|  |
 |
|
 |
|
Racing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill - Reply and Clause Debate |
![]() |
| Posted by editor (editor) on May 28 2010 |
| 2010 >> |
Hon. PJ LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading) (5.10 pm), in reply: I
would like to also commend my staff and the departmental people who have put such effort into this bill. I ask for some leniency here to mention Bill Lanahan, a legendary punter and racehorse owner in Queensland, known as the ‘Milkman’ because he used to be a milkman at one time. His son was a friend of mine who I went to boarding school with. Bill died recently and was buried on Tuesday. I would like to pass on my condolences, those of the Minister for Public Works and everyone here to his family.
Mr Schwarten: Great old bloke.
Mr LAWLOR: He was a great bloke. I expected to hear 15 speeches from opposition members
but, in fact, I have heard one speech 15 times. Fancy the LNP being against amalgamation! Here we have the Liberals and the Nationals espousing the virtues of combining two organisations but they are against this. All I can say is that it is very difficult to give away $80 million.
I will give members a bit of history and put things into perspective because some members of the
opposition were not here in 2002. I would just like everyone to understand the situation as it exists now and as it will remain after the bill is passed: the industry wanted to be independent of the government. The industry demanded independence. In 2000 to 2002 there were many deputations to the government wanting governance reform to ensure that the industry ran itself free from interference from ministers. The Racing Act 2002 specifies the minister’s powers of intervention in the industry. The act was unanimously passed by parliament—that is, everyone from the other side as well. The minister only has power to issue directions on limited grounds of probity and integrity. The government does not fund race clubs, allocate race meetings or set training fees. That is the business of race clubs and the control bodies. They must operate in a commercial world, notwithstanding that some of them, when they do not get the decisions that they want, demand that the minister intervene. That is something that the shadow
minister has been demanding. He is obviously not familiar with the act. In fact, if I did intervene I would be reported to the CMC, with justification.
Let us get to the bottom of some of the things that have been said. There was a lot of store put in
Bart Sinclair’s articles. As we know, Bart Sinclair is nothing but a spokesman for the QTC and now the BRC. His article in the Courier-Mail on 10 May this year is headed ‘NSW plan highlights the crisis in Queensland industry.’ Just consider this: Racing New South Wales’ strategic plan recognises that Queensland already has the most generous tax regime and urged New South Wales to adopt the same. The New South Wales plan calls for greater professionalism amongst clubs, noting that representative race club committees do not act for the overall betterment of racing, an issue addressed by Queensland many years ago with the establishment of the Queensland Thoroughbred Racing Board in 2002. The New South Wales plan also advises that the New South Wales control body will pursue the securing of freehold title for racecourses from the state government. That is something that was done in Queensland years ago when the government transferred freehold title worth $60 million to the racing industry. In the past decade alone the government has transferred freehold ownership of racecourses to the Ipswich Turf Club, Toowoomba, Dalby, Northern Downs, Lockyer Turf Club, Rockhampton, Mackay,
Townsville and Albion Park Raceway. The titles were all transferred to the industry. Yet we still have this furphy about the government wanting to get its hands on the land. What a load of rubbish!
Except for the equine influenza crisis a couple of years ago, Queensland’s wagering turnover has
increased every year since the privatisation of the TAB. Last year the turnover was a record
$1.617 billion. Let me tell members that the industry is not in a crisis. We hear the continual comments from Bart Sinclair but why is it only the media in Queensland that ever criticises the Queensland industry? For example, Craig Young in the Sydney Morning Herald on 23 March last year said that Bob Bentley is the man to lead racing to salvation. He is a New South Wales racing journalist. He went on to say that Bentley is willing to take on politicians, the doomsayers, vested interest groups and has a desire to make racing profitable. Bentley, he said, ‘found millions squandered under the old race club system and poured it into prize money.’ Young correctly recognises that self-interest is the only sure thing in racing. Perhaps those constantly criticising Bentley have some self-interest. On 10 July last year Max Presnell, a well-known and respected racing journalist in Sydney, quoting Robert Heathcote, one of the more prominent trainers in Queensland, said, ‘Bentley has been running the show for seven good years and it will only get better.’ Presnell also describes New South Wales racing as ‘languishing like a rudderless boat’.
