Please note: This is an extract from Hansard only. Hansard extracts are reproduced with permission from the Parliament of Tasmania.
RACING REGULATION BILL 2004 (No. 75)
Second Reading
[11.44 a.m.]
Mr COX (Bass - Minister for Racing and Gaming - 2R) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I move -
That the bill be read the second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Racing Regulation Act 1952 and Racing Act 1983 have been reviewed to incorporate a restructure of the racing industry and to meet Tasmania's National Competition Policy obligations. Because of the age and complexity of the existing legislation, and the fact that it involved the responsibilities of more than one agency, it was considered best for the review to be undertaken by way of preparation of new legislation.
The package of new legislation comprises three bills entitled the Racing Regulation Bill 2004, the TOTE Tasmania (Racing Regulation) Bill 2004 and the Racing Regulation (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2004.
The overarching principle underpinning the restructure is the separation of integrity and commercial functions, with integrity matters to become the responsibility of Racing Services Tasmania. Commercial matters will remain the responsibility of the three code councils and TOTE Tasmania.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government is committed to delivering the highest level of integrity in the racing industry. This, in turn, will result in increased confidence in the racing product, maximising betting turnover and associated returns to the racing industry. The changes are consistent with national trends to separate integrity and commercial functions, and will overcome any real or perceived conflicts of interest in the decision-making process.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the legislation will also fulfil Tasmania's obligations under National Competition Policy guidelines and provide for a clearer separation of functions. Unnecessary administrative processes and redundant provisions have been removed whilst ambiguous provisions have been clarified. The new legislation modernises existing provisions and includes other minor policy changes in addition to those related to the industry restructure. It is written in a consistent, contemporary language and style with a logical, cohesive structure. The legislation will be easier for both regulators and the industry to understand and interpret.
The principal bill in the new package of legislation, the Racing Regulation Bill, incorporates the industry restructure, together with a number of other policy changes, some of which stem directly from the legislative review process. In terms of the restructure, extensive consultation has been undertaken with the racing industry, including national peak bodies. It is pleasing to state that the Thoroughbred and Greyhound Councils have fully supported the restructure. The Harness Council is divided in its views, although public meetings across the State have indicated significant support in favour of the restructure.
The restructure will result in Racing Services Tasmania assuming certain operational functions currently performed by code councils. These will include handicapping, grading, field selections, barrier draws, box draws, nominations and acceptances for both the harness and greyhound codes, together with responsibility for all stewarding matters. Regulatory panels will be created for each code to assume responsibility, in the case of harness and greyhound racing, for licensing and registration, rules of racing and recommendations on the appointment of stewards; and, in the case of thoroughbred racing, for licensing and registration under delegation and recommendations on appointment of stewards.
All of the changes are in accordance with the governance structures of national peak racing bodies. Code councils will continue in their current form and be responsible for existing legislative functions, except those transferred to Racing Services and/or the regulatory panels. Racing Services will offer employment in Launceston to council staff members who currently perform integrity-related functions that are to be transferred.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now briefly outline the other policy changes. Provisions relating to provisional registration of race clubs and bookmakers have been removed as they are redundant and represent unnecessary administrative procedures. Tipping services provide advice to subscribers relating to the predicted outcome of a race or sporting contingency for the purpose of betting. The removal of provisions that currently make tipping services unlawful not only removes a restriction on competition, but also reflects current practice in other States.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the new legislation retains the current bookmaker commission regime whereby bookmakers pay commission on their turnover after deducting goods and services tax paid in respect of bets accepted. Prior to the introduction of the GST, the commission received was distributed between race clubs and the Consolidated Fund. However, since the advent of the GST, no revenue has been paid into the fund thus making this requirement redundant and, as a result, it has been removed. Race clubs will continue to be paid the commission received from bookmakers.
To ease administration, the separate process for the registration of racecourses has been removed and incorporated into the club registration process.
A stronger link has been established in the legislation for the transfer of assets on the winding-up of a race club to TOTE Tasmania's funding of racing activities. This will ensure that in the event of a winding-up of a race club, racing industry assets will continue to be used for the benefit of the industry.
For reasons of natural justice, appeal rights for bookmakers and registered race clubs have been extended to cover a number of decisions made by the Director of Racing that were not previously appealable, including the director's decision to refuse, suspend or cancel a club registration, or refuse to register a new bookmaker. Aggrieved parties will now be able to appeal any of these decisions to the Tasmanian Racing Appeal Board. Currently, a bookmaker can appeal a decision of a race club to exclude him from fielding on a particular racecourse to the Director of Racing. Due to the director's involvement in the placement of bookmakers at race clubs, transferring such appeals to the Tasmanian Racing Appeal Board will eliminate the potential for problems to arise from a perceived lack of independence on the part of the director.
Consistent with the rights of a liquidator, provisions have been introduced to enable the director to recoup costs associated with the winding-up of a race club.
Provisions relating to eligibility for membership on a racing council have been clarified to ensure that council employees are ineligible. This is not only because of their obvious pecuniary interest, but is also consistent with provisions relating to other persons currently deemed ineligible, for example, paid officials of race clubs.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the rules of racing provide for industry participants to be suspended or disqualified for a breach of the rules. Suspension generally relates to less serious offences that are often code-specific - for example, a jockey causing interference in a race. On the other hand, disqualification generally relates to the most serious of offences that attack the underlying integrity of the industry and therefore translate across all codes - for example, drug offences. The current legislative provision that automatically suspends a licence across all codes was an unintended consequence when the legislation was last reviewed, and is being removed. The provision relating to the automatic disqualification across all codes will be retained.
The requirement for code councils to provide minutes of their meetings to the Chief Executive Officer of TOTE Tasmania has been introduced as it is consistent with TOTE's legislated role and responsibilities in relation to the Tasmanian racing industry. Access to such information will facilitate better decision-making by TOTE and ultimately benefit the racing industry as a whole.
