this with bipartisan support.
It also felt compelled to call for a review of how racing is structured in the state.
Specifically, the report calls out:
“Racing NSW is established under the Thoroughbred Racing Act 1996. The Act sets out the functions and powers of Racing NSW, and specifies that it is not subject to direction or control by or on behalf of the Government. The committee is of the view that the various provisions of the Act require examination,” it read.
It has been 28 years since the Act was passed into law, so it appears reasonable to suggest, given how much the racing industry has changed in that time and the litany of concerns raised in the inquiry, that it is time for a review.
So, how did Racing NSW come under such scrutiny? The Committee was convinced its role in the proposal was crucial. The idea itself may not have emanated from Racing NSW, but it has been involved in several crucial steps of the process.
Firstly, V’landys and his then-chairman Russell Balding knew about the Rosehill proposal and discussed it with the Cabinet Office before ATC chairman Peter McGuaran had informed his board.
Staff Writer
V’landys himself said of the process, “in order for them to sell Rosehill, they would need our approval”, while in a board meeting in November 2023, it was stated Racing NSW wanted “oversite (sic) of the majority of the proceeds of the sale”.
Given all this, it is impossible to separate Racing NSW from the key aspects of the sale proposal.
The final report noted:
“The committee is concerned about the extent of Racing NSW's desired oversight of the proceeds of the sale, noting that the benefits to the Australian Turf Club may be less than they anticipate,” it read.
“Considering the evidence presented with respect to the funding model, the committee shares the concerns of a number of stakeholders that if Racing NSW had oversight of the majority of funds it would not assist the viability of the Australian Turf Club.”
Who gets the money is a fundamental aspect of the entire proposal, and was rightly under question from the committee.
The committee could not resolve this question, but it had the right to inquire, especially when the potential project involved billions of public money invested in transport infrastructure.
The final question is, what is the likelihood of further action on either of the recommendations?
On the Legislative Council inquiry into Racing NSW, it is worth noting that, with LNP and crossbench support, it would have the votes to get through, even if the government chose not to act on the recommendation.
Bren O’Brien
The Upper House has already passed several motions and bills on matters surrounding greater scrutiny of Racing NSW. It comes down to the parliamentary appetite for another lengthy inquiry and the political capital of continuing down that path whether it gets the necessary support from the opposition.
A review of the Thoroughbred Racing Act would seem more likely to be adopted by the government. That recommendation would focus on fixing the system, rather than bringing Racing NSW to heel. That would be more politically appetising and an easier sell and avoid much of the sideshow that defined the Rosehill inquiry.
Part of that sideshow was the referral of correspondence by Racing NSW to the parliamentary privileges committee over possible contempt. That is expected to be heard in NSW parliament in early 2025.