On 15 December 2008 in the Sydney Morning Herald on the elevation of Bentley to the
position of chairman of the Australian Racing Board he said that it was the best news to come out of a week that promised to lead to massive and, in most instances, necessary change to the industry.
A government member: Hear, hear!
Mr LAWLOR: Hear, hear! That is right. Bob Bentley has no power and nor has Queensland
Racing. Even at the moment Queensland Racing consists of five members. Bob Bentley cannot sell any race club land without the approval of the race club itself, the control body itself and also without ministerial approval. The chairman of the BRC, Mr Dixon, is quoted in the Courier Mail on 11 May 2010 as accusing Mr Bentley of typical bullyboy tactics. How hypocritical can the BRC possibly get? They were the original bullyboys. Anyone involved in the Gold Coast Turf Club, as the shadow minister was, the Ipswich Turf Club or the Sunshine Coast Turf Club or even Toowoomba would know that. The BRC and its main predecessor, the QTC, opposed any progressive initiatives over many decades. How many years did it take for Doomben and Eagle Farm to get together, for instance? They opposed the granting of stand-alone race days for the Magic Millions. The Ipswich Turf Club and the Sunshine Coast Turf Club opposed it. At every turn they opposed it. The QTC and the BTC combined to form the BRC but nothing else changed. Their antiquated attitudes and policies are continually promoted by the pimps and
apologists that pass themselves off as journalists. They are not prepared to present any alternative argument to the BRC line, but why should we be surprised at this? It has been that way for decades.
They deal in baseless allegations, scaremongering and hysterical statements. Talk about hysterical statements. What about Bart Sinclair in the Sunday Mail on 18 April where he said government control bodies are able to assume ownership of race tracks? He goes on and says, ‘What next? Rural properties, homes, commercial land?’ Fair dinkum! What would a racing writer like Jim Anderson make of that? It is no wonder that today for racing stories one has to look in the lost and found section of the paper.
Mr Stevens: Not one of your best.
Mr LAWLOR: Listen to who is talking! He is going to come up with a policy for the next election.
Can you believe that?
Government members: No!
Mr LAWLOR: Rather than the untruths being peddled by Kevin Dixon, it is about time that the
facts about the land at Eagle Farm were put before the House. Eagle Farm was public land allocated to the QTC and it is accountable to the wider racing industry for how it deals with it. Eagle Farm Racecourse was established in 1863 when the QTC was granted 320 acres of crown land. It did not buy it; it was public land given to it. In 1875 the land was transferred to trustees appointed by the QTC. During a parliamentary debate in 1875, the then Attorney-General, Sir Samuel Griffith, made the following insightful observations—
The QTC has no more right to the land than any other turf club or society of gentlemen who might use it for racing purposes.
He went on—
The QTC were entitled to public praise for their exertions, but they could not be recognised in the House as anything more than a
private society.
All went reasonably well until 1992, when the then government modernised the legislation to
ensure independent trustees were appointed and not hand-picked by the QTC, as has been the case for 100 years. What happened? Not surprisingly, the QTC went berserk. How dare anyone insist on independence and accountability! Why such opposition? Because the QTC objected to having to deal with trustees it did not pick itself. Despite the name change to the Brisbane Race Club, it continues in the great tradition of opposition to anything that ensures accountability. In 1997 the Eagle Farm Racecourse Bill provided that freehold title of Eagle Farm be given to the QTC and it was debated at that time. The then minister for racing, Russell Cooper—an old National Party person—
Mr Stevens: A good bloke.
Mr LAWLOR: Yes, of course he is a good bloke. When he was speaking on the issue of Eagle
Farm land he said, ‘The State Government recognises the importance of protecting the interests of the wider racing industry and although the freehold will be transferred ... to the QTC’ it would not be able to sell it without the consent of the minister. I repeat, it would not be able to sell it without the consent of the minister. Of course, since then a further level has been put in there. Neither the QTC nor anyone else can sell Eagle Farm or any other club owned racecourse without the approval of the club, the approval of the control body and the approval of the minister.