Currently, all racing clubs in Tasmania are incorporated, either under the Associations Incorporation Act 1964 or Corporations Law. Introducing the requirement for a club to be incorporated as a precondition of registration reflects current practice and will provide protection for club members into the future.
Race clubs are required to satisfy a number of preconditions before being registered. Provisions have been introduced to strengthen this requirement to ensure that if a club ceases to be compliant with any such preconditions at any time during the term of registration, the director can suspend or cancel a club's registration. Also being introduced is a provision for the director to cancel a club's registration in the event it becomes insolvent. This serves to protect the racing industry from undue financial loss.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the registration of bookmakers' clerks is seen as an unnecessary administrative process, particularly given the responsibility of bookmakers for the conduct of their employees, including registered clerks. Accordingly, this process is being removed. The introduction of bookmakers' agents will enable a bookmaker to conduct his or her business at more than one racecourse at a time. The proposed change will mitigate the current restriction on competition whereby a bookmaker can only field on a racecourse at which he or she is personally present. However, whenever possible, the bookmaker will be expected to field. The requirement for agents to be registered will ensure that such persons are subject to appropriate probity checks, given that they will be permitted to operate with a high degree of independence.
It is proposed to replace the current prescriptive provisions in relation to bookmaker advertising with a requirement for bookmakers to comply with responsible gambling guidelines as a condition of their registration. This not only lessens the restriction on competition but is also consistent with similar legislation as well as contemporary legislative practice.
Enabling the director to retain registration fees paid by bookmakers and clubs, which amount to less than $2 000 per annum, simplifies administrative procedures without undue financial impact on the Consolidated Fund. Reducing the minimum number of members required by a city race club as a pre-condition for registration from 100 to 75 is in line with the current trend of declining membership numbers faced by all clubs. The introduction of a two-year time limit for prosecutions as opposed to the six-month period under the Justices Act 1959 will provide sufficient time to detect breaches of the racing legislation and to commence proceedings against an offender. This is consistent with a similar provision in the Gaming Control Act 1993.
Mr Deputy Speaker, inclusion of the requirement for both the chairperson and deputy chairperson of the Tasmanian Racing Appeal Board to be legal practitioners of at least five years' standing will bring the racing legislation into line with similar provisions in other legislation. Providing the chairperson of the appeal board with the power to determine the size of an appeal panel in cases of suspension for a period not exceeding 30 days or a fine not exceeding $500 will enable smaller panels to be convened. This will ease administration and reduce costs without impinging on the rights of an appellant. Panels will comprise up to a maximum of three members, one of whom must be either the chairperson or deputy chairperson.
Providing the appeal board with greater discretion with regard to the refund or otherwise of appeal deposits will act as disincentive for persons to lodge appeals in circumstances where they have a limited chance of success. It will also help to reduce the number of ambit appeals.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the Racing Regulation Bill provides for the regulation of thoroughbred, harness and greyhound racing and associated betting activities and related matters. All aspects of the bill have been the subject of extensive consultation with the racing industry.
Mr Michael Hodgman - Better than the last one.
Mr COX - I will take that as a compliment.
This bill provides for a more modern operating framework for the Tasmanian racing industry and I am confident that the proposed changes will not only provide a clearer separation of functions but, moreover, will enhance both the integrity and regulation of the industry. Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
[11.56 a.m.]
Mrs NAPIER (Bass) - Mr Deputy Speaker, there is such a thing as an ambit claim. If you want to get something that is worth, say, $60, then you ask for something that is worth $120 because you are sure that, once negotiation has gone on, you will get your original target. I think it has been very sad that in the racing industry the ordinary participants, the people who rely on racing for their life and recreation, have been put through a fairly brutal experience over the past almost 12 months under the guise of a restructure of the racing industry. The proposal put forward by this minister was the TOTE proposal in disguise. In fact it was more than just a TOTE proposal. If you go back to the review that Mr Michael Kent did of the racing industry in Tasmania, the proposal which was put forward in April was one of the options that was identified from that paper. So never say die, I guess. I certainly respect Mr Kent's passion for racing, and many other people's passion for racing, but it was yet another ambit attempt to get the model that he might prefer.
When the racing industry arose with fury over the quite obvious takeover by TOTE of the racing industry a great deal of consultation followed after that. The minister would have been roasted alive if he had not taken into account the kind of fairly volatile reactions to that original proposal in April. We, of course, identified in Estimates through FOI that in fact it had been the TOTE that had rewritten the legislation with some later input from the Director of Racing. In fact a statement from the report of one of the briefings was that over the past six months TOTE had been developing a model for the restructure of the Tasmanian racing industry. In recent times, the Director of Racing has also been involved and has provided input into the integrity side of the model, and thus far in June 2004 a modified racing restructure model emerged.
Minister, I think it is fair to say that there has been a fairly extensive round of consultation and negotiation over the restructure model. I attended one of the meetings in the south. The majority of people who attended that meeting supported the new model, but I am also very conscious that only 26 per cent of eligible harness racing voters are actually in the south. By far the majority of participants - that is, owners and licensed persons - in the harness racing industry are in the north and the north-west. They are not at all pleased with the restructure model, with the de-emphasis of the role of the council, and with the slur that has been cast on the work of people within the industry in maintaining integrity within it. I would have to say of the other two codes that they appeared, unhappily, to agree to the changes. The response was, 'Better this proposal than the other one'. You have not talked to many people about their views because that is what they are saying to me. They are not happy about the proposal although they all agree with having the stewards under the control of the Director of Racing.
Many people feel they have been bludgeoned into the changes. Interestingly, over these last two weeks I wrote to all stakeholders and said, 'The legislation has been tabled and I would be interested in your response. If you want a copy, please contact me.' As it came a little closer to the end of that period, I started ringing people up but they had not even read the legislation. 'What legislation?' 'You know, the legislation that implements the restructure model.' 'Oh, well I have not actually seen the legislation.' 'Oh, are you aware that the thoroughbreds have a different model from that which greyhounds and harness are going to be provided?' 'Oh no, we are all going to be treated the same.' 'That is not true.'
