Cover image courtesy of The Image Is Everything
Last Wednesday’s Supreme Court decision, which found Racing NSW’s appointment of an administrator to the Australian Turf Club invalid, has left the industry with more questions than answers. At a time when racing needs leadership, stability and a clear sense of direction, the sport instead finds itself caught in yet another public conflict.
It was no surprise that Racing NSW announced last Friday that it would appeal the decision. Its statement said the appeal was necessary to provide “certainty and clarity” about its ability to fund and support clubs across the state. That is now the position it has taken publicly.
Even so, many participants will see the appeal less as a search for clarity and more as resistance to a judgment that limits the regulator’s reach. The suggestion that a decision based on provisions that have sat in the Racing Act for decades suddenly threatens Racing NSW’s ability to support race clubs is, at the very least, difficult to accept.
Henry Plumptre | Image courtesy of Darley
After the events of the past year, the controversy surrounding the chairmanship, the Rosehill sale proposal, the Upper House inquiry and now this litigation, there must surely come a point where the board of Racing NSW pauses and asks whether a different approach is needed. That is particularly so when stakeholders who raise concerns are dismissed as “minority agitators”, rather than listened to and engaged with.
I make these observations as someone who has worked in the thoroughbred industry in New South Wales and Victoria since 1977. For the past eight years I have been based in New Zealand, but I have remained closely connected to the Australian industry. We race about 20 horses in New South Wales and Victoria and use stallions based in both states. The Australasian thoroughbred industry is commercially interlinked, and decisions made in the Racing NSW boardroom do not stop at the state border. They affect owners, breeders and participants across both countries. The Pattern dispute is a clear example of that.
It was disappointing, though not surprising, to read Dr Saranne Cooke’s (Racing NSW Chairman) recent chairman’s update to industry participants. In my view, the tone of that message - particularly the criticism of “minority agitators” at a time when legitimate concerns are being raised about the direction of the industry - suggested a board increasingly out of step with stakeholder sentiment. It had something of an “Emperor’s new clothes” quality about it: a confident public message that sat uneasily against the concern and dissatisfaction being expressed across the industry.
It (the participants notice) had something of an “Emperor’s new clothes” quality about it: a confident public message that sat uneasily against the concern and dissatisfaction being expressed across the industry. - Henry Plumptre
Part of the problem lies in the Racing Act itself. The legislation is now under review, following the New South Wales Government’s response to the Rosehill inquiry, and rightly so. The Act is open to interpretation in key respects and has, over time, allowed the regulator to operate with a high degree of autonomy. That may explain some of the current tension, but it does not excuse the lack of meaningful consultation and collaboration on major issues affecting the industry.
Dr Saranne Cooke | Image courtesy of Racing NSW
The repeated focus on record prizemoney as the primary measure of success also reveals a narrow view of what a regulator’s role should be. New South Wales operates in a strong wagering environment, with sophisticated betting platforms, long-established distribution arrangements and a population deeply engaged with racing and wagering. Strong prizemoney is important, but it is not, on its own, evidence of healthy governance. Nor should prizemoney policy be pursued without broader consideration of its effect on the structure of the national racing calendar and on relationships with other jurisdictions.
That issue connects directly to the Pattern dispute. Applications by Racing NSW for upgrades to a number of high-value races have not been recognised by the Asian Pattern Committee, although those races have appeared as upgraded on the Racing Australia and Racing NSW websites. Where those upgrades are not recognised internationally, they do not carry standing in the Studbook or in bloodstock catalogues. That creates confusion for local and international participants alike.
The stand-off, which has been running since 2017, has now led to the Asian Pattern Committee stepping in to oversee aspects of Australian Pattern decision-making. Many in the industry regard that as an embarrassing development for a country with Australia’s standing in world racing.
But beyond all of that, the real issue is conduct and collaboration. How does Dr Cooke reconcile her statement that “constructive engagement and collective effort will always deliver better outcomes than internal disruption for self-interest” with what the industry has seen over the past 12 months?