The newly amalgamated control body will have the power to place conditions on the sale of BRC
land because it is an asset of the entire racing industry, as acknowledged by people such as Russell Cooper right back to Sir Samuel Griffith. The government is not going to allow assets to be sold or dealt with without some benefit accruing to the wider racing industry. Governments of all persuasions know that racing land is whole-of-industry land and has been whole-of-industry land since 1863.
I turn to directions to the control body. It does not matter how often I say this—I suppose they are
slow learners—the opposition has no understanding of how the racing industry operates in Australia. This is clear from the rubbish its members continue to peddle, like saying that as minister I should be issuing directions, intervening in this or that decision, sacking Bob Bentley, increasing prize money and so on. I had my department write to the Australian Racing Board in order to clarify the Australian Racing Board’s position should I do what the opposition wants. The Australian Racing Board sent back a letter,
which I table.
Tabled paper: Letter, dated 7 May 2010, to Mr Mike Kelly, Executive Director—Office of Racing from Andrew Harding, Chief
Executive—Australian Racing Board Limited, in relation to the scheme of the Australian Rules of Racing.
Mr Stevens: Who is the chairman? Bob Bentley!
Mr LAWLOR: It is the Australian Racing Board.
\Mr Stevens: Who is the chairman?
Mr LAWLOR: So what? That is recognition of Queensland racing if ever I—
Mr Schwarten interjected.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! Minister, shadow minister and Minister for Public
Works! Minister, please continue with your speech. Shadow minister, please keep your comments to
yourself.
Mr LAWLOR: In short, the opposition’s approach would jeopardise Queensland Racing’s
continued recognition as the principal racing authority and its membership of the Australian Racing Board. This is all new ground to the opposition so, for their benefit, I will explain what possible consequences would flow: loss of black type in group 1 races; Stradbroke, gone; Queensland Derby and Doomben Cup, gone; participation of Queensland licensees in other jurisdiction, gone; recognition of Queensland on the national and international racing stage, gone. That is what the opposition wants.
Overnight we would go from a first-world racing jurisdiction, recognised as one of the leading racing jurisdictions, to a pariah. That is what the opposition would deliver if, God help us, it ever ended up over here. However, I think we are pretty safe. Instead of playing politics, the opposition should be more concerned about the thousands of battlers who rely on racing for a living. The focus should be on safeguarding their employment and not on the vested interests of Saturday afternoon race club members and the property developers who have them in their pockets. Put simply, the opposition has no idea. If this was not so serious, it would be a joke.
I am aware that some country race clubs are having difficulty complying with the minimum
standards set by Queensland Racing. Workplace health and safety is a requirement placed on all
businesses, and not just race clubs. Some small clubs are concerned, but so are the families of people who have to work at some of those unsafe clubs and unsafe workplaces generally. Unfortunately, a few race clubs have gone that way. Queensland Racing has a legal responsibility to ensure that the facilities of all clubs meet minimum safety standards. I have spoken to Queensland Racing about this issue and it will assist. In fact, I table a letter from Queensland Racing that specifies, as the member for Mount Isa mentioned, that the new amalgamated control body will make available $300,000 per annum for three years, which is basically $1 million, to target small country clubs that have had limited financial resources available internally to address necessary workplace health and safety issues.
Tabled paper: Letter, dated 14 May 2010, to Hon. Peter Lawlor, Minister for Tourism and Fair Trading from RG Bentley, Chairman
of Queensland Racing, in relation to minimum standards for country race meetings.
This is not a bottomless pit of money but will provide some help for clubs that have done all they
can to help themselves and have no other option available. All this depends on the new legislation being passed. That is why I cannot understand the opposition being so against what basically will be a boost for country racing.
Mr Moorhead: Why do they hate country racing?
Mr LAWLOR: I do not know why they hate country racing. It is a mystery to me.
Mr Stevens: You should go out there, Sunshine, and see how popular you are.
