Cover image courtesy of The Image Is Everything
After two extensions to his contract, Brad Hazzard submitted his independent review into the NSW Thoroughbred Racing Act 1996 in July. It has not yet been released publicly, and is now the subject of a Standing Order 52 order seeking its production.
The Review arrives after a bruising stretch for NSW racing. Arguments about power, consultation and oversight have moved from private conversations, to race clubs and participant groups, and into parliament.
Hazzard was not asked to pull Racing NSW apart. Its status as a body corporate independent of government sits outside the review, as do the Act’s key funding arrangements. But governance was considered, and so also strategic planning, consultation, animal welfare, leadership tenure, integrity and public reporting.
NSW already has some of that machinery written into the Act. Racing NSW must prepare business plans, consult with the Racing Industry Consultation Group (RICG) and other industry groups, and prepare a strategic plan for the horse racing industry every three years. Its annual report must include a progress report on implementation.
Brad Hazzard | Image courtesy of ACA NSW
So this is not a question of whether the Act asks Racing NSW to plan, but what the industry gets to see once the plan is written.
The Victoria and Queensland models gave Hazzard two useful comparisons.
Victoria runs racing through an independent company, with consultation built through its constitution, regular forums and separate integrity bodies. Queensland, like NSW, has a statutory control body, but its planning and reporting obligations are written more tightly into legislation.
NSW sits between them, with statutory independence, statutory consultation and a live argument over how much of either is visible from the outside.
Legal obligations
Contrary to regulations in other states, the Racing Act 1958 places no obligation on Racing Victoria, which is an independent company, to provide a publicly available strategic business plan. The organisation publishes a one-page organisational strategy on its website, with more detailed plans circulating within the organisation and between industry groups.
“The whole model we have here is one based around transparency with our stakeholders, and I say that very genuinely,” said Racing Victoria CEO Aaron Morrison.
“The whole model we have here is one based around transparency with our stakeholders, and I say that very genuinely.” - Aaron Morrison
“We exist for the benefit of racing in Victoria, and racing in Victoria is about all the people who have everything invested into what they do. It’s more than a hobby to them. They pour their blood, sweat, and tears into this industry.”
Aaron Morrison | Image courtesy of Racing Victoria
Queensland is more tightly written into legislation.
Racing Queensland is governed by the Racing Act 2002, which established the Racing Queensland Board as the governing body of all three racing codes in the state.
Like Racing NSW, it is a statutory body. The Queensland Act requires draft strategic and operational plans to be prepared each year and provided to the Racing Minister before March 31. The Minister and control body must try to agree on those plans before the financial year begins. Once agreed, Racing Queensland must comply with them and quarterly reports are also made to the Minister.
Communication is key
Racing Victoria connects with its industry through a number of channels, including a twice-annual meeting of a member consultative committee and several racing forums throughout the year.
“We are very participant-focused, and so we do a lot of consultation,” explained Morrison.
“One element of that is the member consultative committee, who we formally meet with twice annually. There are four club members and 10 industry body members in the committee. The 10 industry body members include representatives from the Jockeys Association, the Trainers Association, Thoroughbred Breeders Victoria, bookmakers, and unions. There is a representative for every major group. They are all voting members of Racing Victoria under our constitution.”
“One element of that is the member consultative committee, who we formally meet with twice annually... There is a representative for every major group. They are all voting members of Racing Victoria under our constitution.” - Aaron Morrison
Morrison said the meetings include updates on Racing Victoria’s finances, wagering performance and strategic focus areas, with monthly meetings held on top of that with each representative.
NSW has its own formal consultation body in RICG, which consults with and makes recommendations to Racing NSW on matters concerning horse racing in the state. While the Act says it must meet at least 12 times each year, the frequency had been altered to quarterly as agreed between RICG and Racing NSW.
Face to face
A point of difference Racing Victoria has over other racing jurisdictions is the ownership of its own media company, Racing.com.
“We also differ from the other principal racing authorities in that we own our own media business and that is a significant part of what we are and how we communicate,” Morrison said. “Racing.com is at the heart of our media business, and I regularly utilise those assets to communicate, not just with our stakeholders in terms of the participants, but to the general public as well.”
Victorian participants described regular access to Morrison and Racing Victoria.
“The communication between Racing Victoria and the ATA is probably the best it has ever been,” said Troy Corstens, head of the Victorian branch of the Australian Trainers Association.
“The communication between Racing Victoria and the ATA is probably the best it has ever been.” - Troy Corstens
Troy Corstens | Image courtesy of Racing Photos
“Stephen Bell, our CEO, meets with them at least twice a week, and just recently they walked us through the new owner digital ticketing system that is about to be implemented. I speak to Aaron at a minimum once a week.”
Racing Queensland also meets with participants throughout the year and conducts targeted engagement sessions when required. It works across all three codes, each of which has a dedicated representative on the board.
Transparency at the core
Where Racing Victoria publishes a more detailed plan is for their equine welfare program, and Morrison said that transparency in this area is particularly important, given how the majority of the programs are funded.
“Owners, trainers and jockeys invest in our equine welfare programs and initiatives through their 2% contribution from prize money, so it’s important that we’re transparent with them about how it is being invested,” he said.
“Owners, trainers and jockeys invest in our equine welfare programs and initiatives through their 2% contribution from prize money, so it’s important that we’re transparent with them about how it is being invested.” - Aaron Morrison
In addition to a multi-page plan published on the organisation’s website, Racing Victoria releases updates to welfare spending and progress towards goals every six months on their platform, which break down where provisions from the equine welfare fund have been spent. The welfare plan is also a factor in the annual integrity report to the Victorian Racing Integrity Board.
“Our focus is also on stimulating demand for second careers after racing, but equine welfare requires a whole industry effort,” Morrison said. “It is important to share that with participants, so that they understand that they have a responsibility as much as we do. We want to share what we are doing, and how grateful we are for what participants are doing as well.”
Queensland’s welfare programs cater for all three codes, and its Queensland Off The Track program is intended to set up horses leaving racing with the foundations to easily find and retain homes. Welfare sits inside its strategic plan, although there is no separate welfare plan in the same style as Victoria.
In NSW, animal welfare and integrity reporting are named in the Hazzard review’s terms of reference.
What will Hazzard recommend?
Victoria and Queensland do not give NSW a ready-made answer.
Victoria’s model is light in legislation, but heavy in contact with open, transparent stakeholder engagement. Queensland puts the planning cycle closer to government, with annual plans, quarterly reporting and a separate integrity commission.
NSW already has plans, reports and consultation written into its Act, but the question is how they are used. That is the space Hazzard has been asked to examine: not the existence of Racing NSW’s independence, but how much daylight the Act puts around it.