So, now that people have gone to the Net to get a copy of the registration, I can tell you there are a lot of people in the harness racing industry and the greyhound racing industry who are miffed - to put it mildly - and are particularly annoyed that it would appear that thoroughbreds have quite a good deal. When it was said to the harness racing people at the meeting out at Pontville that I attended, 'Oh, the thoroughbreds have agreed to hand over integrity and probity matters to Racing Services Tasmania; they are happy with the model', that was actually not totally true. They were happy with what they had agreed to hand over but that was not to suggest that they would hand over all that harness racing and greyhound racing were being asked to hand over to Racing Services Tasmania in relation to integrity and probity. Only half the story was told, and now that people are finding out what the true story is, they are not pleased, Minister. The first thing I am going to do after I have presented the arguments is to move that you withdraw the bill to enable further detailed consultation for the industry on the bill itself.
Having said that, you have argued that the main principle underpinning the restructure is the separation of integrity and commercial functions, with integrity matters - registration, licensing, nominations, rules of racing and the management of stewards - to become the responsibility of Racing Services Tasmania. Commercial matters, such as budgeting for the code and race programming, remain the responsibility of the code, but other matters go to TOTE Tasmania. State Government argues that this will provide a higher level of integrity, perceived if not actual, and that this in turn will result in increased confidence in the racing product, maximising betting turnover and associated returns to the racing industry.
However, all is not what it seems. I think it is important to state that the history of this legislation is that in the spring session of parliament, Mr Paul Lennon, the then Minister for Racing, introduced a suite of legislation which followed extensive consultation with the industry. The actual legislation itself was seen by the industry and, of course, we circulated those bills to many stakeholders. We received feedback but generally there was support for the legislation, noting that there were no significant changes. Concern was expressed about those particular bills at the time that they seemed to strengthen the control that TOTE had over the racing industry, such as directing councils on how to spend grants requiring business plans of industry and greater control over race dates.
Interestingly, that legislation was not brought on by the State Government. As I indicated, that new proposal was brought in during April 2003 and modified in reaction to the anger of the industry over the model. Here we have this legislation that was tabled in the Parliament some two weeks ago, but it was only towards the end that I found out that the racing industry itself had not seen the legislation, except for about 10 people.
The first point I would like to pick up is the comment that this is important in order to ensure that perceptions of correctness were applied in racing; that is one of the reasons why we are going to direct integrity matters to Racing Services Tasmania. I draw your attention to a very well respected Harness Racing Victoria consultant, Mr John Schreck. He wrote an article on integrity in the industry, which I think is a good read for anyone who is interested in this question. He says:
'In my estimation, integrity is not the exclusive domain of any single entity within a racing organisation. It is certainly the responsibility of senior executives, stipendiary stewards, security personnel and all employees of racing organisations. Those who participate directly in the sport and business of horse racing and harness racing, such as drivers, trainers, stable personnel, licensed bookmakers and owners, are also stakeholders to uphold and maintain ethical standards within the sport. It is clearly a shared responsibility and the goal of maintaining an ethical organisation can only be achieved if each member of the racing community is committed to being honest and is held accountable when they are not'.
He further goes on to say:
'If corruption is left unchecked, or insufficient attention is given to integrity matters, it will slowly destroy a business'.
I am going to come back to that, Minister, in raising some particular questions which you would not be surprised about -
Mr Cox - I'm not; I've seen the letter.
Mrs NAPIER - in relation to the changes in Greyhound Racing Tasmania and its rules and to the contrary advice that the previous board was given concerning the nod and wink that this board has been given about owner-handlers being on the board.
Mr Cox - There's no nod and wink, Mrs Napier; let's get that right on the record.
Mrs NAPIER - There was a nod and a wink. The Director of Racing gave the okay to owners and handlers being able to continue on the board and to allow a rule change which overturned the decision of the previous Greyhound Racing Tasmania board whereby only owners could be on the board. Handling was recognised as in effect training and this ensured that it was nationally consistent with moves being made elsewhere.
You, Minister, in fact told June Phillips that she would not be able to remain on the board if she was involved in handling dogs. You are shaking your head and saying no. I will let Ms June Phillips bring that issue up. I know she is seeking to meet with you; she wrote to you back in June or July -
Mr Cox - She has a meeting this week, Sue.
Mrs NAPIER - and you have subsequently agreed to meet with her.
You can understand the annoyance of two people who decided not to stand for the board because they would not be able to be involved -
Mr Cox - You have your facts wrong, Sue, but we will come back to that.
Mrs NAPIER - in the handling of dogs, yet the new board came in, changed back the rules, allowed for owner-handlers and were told by the Director of Racing that that would be okay. In fact you have people who are actively handling dogs who are on the board, which is against the national guidelines and against Solicitor-General advice that the previous board received from Crown Counsel - Mr Mark Miller I think it was at the time - that in fact boards could not change a rule that was contrary to an act of parliament and regulations that had passed through the Parliament.
I look at this article by Mr John Schreck where he says:
'If corruption is left unchecked, or insufficient attention is given to integrity matters, it will slowly destroy a business.'
I would suggest that you, Minister, and the Director of Racing have overseen a circumstance where unfortunately, due to wrong advice, the council finds itself in a particularly difficult position. What confidence might I have if only the Director of Racing is going to be doing this in conjunction with a lawyer and the chairman of a code in relation to making decisions about those kinds of issues? I would suggest to you that attention to this detail is required, not just by the Director of Racing but of course by the stewards and also by the industry itself. What better place to ensure that integrity is very tightly monitored than through the council itself. I think you can see where I am heading.
I deal with this issue because this seems to be driving a great deal of your reform in relation to the restructure. Mr Schreck goes on to say:
'You can't do it by managing perceptions. The idea that perceptions are more important than everything else is false. If we care more about public perceptions rather than about what is right we will be tempted to deceive the public by covering up internal mistakes or wrongdoing rather than by wrestling with tough issues and acknowledging mistakes and bringing about corrections. Perceptions matter of course but they can't be more important than the facts or the truth. Organisational honesty is the first step to an organisation's successful pursuit to integrity in all of its best endeavours.'