It is difficult to square that statement with the handling of the Rosehill proposal. Had there been more genuine consultation and more careful engagement with stakeholders, the outcome may well have been different.
It is even harder to overlook the findings of the Upper House Privileges Committee, which said:
“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 reflects poorly on RNSW as an organisation.”
That is not the language of constructive engagement. It reflects a style of governance that has, at times, appeared defensive, combative and dismissive.
The treatment of owner Julia Ritchie at the Everest Barrier Draw function also attracted considerable attention. She was asked to leave because of an issue with the invitation. Whether or not that was technically justified, it was, at the very least, a poor look for the regulator, particularly given the Ritchie family’s long and generous contribution to New South Wales racing. Bill Ritchie’s name remains part of the state’s racing history, and his legacy has been continued by his family. For an industry built on long relationships and shared history, it was an unfortunate moment.
Julia Ritchie | Image courtesy of Australian Turf Club
Another example of the strain now running through the industry is the defamation proceeding brought by Racing NSW’s chief executive against The Thoroughbred Report, after it raised the question of whether 21 years is too long for an executive role at the regulator.
TTR is one of the leading racing and breeding publications in Australasia. It is widely read, internationally syndicated, and has built its reputation on asking difficult questions, including about welfare reform and industry governance.
It is fair to ask how that litigation sits with repeated calls for constructive engagement and collective effort. To many observers, proceedings of that kind risk creating the very sort of chilling effect discussed in the Privileges Committee report.
So when Dr Cooke refers to “minority agitators”, who exactly does she mean?
Arthur Mitchell | Image courtesy of The Image Is Everything
Does that include Arthur Mitchell, whose family has devoted decades to the industry and whose Yarraman Park operation is one of the most respected breeding businesses in the country?
Does it include people who have spent a lifetime building bloodstock and racing in New South Wales, and who now speak up because they care deeply about where the industry is heading?
Does that include Arthur Mitchell, whose family has devoted decades to the industry and whose Yarraman Park operation is one of the most respected breeding businesses in the country? - Henry Pumptre
These people are not fringe voices. They are participants with substantial commitment, long history and genuine standing. They have earned the right to be heard.
In its dealings with the ATC, constructive engagement and collective effort should have been the starting point. Instead, at the height of the spring carnival, Racing NSW moved to place the oldest club in Australia into administration.
Whatever concerns existed about the club’s governance or finances, the broader question remains: what good comes from a Supreme Court battle announced in the middle of one carnival and re-ignited at the start of the next?
From the outside, the answer appears to be very little. The constant conflict does nothing to build confidence in the administration of the sport, and it does little to inspire the public.
The Supreme Court’s decision last week might have offered an opportunity for hostilities to ease, at least for a time. Instead, Racing NSW promptly flagged an appeal, saying the ruling could affect its ability to support racing across the state. What the industry needed at that point was not another escalation, but some exchange of olive branches and a genuine commitment on both sides to a more constructive dialogue.
David Harris | Image courtesy of NSW Parliament
The absence of the Racing Minister (Mr David Harris) from these events is also striking. Perhaps the Government is waiting for the Hazzard review. If so, that may be politically understandable, but the lack of visible oversight over the past two years is still troubling. If Racing NSW is a statutory body ultimately answerable to Government, then the present level of distance is difficult to understand.
An ambiguous Act has allowed Racing NSW to operate with broad autonomy. A largely hands-off approach from Government has reinforced that position. The result has been a system in which many stakeholders see too little oversight, too little collaboration and too little consultation on matters of real consequence to the sport.
That is why the phrase “constructive engagement and collective effort” rings hollow for so many people in the industry. It is not that stakeholders are unwilling to engage. It is that too many believe they have not been heard.
Describing stakeholders as “minority agitators” is not constructive and is unlikely to restore confidence. So long as that mindset remains within Racing NSW, meaningful change will be difficult to achieve.
A copy of this opinion piece was provided to Racing NSW Chair Dr Saranne Cooke for comment on Wednesday; no response was received prior to deadline.