Mr LAWLOR: I do go out there sometimes. The member ought to hear the stories I am told. It is
quite interesting. Not everyone is on his side. Fortunately, many of them are not. I will not say any more now about the QTC and the BRC. Maybe at the end I will tell the House some more horror stories about how they oppose anything mildly progressive and have done so for over about a century. There is something that was pointed out to me by the Deputy Speaker. I had noticed it as well but did not get a chance to mention it before he did. The shadow minister continually talks about ‘when’ they win government. There is no show of modesty. He does not talk about ‘if’; he talks about ‘when’. He takes the people of Queensland for granted.
Mr Schwarten interjected.
Mr LAWLOR: He is not even going to produce policy. They have no policies whatsoever. They
are saying ‘when we win the election’. They are talking in terms of ‘when’, not ‘if’. Firstly, the Magic Millions is not lost to Queensland.
Mr Stevens interjected.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Mermaid Beach, keep your comments to yourself, as
will everyone else.
Mr Wettenhall interjected.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Barron River, are you aware of standing order 244? Thank
you.
Mr LAWLOR: The Magic Millions is not lost to Queensland, as we know. It is a big industry—over
$1.6 billion in turnover and something like 27,000 employees. It is quite big. I doubt that it is the fifth biggest, as someone mentioned. But it is a big industry and it is an important industry.
The shadow minister wants it run by amateurs and part-time volunteers. He also called for a royal
commission—another one. We have already had two. The rumours that the opposition has repeated in parliament, defaming Bentley, Lindsay Gallagher and Wayne Wood, were shown to be baseless. It was a waste of $4 million of public money and millions of industry money. They were absolutely baseless.
We used to have the representative model. Every government in Australia has made changes to
ensure independence. This is also something the member for Toowoomba South referred to. Every government in Australia has made changes to ensure independence. Even the old QDC wanted the representative model abolished. Of course when they did not get their way they were not happy about that either. The LNP has promised, through the shadow minister, a return to the sixties and seventies. There was the contention that Labor ignores the industry. How ridiculous is that? We have given them $60 million worth of assets in the last decade alone. This bill will deliver another $80 million for capital development. We are guaranteeing funding for country racing. We are the only state that guarantees funding for country racing.
Mr Stevens: No, you’re not. I will deal with that in the clauses.
Mr LAWLOR: Have a look at it. Unbelievable. The industry wanted self-governance and they
have now got it. In relation to the issue of remuneration of directors, if this bill is passed, the proposed control body will submit a remuneration report, which will be done by an independent consultancy company, to the government. The director-general is responsible for assessing this report and deciding and approving. This is not a political decision; it is one for my director-general. I will not be making the decision.
In relation to adding assets to the government balance sheet, that is ridiculous. We have given
$60 million already. By the way, we gave $7.9 million worth of assets to Townsville in 2005 and from the phone calls that I have had they owe money all around town. Apparently they even owe the race caller money, so that is how good they are going. Now they want to sell it off, and people like the shadow minister are defending their right to sell off the land—the land that they were given only five years ago.
What sort of a start was that, to be given $8 million worth of public land and they still run the business into the ground? And the shadow minister is defending that. What a joke!
There has been issue made of the constitution which is quite pedantic. I do know things that are
going to be in the constitution because I have demanded that they be in there—that is, the protection—
Mr Stevens: So you’ve seen the constitution.
Mr LAWLOR: I have not seen a draft of the constitution.
Mr Stevens: How do you know it is in there?
Mr LAWLOR: Because I have spoken to the department and have said that I want this in there.
Mr Stevens: Just because you want it in there—
Mr LAWLOR: I have to approve it.
Mr Stevens: So you’ve seen it.
Mr LAWLOR: No, I have not. I have said I have not seen it.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! Minister and shadow minister, you will refer your
comments through the chair and you will desist from the cross-chamber conversation.