So perception is not the be-all and end-all. Yes, it is important but so is ensuring that steps are taken to immediately investigate issues when brought to attention by stewards, for example, and that we have people handling harness horses and dogs and that they are on the board. The stewards themselves bring things to attention but they are not pursued. I have to ask why, because John Schreck would say they should be pursued without fear or favour. If you find a mistake, that is fine and you let people know what the mistake is. But I am really worried that in this new model you have adopted, Minister, that a great deal more will end up being, if you like, under the control of only three people. That is a particularly worrying concern.
I am arguing that there is a role for councils in relation to integrity matters. There is also a role for the regulatory boards that you have established in advising and in overseeing. That is very similar to a number of other States. In Western Australia they have an integrity committee - a very powerful committee - that oversees all aspects of integrity matters, right through from the clubs to the operation of the board itself. So the councils themselves should not be totally stripped of all integrity matters.
There is a clear difference in this bill as to how the thoroughbred industry is treated compared to the harness and greyhound industries. The thoroughbreds, unlike the other two codes, retain their control over the rules of racing, race nominations, acceptances, handicapping, granting licences and approving registrations. It should be noted that race nominations and acceptances are done through a national body based in Victoria, through RESA. I thought, okay, that is fine, but in the last 24 hours I was told that the thoroughbred industry had indicated that they would move all other matters over to the thoroughbred regulatory board, which under your legislation consists of the Director of Racing, an independent lawyer and the chairperson or the deputy of the Thoroughbred Council. But I am now wondering, Minister, what exactly the thoroughbred industry has agreed to transfer to the Thoroughbred Regulatory Panel? Have they agreed to hand over handicapping? Have they agreed to hand over field selections? Have they agreed to hand over barrier draws, because I am having people who are raising questions about -
Mr Cox - It's in the letter that you got, but I can answer that.
Mrs NAPIER - What letter?
Mr Cox - The one that was written to John Hammond.
Mrs NAPIER - I have not received it.
Mr Cox - Haven't you? I will get you a copy.
Mrs NAPIER - Minister, I am asking serious questions, and you are laughing at this.
Mr Cox - I am not laughing.
Mrs NAPIER - What I am saying is that I have to go digging into this because these are genuine, reasonable questions that people are asking, and the whole truth was not told at public meetings or to the industry in general. Together with the Premier, you have gone around and made sweetheart deals, and you have given one deal to the thoroughbreds and you have given another deal - a bad deal - to the greyhounds and harness. In fact the way you have written this legislation you have in effect called into question the integrity of harness and greyhounds, but not so thoroughbreds, and I do not think that is fair or appropriate, Minister. It is my understanding that handicapping, selection of fields and barrier draws has not been handed over by the thoroughbred industry, and I want an absolute guarantee and a clarification of that from you, Minister, and I want to know whether it is in writing that it has been handed over or not.
The legislation with its three racing regulatory panels, in relation to the body that is to take over the harness and greyhound integrity matters, this body will take over the rules of racing, I noticed. That is not the case for the thoroughbreds. As I understand it, thoroughbreds have agreed to refer to the panel registrations and licensing, but by their choice. In other words, they have the choice about whether they refer that. I think the other two codes should be treated no differently. In the end, greyhounds and harness may decide to refer all of those or some of those issues to the regulatory panel. That is their choice. This legislation should not treat the greyhounds and harness any differently from the thoroughbreds.
Similarly, in the appointment of stewards, thoroughbreds have the right to recommend the steward, yet the other two codes can only suggest. That is, in your legislation it refers to 'have regard to the recommendation'. The director argues that the difference - and I appreciate the briefing that I was provided - has occurred because of the need to meet the requirements of the codes' national model. Well, I have already shown you one example of where in this legislation you are asking us to move against the rules of racing and greyhounds while allowing for the owner/handlers to be on the board. As I understand it, that is not acceptable under the national code, so why would we argue that we are going to make these changes, because it meets the code's national model? It does not justify the difference.
I recommend that we at least amend the bill to give the harness and greyhound industry the same say and control as the thoroughbreds. That is where we are coming from. If the codes wish to continue to control their industry, then they should do so. Integrity is as well provided by the industry participants as the stewards, actively requiring honesty from all participants.
It may be, Minister, that you can clarify this issue that I have raised in relation to greyhounds, but otherwise my intention would be to pursue that discussion at the relevant clause. We will certainly be recommending that we amend that particular section by deleting the reference to owner-trainer. Most of my comments have been about restructuring of the industry.
In relation to the commercial reforms, changes in relation to tipping services, bookmakers, the winding up of clubs, suspensions and so on - your second reading notes go into quite a lot of detail about those - I think those are very reasonable and sensible amendments to be made and we will be supporting all the competition reforms.
Minister, because of my concern that many people in the industry - in greyhounds and in harness racing - are not aware of the details in the bill, I move -
That the bill be withdrawn for deliberation at a later date to allow for better public consultation on the bill itself.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER - Thank you. I will just have a look at it and make sure it is in order. I can advise the member that the motion needs to be that the bill be withdrawn and, if it does come back at a later date, it comes back as another bill.
Mrs NAPIER - I will move that. I will make a couple of brief comments. I have made the points as to why we would want it withdrawn. We are supportive of the commercial matters and we would not want that to be lost. Some of the changes in relation to the restructure we agree with but we believe that so many people in the harness racing industry and the greyhound industry have been part of the model discussions and I would not criticise that, although I have certainly criticised the way in which it occurred in the first place.
There has been good opportunity for input in relation to the model. There has not been proper and reasonable opportunity for harness and greyhound people to see the detail of the bill. The devil is always in the detail and this particular issue, the owner/handler change, has caused some real concern within the industry.
