Cover image courtesy of The Image Is Everything
The 75-page report, Possible Contempt Arising from the Inquiry into the Proposal to Develop Rosehill Racecourse – Part 1, was produced by the Legislative Council’s Privileges Committee on Wednesday.
It followed a referral from the Select Committee on the Proposal to Develop Rosehill Racecourse, which raised concerns that Racing NSW may have interfered with potential witnesses during its 2024 inquiry into the proposed sale and redevelopment of Rosehill Racecourse. The Privileges Committee was tasked with determining whether the regulator’s conduct amounted to an attempt to deter or influence evidence-givers, and whether that behaviour met the legal threshold for contempt of Parliament.
Rosehill racecourse | Image courtesy of Australian Turf Club
In a very public rebuke, the committee’s findings represent an unusually strong censure from the NSW Parliament, and while not finding the regulator in contempt, the report’s language leaves little doubt about the gravity with which the committee views Racing NSW’s behaviour.
The report comes after 18 months of unrelenting scrutiny on Racing NSW from multiple fronts. The inquiry into the proposal to develop Rosehill Racecourse was the first to expose cracks in the regulator’s public accountability, followed by the NSW Government’s statutory review of the Thoroughbred Racing Act 1996.
That review, led by former health minister Brad Hazzard, will place the regulator’s structure under the microscope - from corporate governance protocols, transparency and stakeholder engagement frameworks to its dual commercial and integrity roles.
Against that backdrop, the Privileges Committee’s warning compounds a sense of institutional strain.
The Inquiry and the “Chilling Effect”
The Privileges Committee’s investigation stemmed directly from the Select Committee on the Proposal to Develop Rosehill Racecourse.
During that inquiry, confidential evidence was received alleging impropriety and poor workplace culture at Racing NSW. Following a public hearing on 9 August 2024, Racing NSW’s Chief Operating Officer Graeme Hinton wrote to the committee on 12 August, raising allegations about former employees and stating that Racing NSW had “investigated the issues raised with utmost urgency.”
Graeme Hinton | Image courtesy of 7NEWS Sydney
The Select Committee but considered it could be interpreted as an attempt to interfere with inquiry participants. Its Special Report, tabled 20 September 2024, recommended the matter be referred to the Privileges Committee “on the basis that it may constitute a substantial interference with the work of the committee and therefore a possible contempt.” The Legislative Council agreed to the referral on 25 September 2024.
The committee also received a confidential submission from Hon Mark Latham MLC, who alleged Racing NSW had attempted to “identify and intimidate whistleblowers,” and noted that names contained in Racing NSW correspondence later appeared on a 2GB radio broadcast hosted by Ray Hadley.
Racing NSW’s Response
In confidential correspondence to the committee, Racing NSW said former staff had “unpromptedly” alerted the organisation to a campaign to solicit critical submissions, and the letters were intended to “fully inform” the Select Committee and ensure “procedural fairness and natural justice.”
Racing NSW “categorically denied” any involvement in the Ray Hadley broadcast and stated it had “no involvement in the show, nor did it seek for Mr Hadley to run such a story or make those comments.”
On the phrase “investigated the issues raised with utmost urgency,” Racing NSW said this had been misinterpreted and referred only to fact-checking specific claims such as “that Racing NSW monitored web traffic,” not to any inquiry into witnesses’ identities.
The Privileges Committee acknowledged Racing NSW’s denials but recorded three areas of concern:
1. That Racing NSW had “sought to undermine the credibility of possible witnesses by providing material that cast aspersions on the character and motives of named individuals.”
2. That its references to having “investigated the issues raised with utmost urgency” could be perceived as a “calculated move to deter potential witnesses.”
3. That the Ray Hadley broadcast the day after the referral contained material bearing “striking similarity to Racing NSW’s confidential correspondence.”
While the committee found no evidence Racing NSW actually investigated or contacted witnesses, it was “concerned that Racing NSW’s behaviour “may have had the effect of deterring potential inquiry witnesses from coming forward to give evidence for fear of reprisals – the so-called ‘chilling effect’.”
The phrase ‘chilling effect’ originated in US constitutional law during the 1950s and 1960s, when the Supreme Court used it to describe government actions that could deter people from exercising their legal rights, particularly free speech.
In Australia, the term refers to conduct that discourages or intimidates individuals from engaging in public or parliamentary processes, such as giving evidence or making submissions, for fear of reprisal or disadvantage.
Criticism of Racing NSW’s Conduct
Although no contempt was found, the committee was unequivocal in its rebuke:
“We are very concerned at the deeply personal characterisations and depictions of third-party individuals, some of whom we understand did not have anything to do with the inquiry. It is highly unusual for an organisation to take such steps against former employees. It may not amount to contempt, but it was deeply inappropriate … and it reflects poorly on Racing NSW as an organisation.”
The committee described the timing of the radio broadcast as a “significant and questionable coincidence” and warned that similar behaviour in future could justify stronger parliamentary powers.
Stephen Lawrence | Image courtesy of NSW Labor
In his foreword, Chair Stephen Lawrence MLC wrote that the committee had “serious concerns that Racing NSW has engaged in conduct that may have had the effect of deterring potential inquiry witnesses from coming forward to give evidence for fear of reprisals – the so-called ‘chilling effect’.”
He stressed:
“Organisations and individuals must take extra care not to engage in any sort of conduct that may deter or have a ‘chilling effect’ on others from engaging in the parliamentary process.”
The committee further observed that if similar interference occurred again, Parliament “may need to consider expanding by legislation the circumstances which can give rise to a finding of contempt, and the sanctions available.”
A separate investigation into the unauthorised disclosure of confidential committee minutes from the Select Committee on Rosehill will be reported in Part 2, to be tabled at a later date.
Racing NSW has been contacted for comment.