Mr LAWLOR: There will be protection for country racing associations in the constitution of this
company, otherwise it will not be approved. The member for Dalrymple—well there is not much to say there. He talked about the death knell of racing, as many others did. This is the only government in Australia to guarantee, as I said, base funding for country racing. In fact, as the member for Mount Isa pointed out, the present Queensland Racing is spending almost twice what it is obliged to spend. It is not like 1900 anymore. The racing industry is a big business and not a hobby or a charity. The member for Gaven gave the game right up. Talking about this bill, he said, ‘Such is life under Labor. We have to cop it as there is no alternative available.’ How well said. That is beautiful. That sums up the LNP by one of its own. In relation to giving assets—I am only repeating myself here about giving assets to the industry. In relation to the signing over of race clubs, both the Sunshine Coast and Rockhampton support the joint
management model, for instance. He mentioned cash reserves but perhaps he should also look at racing in New South Wales, which has about $40 million. Why? Because it is money from corporate bookmakers payable under the race field legislation which is now being challenged in court. It would be quite ridiculous if they did not make provision for the fact that they might have to pay that back. That is why there is so much money held by various control bodies. Noosa does not support it. That is interesting. Don Jackson thinks the arrangement of the Sunshine Coast Turf Club is good. I will table a letter from him which says that it is a great arrangement and it gives them the freedom to run the business as they see they should and promote racing in that area.
Tabled paper: Correspondence, dated 21 April 2010, to Members of the Sunshine Coast Turf Club Inc. from Don Jackson,
Chairman, in relation to the Sunshine Coast Racing Unit Trust and the purchase of freehold land at Corbould Park.
It is surprising to see the member for Noosa against this particular business model, certainly the
business model that exists at Caloundra. He referred to a business case. You do not need a business
case to put three control bodies into one. Of course it will generate savings.
Mr Stevens: Identify them.
Mr LAWLOR: I will. Firstly, there is one lot of directors. I will go into that in a minute, since you
have asked. There is one board and so on. I will go through the rest of these first because I have not got much time left. The member for Kawana thinks that the Caloundra turf club is fantastic, probably because it works cooperatively with Queensland Racing. As I said, that is verified by the letter from the chairman of the Sunshine Coast Turf Club. Even the member for Kawana thinks it is a good idea. The member for Warrego was the shadow spokesman for racing in 2002 when the act came into force.
An honourable member: He supported it.
Mr LAWLOR: No. As a matter of fact he did not support it because during the debate he left
parliament and it was left to Jeff Seeney, the member for Callide, to do his job. So he was actually not here when that 2002 bill was passed. At least the member for Gregory was constructive in what he had to say. I know that he has a genuine concern, as I know most people have, for country racing—and as I have. But he did refer to the rebirth of racing. I agree with him. I think racing has a great future following its rebirth. The member for Beaudesert was concerned with other gambling issues in his area, but he did refer to listening to a lot of hot air. I presume he was referring to the people who have just treated him so well. He did make a good suggestion. Notwithstanding the ranting and raving about the guillotine, he said 10 minutes should be ample time to speak on a debate. If you cannot say what you want to say in 10 minutes—
Mr Stevens: You have just taken 27.
Mr LAWLOR: Yes, because I have to respond to everyone. That is why. If you had cut it down a
bit, we might have all been home by this. The member for Clayfield went on again about washing hands. I have already been down that track. If I were to intervene in the manner that he suggests, I suggest that I would be reported to the CMC because it is not provided for in the act. Whether I like it or not and whether he likes it or not, that is the situation. He went through the amalgamation. He also referred to clause 430. He has it wrong. This is to protect the old directors. In other words, some will not be going on to the new control body.
This is to give them the protection they need in relation to the Corporations Act because we asked them to decide on the amalgamation. They are not on the new body, so it affords them some level of protection. In relation to country racing safeguards not being in the bill, the country racing associations and the Queensland Country Racing Committee are unique to the thoroughbred code. In an amalgamated control body structure, having thoroughbred specific bodies set up under the legislation is not appropriate. We have a combined control body and it must operate as such. Under its constitution, Racing Queensland Ltd will establish a country racing association and a country racing committee which will be advisory committees for non-TAB thoroughbred racing. The constitution will also provide that, should the company and the country racing committee be unable to reach agreement on the number of
days in which the country race meetings are to be held, the number of country race meetings for the year under consideration must not be fewer than the number of days on which the country race meetings were held in the previous season. They cannot be reduced.