Most people in the greyhound industry did not even know it had happened and they wondered why a couple of the members of the board were seen handling dogs and were known to be training them. That is that whole issue of saying 'Well if you are a handler, you are walking the dog.' What is handling and what is training? In fact there is even one instance we know of where a board member brought a dog to the racecourse and actually ran the dog and a blind eye was turned to that. There is some stuff going on that I am aware of that the stewards have raised some concerns about and it has not been acted on. The ordinary people in the greyhound industry are saying 'What is going on?'
We are putting in a bill that is supposedly to give confidence in the industry and is supposedly trying to give the perception that integrity is under control. When stewards are not pursuing concerns that are being expressed about this matter, and when you have a previous chairman of Greyhound Council who raised a question about whether the owner/handler issue would prevent him from being able to continue on the board, he did not stand for the board. Then the board came in and changed the rule. I am not even sure, Minister, if that rule change actually went through the regulatory process in this Parliament. If it has not, then these council members who have been sitting on Greyhound Racing Tasmania have been breaking the law. I am not saying they are bad people, I am saying they have been caught in this dilemma that has in fact been caused partly by the minister and partly by the Director of Racing with the advice that they have been provided with.
I must say this has distressed me to some extent too because I think it puts at risk good people who give up their time to go on the council. This whole issue really has to be cleared up because previous Crown Counsel advice has been that a board cannot change the rules under which they operate unless it goes through the Parliament. This matter is extremely serious and it raises questions about what is going on in relation to the implementation of integrity matters within Racing Services Tasmania. That is why I have used this opportunity to raise this issue and it is that kind of thing that needs to be sorted out before we decide to go ahead and pass a piece of legislation in this House that is going to allow for an owner/handler to become a member of the board. Admittedly by then it will have fixed up the act for those board members not acting contrary to the requirements of the act, but by doing that we will also be operating contrary to the national guidelines.
So I see real difficulties in this. The other point is that Harness Racing Tasmania participants are asking, 'Why should the thoroughbreds have one set of rules and we have another set of rules? Why shouldn't we have the right to decide which kind of matters are going to go through to this regulatory panel and which are not?'. I think that the minister should listen to those arguments because they are fair and reasonable arguments and for that reason I encourage the minister to withdraw the bill.
[12.28 p.m.]
Mr COX (Bass - Minister for Racing) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I can advise the member for Bass that we will not be supporting the motion. But my response to the motion gives me the opportunity to put a couple of things on the record. It is not my intention, at this stage, to go through all the matters that the member has raised, but I will respond to all of them at a later stage and put them on the record.
The member for Bass, Mrs Napier, talked about the fact that there was not consultation and she believed that some members of the industry were dissatisfied with the way that this had been handled. I will give you a run through as to what actually occurred.
I understand and I know that the Harness Council are divided on the bill. I know also that the majority of that industry support it.
Mrs Napier - No, they don't.
Mr COX - I can tell you they do. I also have the full support of the thoroughbred and greyhound codes and I have it in writing. If you would like me to table the letters and if you would like me to read them out for Hansard , I will do it.
Mrs Napier - You can table them, if you like.
Mr COX - I also understand and -
Mr Gutwein - Table them.
Mr COX - All right, I will get them for you - I know that you are representing vested interests within the harness racing industry. I am representing the majority of the industry. I want to remind you that there has been very extensive consultation, as you agreed, with the Tasmanian racing industry and the three national peak bodies on this proposal. Let me run through this.
You said they did not have an opportunity to look at this and did not know much about it. At a meeting on 14 July, that was not yesterday, 14 July, there was a meeting attended by each code council chairman. I tabled the new proposal, that is in July.
Mrs Napier - Was that the legislation?
Mr COX - It was not the legislation as such, it was -
Mrs Napier - No it wasn't, that's the whole point.
Mr COX - virtually this in its entirety.
Mrs Napier - No, it was not the legislation.
Mr COX - It was based on consideration of the submissions received. The legislation came from that proposal, if you want to be pedantic about it.
Mrs Napier - The devil is in the detail.
Mr COX - There was no detail change.
Mrs Napier - Yes there was.
Mr COX - There was no detail change - minor, but nothing of any significance. That was based on consideration of the submissions received and also the views of the national peak bodies. Let me take you through what happened there. On that 14 July I convened a meeting at the offices of Racing Services Tasmania. In attendance were myself, acting chairperson of the Thoroughbred Council, Rod Thirkell-Johnston; the chairman of the Harness Racing Council, John Hammond; chairman of the Greyhound Council, Max Walker; racing adviser to me, Steve Old; director of racing, Tony Murray; and assistant director of racing, Ric De Santi. At that meeting the Director of Racing provided the new proposals with regard to the restructure. That proposal presented to the chairman on that day has not altered, and is consistent with the legislation tabled in respect of the restructure. I will repeat that for you, Mrs Napier. The proposal presented to the chairman on that day has not altered, and is consistent with the legislation tabled in respect of the restructure. The presentation included the following statement:
'All integrity matters which are compliant with national government structures will be transferred to Racing Services Tasmania and/or the Regulatory Committee.'
Further, the presentation fully outlined the integrity functions which would be transferred to RST and/or the regulatory panels which were in accordance with the national governance structures. The difference with respect to the thoroughbred code - I will give you this again, Mrs Napier, because this is the question you raised - the difference with respect to the thoroughbred code was clearly outlined at that meeting. At the conclusion of the presentation each of the code council chairmen expressed support for the new proposal. While the chairman of the Harness Council would like us to believe this was not the case, I would welcome any person contacting either Mr Thirkell-Johnston or Mr Walker, both of whom have subsequently confirmed the fact that Mr Hammond was in agreement with that proposal.
Mr Michael Hodgman - Mr Walker or Mr Harper.
Mr COX - Mr Walker was there - no, not Mr Harper - and Mr Rod Thirkell-Johnston. Both of them are aware that I was going to make that point.