Mr Stevens: Can they be increased?
Mr LAWLOR: Of course they can. They cannot be reduced; they can be increased by agreement. There is no change to the requirement to provide a minimum percentage of the net UNiTAB product fee as prize money for country racing or supporting racing industries. The amendments have been made to reflect that there is no longer a thoroughbred control committee. Accordingly, Racing Queensland Ltd must pay 5.32 per cent of its net UNiTAB product fee in supporting non-TAB thoroughbred racing. The figure of 5.32 per cent is the new control body’s net UNiTAB product fee. It is exactly the same amount as seven per cent of the current thoroughbred control body’s net UNiTAB product fee.
Division: Question put—That the bill be now read a second time.
AYES, 48—Attwood, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Dick, Farmer, Finn, Fraser, Grace, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Johnstone, Kiernan,
Kilburn, Lawlor, Lucas, Male, Miller, Moorhead, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, O’Brien, O’Neill, Palaszczuk, Pitt, Reeves, Roberts,
Robertson, Ryan, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Sullivan, van Litsenburg, Wallace, Watt, Wells,
Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Keech, Darling
NOES, 36—Bates, Bleijie, Crandon, Cripps, Cunningham, Davis, Dempsey, Douglas, Dowling, Elmes, Emerson, Flegg, Foley,
Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, McArdle, McLindon, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Powell, Pratt,
Rickuss, Robinson, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens, Stuckey. Tellers: Horan, Sorensen
Resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.
Consideration in Detail
Clauses 1 to 3, as read, agreed to.
Clause 4—
Mr STEVENS (5.48 pm): Clause 4 seeks to amend section 7, contained in chapter 2, ‘Control
bodies to manage codes of racing’, of the Racing Act 2002. I refer the minister to section 7(1) (a), which states—
(1) The main purposes of this chapter are—
(a) to establish a process by which an eligible corporation may be approved as the control body for a code of racing
with responsibility for managing the code, including the involvement of animals, clubs, participants and venues;
If the minister turns to section 45 in part 4, he will understand that this hiding under the rock—
Mr Lawlor: What page is this?
Mr STEVENS: Page 45, part 4, division 1, section 45.
Mr Lawlor: Section 45?
Mr STEVENS: Racing Act 2002, page 45, ‘Actions relating to control bodies and codes of racing’.
The minister has on numerous occasions stood in this House and said, ‘It’s nothing to do with me. The CMC will get called if I’m involved with this matter. I see nothing; I know nothing.’ In his rant the minister talked about Courier-Mail journalists and other journalists involved that have made poor comment on his keeping well and truly away from racing industry matters and saying that it is all over to the control body—in this case Queensland Racing but from tonight possibly Racing Queensland, if this legislation is passed. However, section 45 contains a division headed ‘Ministerial directions to control bodies’. It quite clearly states ‘Minister may give a direction to control body about its policies or rules’. It is very clear what the minister may do.
More importantly, section 45 states—
This section applies if the Minister believes that, for 1 or more of the following reasons, it is necessary to give a control body a direction under this section—
(a) to ensure public confidence in the integrity of the Queensland racing industry;
If the minister believes that in country and provincial areas there is public confidence in what
Queensland Racing has done or what Racing Queensland will do then he has not visited those areas. They are absolutely shattered by the proposals put forward and the reduction in their race meetings. Quite clearly, the minister’s assertion at every opportunity that he has nothing to do with racing is not correct. It is in the statutes. It states—
(b) to ensure the control body is managing its code of racing in the interests of the code;
Many in the code of thoroughbred racing would say that their interests have not been considered in this matter.
Quite clearly, when it comes to the minister writing to the Australian Racing Board he would say,
‘Dear chairman of the Australian Racing Board’—who happens to be Mr Bob Bentley; he would
probably say ‘Dear Bob’ as they are probably on a first name basis—‘Could you tell me what you feel about the Queensland Racing board,’ which, by the way, is run by chairman Bob Bentley? He would ask what the Australian Racing Board thinks about the way Mr Bentley is running racing in Queensland. The answer probably would be, ‘Yes, Minister, I do believe Queensland Racing, under Bob Bentley, is being run really well.’ It would be signed Bob Bentley, Australian Racing Board. The minister has put on the best comedy act I have ever seen. He is trying to justify this unjustifiable legislation which seeks to amalgamate these three separate codes into one code.
I will return to the main point I have in relation to clause 4. Clause 4 says to omit ‘each control
body’ and insert ‘the control body’. That will obviously be Racing Queensland. To assist the minister in his drafting of proper legislation, it says at section 7(1) (a) of the existing act, which is not amended at clause 4—
(1) The main purposes of this chapter are—
(a) to establish a process by which an eligible corporation may be approved as the control body for a code of racing ...
We are not approving a control body for a code; we are approving a control body for the codes of
racing—all three codes—which are recognised in this legislation as being separate identifiable codes of racing.
Mr LAWLOR: With regard to the point that the member has just made, this drafting is done by
parliamentary draftsmen. Plurals and singulars are dealt with under the Acts Interpretation Act. There is no point there. In relation to the other issue that the member raised, it is a simple point which I will repeat and which has been repeated ad nauseam by previous racing ministers and is based on legal advice. Any interference or instruction by a minister must be in relation to integrity, the welfare of animals, probity and so on. These are serious integrity issues—not race dates, how much car parks cost and so on. There are limited areas where a minister can intervene in the operations of a control body. That has been the way since the provisions of the 2002 act which the opposition supported.
Mr STEVENS: The minister is again walking away and hiding under a rock and saying, ‘It has
nothing to do with me.’ If the minister refers to section 45(b) he will find it says—
(b) to ensure the control body is managing its code of racing in the interests of the code;
Quite clearly, if the minister does not feel that it is in the interests of the code, that is not a
corruption matter, that is not a matter to go to the CMC; that is a matter of the minister doing what he is paid to do, and that is to ensure that the control body is managing its code of racing in the interests of the code. If the minister felt, for instance, that country racing was not receiving its fair share of funding or its fair share of dates or was being treated in some unfair and unjust manner, then it would be the minister who should raise the matter and give a direction to the control body. Quite simply, that is not a corruption matter. That is not a CMC matter. It is not a matter that can be taken off to court. It is quite clearly a case of the minister’s intuition when it comes to what is fair and just. It is what the minister believes is in the best interests of the code, whether it be dogs, thoroughbreds or trots. It would be something that the minister could do, would do, should do if he believed in the interests of the codes being protected.
Mr LAWLOR: I would certainly rely on the crown law advice that has been received by previous
ministers and not on the member’s advice. The member referred to race dates. As far as I know it has never been the situation that governments anywhere in Australia, and ministers particularly, have set race dates. How ridiculous would that be. That is exactly what the racing industry wanted. It wanted independence from the interference of ministers.
Mr Stevens: I said numbers, not race dates.
Mr LAWLOR: And that is what they have got. There is protection there anyway. There is
protection that the number of race dates for country racing will not be reduced.
Clause 4, as read, agreed to.
Interruption.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Hon. JC SPENCE (Sunnybank—ALP) (Leader of the House) (5.59 pm): I advise honourable
members that the House can continue to meet past 7.30 pm today. The House can break for dinner at 6.30 pm and resume its sitting at 7.30 pm. The order of business shall then be government business followed by a 30-minute adjournment debate.
RACING AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
Consideration in Detail
Resumed.
Clauses 5 to 10, as read, agreed to.
Clause 11—
Mr STEVENS (6.00 pm): I move amendment No. 1—
1 Clause 11 (Insertion of new s 60B)
Page 9, lines 28 to 30 and page 10, lines 1 to 5— omit.
I table the explanatory notes to the amendments.
Tabled paper: Racing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, explanatory notes for Mr Stevens’ amendments to be moved during
consideration in detail.