The new proposal stated that code councils would stay in existence, with integrity matters subject to national governance structures being transferred to RST. The new proposal stated that RST would assume responsibility for all integrity matters in the harness and greyhound codes, with RST assuming responsibility for all stewarding matters, licensing and registration. Also let me remind you that at the meeting conducted on 14 July each council chairman provided in-principle support, as I have said. They all agreed to that. Subsequently the Thoroughbred and Greyhound councils endorsed the new model. No-one, I can tell you, was more surprised than I when the Tasmanian Harness Racing Council stated it would not support the new model without firstly consulting with the industry. I requested that Mr Hammond attend the meeting with me. We discussed at that meeting. He then decided that he was not satisfied and he wanted to take it back to his membership -
Mrs Napier - Why shouldn't he consult with the industry?
Mr COX - But he had already done it.
Mrs Napier - Why shouldn't he?
Mr COX - Why did he agreed to it and tell me he had already done it?
Mrs Napier - Well, he reckons he didn't.
Mr COX - He should not tell fibs. He told us that he had consulted with his industry -
Mr Michael Hodgman - Hang on, Minister. Don't say that.
Mr COX - Well, he perhaps did not tell fibs. Perhaps it was a misunderstanding.
Mrs Napier - He said he was always going to consult the industry.
Mr COX - Let me tell you again, Mrs Napier, there are two names I have just given you. They were at the meeting and they will support the fact that he gave his support. His words were, almost to the letter, 'I see no reason why we won't support this. It's got everything.' He was very definite about whether there were any changes going to be made in the future. I gave him an undertaking that they would not and he, as a result, gave in-principle support in front of the witnesses that I have named. He then came back and indicated to me that that was not going to be the case. I then asked to meet with him, and he advised that he was going to set up public meetings. He set up the meetings on 21 August on the north-west, 22 August in the north and 23 August in the south, to seek the views of the industry. The Director of Racing Services, Tony Murray, and my senior advisor, Steve Old, both attended those meetings. You, Mrs Napier, were at the third meeting in the south. I am advised the chairman of the Harness Racing Council stated at these meetings that the view of the industry would determine council's position on the new proposal. Correct? I am also advised that over the three meetings there was a vote, some 80 to 50 in favour of that new proposal.
Mrs Napier - But only 26 per cent of operators come from the south.
Mr COX - We are dealing with a State industry, Mrs Napier. Everyone else is agreeable statewide. If they have a split within their industry, then I am dealing with the majority of the industry. Now the representation of the industry -
Mrs Napier - It was a highly organised meeting in the south. Good on them - they did well.
Mr COX - Gee, do you reckon the other two were not? Despite the earlier commitments made by the chairman, Mr John Hammond, at the harness council meeting conducted on 3 September, the council is now divided and is not representing the majority interests of that industry. In summary, the racing restructure has the support of the thoroughbred and greyhound councils, and I also understand it has the support of the majority of harness racing participants. I cannot give you any clearer reasons why I will not be supporting the motion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[12.35 p.m.]
Mr BOOTH (Bass) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I intend only to very briefly rise to essentially support the position of the Liberal Party in regard to having the bill withdrawn for further consultation, because quite clearly the Harness Racing Council is opposed to the bill, as stated by its chairman, Mr John Hammond, who has only recently been elected to that position. He has clearly articulated his position in opposing the bill.
Mr Cox - What about the rest of the State?
Mr BOOTH - By interjection you ask, 'What about the rest of the State?' Well, that is obviously a pertinent question, but the fact remains, however, that these councils have only just recently been elected. This person has been elected as the chairman to the Harness Racing Council -
Mr Cox - 80 to 50 opposed it.
Mr BOOTH - and the position as the chairman of that particular council is that he wants to take it back to his members; he has rejected it at the moment. You may say that 80 of his members somehow supported it - and I do not know how you have picked that up on the wind. Have you done a poll?
Mr Cox - He did; it's his process.
Mr BOOTH - What process have you done to justify your statement?
Mr Cox - Eighty supported the process. It was his meeting and we took the numbers. Eighty supported it, 50 opposed it.
Mr BOOTH - At these meetings, but what the elected chairman of the council is saying is that they oppose it. He is actually saying that he wants to take it to his members for further consultation.
Mr Cox - His membership's not supporting it.
Mr BOOTH - I actually question the consultation that you have done with the grassroots of the industry, and whether in fact you have a plebiscite to say that it has full support. At the end of the day after that consultation process, it may be that it gets the support of the whole of the harness racing industry, which would be good for a bill like this, given the volatile nature of the racing industry and the sorts of perceptions that can damage the industry if there is not full grassroots support for change. Even in your position as the minister, you want to have support for this bill and obviously Parliament, before it pushes a bill through, would wish to make sure that every effort has been made to ensure that the people who are affected by the bills that become acts that we pass in here do not adversely affect sections of the industry, and that we have properly consulted.
There has been a lot of controversy over the original bill that was proposed - the original sort of 'give TOTE total control of the industry' bill - and history shows that that has been consigned to the scrap bin where it belonged. So I suppose you would have to say that the representations from industry over these attempts to restructure the industry have in fact resulted in some significant changes to the original proposals, and I think that is a good thing, Minister. I guess although I would condemn you for bringing the original proposal to this House, I would certainly commend you also for recognising reality and changing the more draconian aspects of your original proposal.
However, having said that, this bill now represents a completely different proposition, and Ms Napier has eloquently outlined to this House the nature of a lot of those changes and the concerns that people within the industry still hold, particularly members of the Harness Racing Council, and their grassroots members who have made representations obviously through their elected chairman, Mr John Hammond. What I would say to you, Minister, is that I do not know at the end of the day whether the whole of the harness racing industry will support necessarily the position that Mr Hammond has at the moment, but it seems to me that he is calling for it to go back for consultation with his members before he is prepared to support it. There may be some changes that he is looking for as well, there may be some changes that his members are going to call for, and rather than rushing this through, I think it behoves you to recognise that this is a democracy we live in and it is a reasonable proposition to take this back to enable the council to properly consult with his members. As for the comment you made in regard to him telling fibs and stuff, I would like personally say for the record of Hansard that I do not accept that is a reasonable proposition to put to this House about a member who is unable -
Mr Cox - I did withdraw that.
Mr BOOTH - Yes, I do note that you have withdrawn that imputation and I thank you for that.
Mr Cox - Can I by interjection, as I cannot speak again, just very quickly mention that I have a letter from the Tasmanian Pacing Club and, just to put it on the record, I quote very quickly that in part it said:
'The outcome of these meetings was 80 votes in pro for the changes, 50 against. Mr Hammond, for his own interests, ignores this industry support and continues his campaign of public misinformation. We want to make it clear Mr Hammond does not represent the views of this club, not do we have any confidence in him. We therefore request that any industry matters of concern be conveyed directly to the club to ensure that our views are properly indicated to you.'
Mrs Napier - Yes, but that is John Devereux -
Mr Cox - That was a letter that was written to me from the Tasmanian Pacing Club.
Mr BOOTH - You might as well come in here and read out of a Donald Duck comic if you are expecting -
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order. We will go back to Mr Booth's contribution. I am showing a bit of flexibility in the House at the moment.
Mr BOOTH - As I was saying before, you might as well come in here and read from a Donald Duck comic if you are going to try to present anything from the TPC as being fact or reality. I think their position over restructuring is long on the record in regard to these matters and the matter of their insolvency is a probity issue that probably ought to have been dealt with properly by Racing Services in the first place in the past.
Mr Cox - But there is division within the industry.
Mr BOOTH - Yes, of course you have division within the industry but it is no secret that the TPC certainly appears to have been under a certain amount of financial pressure for a long time that seems to have skewed their view in regard to the co-location proposals and so forth.
But I do not want to take up the Parliament's time over this; I think I have said enough. I and the Greens support democratic processes. I accept that there is division within the industry; however, Mr Hammond represents an elected position as the Chairman of the Tasmanian Harness Racing Council. As I said, it has only been a recent election and I do not think you can draw any conclusion from the fact that the TPC for some reason now purports to try to represent the entire industry or to suggest that they ought not, in fact, be dealing with Mr Hammond -
Mr Cox - I guess I was trying to highlight that it would seem that no-one is representing the entire industry and that is my difficulty.
Mr BOOTH - Well, I think you would have to say that there is division in the industry. There is certainly a lot of fear in the industry about its future and I think it is going to be a challenge to make sure the industry survives into the future because you have to recognise - and I think Mrs Napier alluded to the race day participants when we were talking about integrity - that they, in fact, need to be represented and considered. I will not in this speech take up time talking about the co-location issues but it has certainly been one of the major problems, as I see it, that in the past the industry has been, to some degree, directed from above and the grassroots of the industry and the race day participants have been pawns within that process and not really properly considered. Their views about what they want to see for the racing industry and the future and the culture of racing and so forth, have been ignored.
For those reasons we will support the amendment for the withdrawal of the bill.
[12.44 p.m.]
Mr MICHAEL HODGMAN (Denison) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I am going to make but a brief contribution because as the minister well knows and I think all the members of the House know, I am the longest serving committee member of a principal or major thoroughbred racing club, not just in -
Mr Cox - Recently re-elected as I understand.
Mr MICHAEL HODGMAN - Recently re-elected - thank you, Minister - not just in Australia, Australasia, or the Southern Hemisphere but, at least according to the Honourable Andrew Peacock, I am the longest serving committeeman in the world. Having said that, I was not involved directly in any of the discussions with this minister or the previous minister, about the original ill-fated legislation which was brought in and landed on Minister Cox's lap, and with the agility that we have come to expect from him - and I say with affection that he is my dear friend - triple backflipped and piked, because he has moved with great speed on a number of issues that have been thrown to him and I rate him as a performer of Olympic standard. But I was not involved in the original discussions, nor was I involved in these discussions from an industry point of view because - and I think the new director knows this - I have taken a very fundamental view to avoid any suggestion of conflict of interest as a serving committee member of the Tasmanian Racing Club, and not being the shadow minister - I want to emphasise that - shows that I have a fairly clear line of distinction between my racing duties and my duties as a parliamentarian.
It will go without saying that I support the thrust of the moves which have been put before the House today by the shadow minister, my colleague, the Honourable Sue Napier. I have, because of the pressures of parliamentary business, been required to be out of the Chamber with the Attorney-General for a briefing on the Limitation Amendment Bill which is now coming on later today, but Mrs Napier has discussed with me the broad thrust of what she was saying.
I must say that there is a lot of sense in the proposal she has put to the House because, without in any way negating what the minister has said, I find that whilst it is correct that two of the industry councils have said that they support the proposal, one appears to be split. I must say that while I know Mr John Hammond - and in fact, along with my colleagues, I have been on a visit to Flinders Island and discussed fisheries matters with him - I have never actually discussed racing matters directly with him. However, I read in the paper, as everybody else did, what he said and I also read what John Devereux said. I know a little bit about Mr Devereux because although we have known each other for many, many years - we have been on opposite sides of politics for many, many years - I have never actually had any political debate with him of any nature, but he made a quite extraordinary gratuitous attack on me in the House about three months ago. I do not know whether that may have also assisted in the resounding vote of my re-election as a member of the committee of the Tasmanian Racing Club, the fourteenth time I have been re-elected , which will take me, Minister, from 39 years of service, which I have just completed, to 42 years in three years' time.
What I am about to say I am saying quite seriously because I believe Mrs Napier has tapped on a number of aspects. I am finding more and more members of the racing industry who have said, 'Look, what we've read in the paper and what we've heard explained looks all right, but we haven't actually seen the detail', and I speak with a little bit of feeling because I was the founding secretary of the All Clubs TAB Committee which ran the campaign to bring the Totalisator Agency Board to Tasmania. It was under the chairmanship of Henry Cosgrove, QC - who subsequently became Mr Justice Cosgrove and now lives in contented retirement on the eastern shore - and we worked very hard and in fact the then Labor Deputy Premier and Attorney-General, the honourable Mervyn George Everett, QC, got me as Member for Huon in the Legislative Council to bring in the legislation in the upper House which brought in the TAB.
I can well remember at that time, and it is important that I put this on the record, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the TOTE - or TAB as it was then called - was brought in effectively to benefit racing. The founder of TABs in Australia was the great Sir Chester Manifold and he correctly said that if the industry moved towards the introduction of TABs throughout Australia it would be to the very great benefit of the racing industry. There were two States in Australia at that stage which had licensed bookmakers: one was Tasmania, the other was Western Australia. In the fullness of time the TAB came into every State and Territory; when I was Minister for the Australian Capital Territory I naturally had a very big involvement with the ACT TAB and I have always had a big involvement with the TAB in this State.
The TAB was seen as the Cinderalla of racing but some unkindly said that as the TAB got bigger it changed from being the Cinderalla to the ugly sisters. But beyond and behind that was the ever-increasing move by governments in the generic sense to permit Treasury to get its long tentacles and sticky figures into the racing industry.
And so I looked very carefully at the original legislation which was brought forward by the minister's predecessor, the honourable Paul Anthony Lennon, and I was more than mortified at some of the proposals in that legislation which seemed to me to give extreme powers to TOTE but, more importantly, to give even greater powers to Treasury.
There is no doubt at all, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you need certain skills and experience to be an administrator in the racing industry and it is not good enough for Treasury people to say, 'Oh, we understand the racing industry'. I put it on the record that 20 years ago the then head of Treasury in this State said, 'I do not see the need for any Tasmanian racing industry; Tasmania and Treasury would do much better if there was no racing industry in Tasmania and Tasmanians bet on Melbourne and Sydney'.
And that was the attitude 20 years ago. The plain fact of the matter is that the racing industry is a massive employer in this State and makes an enormous contribution to the economy of Tasmania. The figures will vary but again I put on record that directly and indirectly in excess of 6 000 people - and you can even argue as many as 10 000 people - are employed in the racing industry.
And I am fascinated to note that, in relation to Australian statistics, the racing industry is now ranked only just below the tourism industry in terms of employment in the whole of Australia and, with great respect to Treasury, all font of wisdom is not in Treasury nor is it under the control of the head of Treasury, Mr Don Challen and his Treasury mice. We have to maintain a very clear and direct involvement in the administration of racing.
Minister, the point that I am coming to is this: a lot of this legislation frankly is based on trust. The devil may well be in the detail. You and I have known each other for many years; it is on the record that we have known each other for probably more than 30 years. I am concerned that if we pass the legislation without further opportunity for people to look at it, we are going to have people coming out of the woodwork and saying, 'Well, we thought what was in the paper or the glossy pamphlets that have been circulated was it, but we never understood this'.
I have to say from many years of experience not as a member of a committee of a pacing club but involved in litigation in the pacing industry, it is an industry that with some enthusiasm engages in litigation. I will not stop to give you chapter and verse but you would be well aware of many cases in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, leaving aside all the racing appeals, that if they are not happy at the end of the day it will come back and haunt us.
I accept the Chairman of the Thoroughbred Racing Council, Geoff Harper and the Chairman of Greyhounds have said on behalf of their industry councils that the legislation has their support - no question, I accept that fact. I am also very conscious of the fact that there were discussions between the people in relation to Australian racing, and Mr Ransome, Mr Harding and others say that there was nothing done in this State which would broach the situation and put us in breach of the Australian rules. For over 26 years I was a delegate to what used to be called the Australian Principal Clubs Conference representing the Tasmanian Racing Club and I can tell you back in 1981 when the government of my own political persuasion, the Liberal Government of Robin Gray, proposed certain amendments there was a meeting of the principal clubs conference in Melbourne at which it was openly canvassed that Tasmania might be effectively expelled or deregistered from thoroughbred racing in this country. That would have decimated our breeding industry and our racing industry.
So, Minister, to put it bluntly to you I am accepting on trust what you have put to the Parliament and in particular going to your second reading speech I read into the Hansard yet again the words which appeared at the end of your second reading speech which sum it all up in my opinion.
I might say while I am looking for that passage I have no problems with most of what I call 'legal parts' of the bill and they seem to me to be eminently reasonable. But the statement which we will have to live or die by is your statement in your second reading speech, 'all aspects of the bill have been the subject of extensive consultation with the racing industry'.
Mr Cox - Michael, I have to consult with the chairmen of the codes. If they don't relay it through back to their industry, that is not my problem. Your code has given me an indication that all are happy with it. If that is not right then your code is not doing their job and I think they are.
Mr Michael HODGMAN - I have not said for a minute that they are not; I am saying to you that if you are right in what you have said in the second reading speech then we all stand. If you are wrong we will fall and we are the ones who will carry the egg on our face. But if the statement is not correct the industry itself will suffer the most.
Mr Cox - Yes, I accept that.
Mr Michael HODGMAN - And that is far too important to be treated lightly. For those reasons I support the amendment moved by Mrs Napier.
[12.57 p.m.]
Ms PUTT (Denison - Leader of the Greens) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to very briefly speak in support of the amendment. I think we have a real issue here about the extent of consultation and a need to ensure that that consultation has indeed been thorough.
Hearing the minister now, by interjection, go to the fact that it could be that the codes have not done a good job of consulting with their members is to admit that consultation may not have been as thorough as it ought to have been. Whether the minister thinks it is the job of those codes to do it or whether it is the job of the minister to ensure the consultation is done to his satisfaction, what we are probably now talking about is what happens if the codes do not get their act together.
The Greens do support the need for further consultation given that in harness racing there are some real issues around consultation and also on the ground with people who are involved with greyhound racing. We would like to see that consultation period extended and further efforts made to ensure that the participants in the industry are across what the changes are and indeed do approve that those changes should go forward. Otherwise this alleged basis of thorough consultation is not the case and we really want to make sure that these -
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2.30 p.m.