Clause 11 states—
Insertion of new s 60B
Chapter 2, part 4, division 4—
insert—
‘60B Payment of share of net UNiTAB product fee as prize money
This goes to the very core of what the minister has been espousing—that is, there is no detriment
to the prize money that will be paid to country and provincial racing and non-TAB Queensland
thoroughbred racing. The clause clearly states—
‘60B Payment of share of net UNiTAB product fee as prize money
‘(1) A control body must pay 5.32% of its net UNiTAB product fee for a year as prize money for non-TABQ
thoroughbred races conducted by non-TABQ thoroughbred clubs in the year.
Minister, as we both realise and as the member for Keppel mentioned earlier, that equates to the
current seven per cent under the existing formula. I have no problem with that conversion, and that is consistent with the commitment in the 2008 amendments to racing that enshrined the commitment to prize money in those non-TAB areas. Quite clearly, subsection 60B(2) states—
If, at the end of a year, a control body has not paid 5.32%—
which contradicts subsection (1)—
of its net UNiTAB product fee for the year as prize money as required under subsection (1), the control body must use the
remaining amount of the 5.32% for supporting non-TABQ thoroughbred racing.
This is a ridiculous subsection (2) which, in terms of the operational tactics of intimidation and threats by, currently, Queensland Racing to become Racing Queensland, will not be transferred as a direct result of the control body paying 5.32 per cent.
Subsection (1) correctly says ‘must pay’. Subsection (2) says, ‘Oh, you don’t have to pay. You
can, if you want to, put it into funding for upgrades of non-TABQ funding,’ which might be a running rail, it might be carrying out maintenance and it may well be kept back as prize money from clubs. If somebody on the board or the chairman of Racing Queensland does not particularly like a particular club’s acquiescence of subjugation being forced on them, they can say, ‘There goes your prize money, country racing, for the year. We’re going to put it into X club which is a big supporter of Racing Queensland. We’ll put it into the capital improvements of X club so that we have then completed our commitment to the prize money allocation by putting it into a running rail, maintenance of a track, a new toilet block,’ or whatever their favoured X club would want. It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest ‘must pay 5.32 per cent’ and then say that, yes, it is a natural transformation of the seven per cent that must be paid now across to the 5.3 per cent. It just does not make any logical sense and will be used by an unfriendly or unhelpful control body to threaten and get its own way with clubs that do not agree with its direction.
Mr JOHNSON: This is a very valid point that the shadow minister is raising. In the old legislation
we were talking about seven per cent and in this legislation we are talking about 5.32 per cent. The fact is that these non-TAB clubs are certainly going to be the losers in this unless there is somebody who will really oversee the process. The bill itself says—
Example of use of remaining amount of the 5.32% for supporting non-TABQ thoroughbred racing—
carrying out maintenance at a non-TABQ thoroughbred club’.
This is of real concern to me. As I see it, there is going to be less money with the 5.32 per cent,
and I refer to the country clubs here. I am not talking about the big metropolitan clubs. I do not have a problem with the upgrade of facilities anywhere. I am also not talking about the really small clubs either, because I think they might be struggling under this legislation, and I refer to clubs like McKinlay and those types of clubs that only race once a year.
Mr Schwarten: Not anymore. McKinlay couldn’t get it off the ground.
Mr JOHNSON: I take the interjection from the Minister for Public Works; that is their bad
management. The point I make is that these country clubs that have to find that sort of money will not be able to. I can see what is going to happen as a result of this—that is, there will be regionalisation of country racing. What I mean by that is that the larger centres will be the centres of racing and the smaller clubs will go by the wayside, and that is an unfortunate situation. I ask the minister to pay credence to what the shadow minister said, especially his amendment. I think it is one that is sacred to the survival of country racing and we should be very concerned that we get this mix right now. This is the opportunity to get it right before it is set in granite.
Mr LAWLOR: It is simple. This is not change. This is the same provision that was in the act in
2005, and it is put in there for a very good reason. Since then, for instance, with equine influenza there was a year when the seven per cent—I will get on to the other issue in a minute—simply could not be paid. What is the member saying? That we have another outbreak of—God help us—equine influenza where there is no money paid? What is the member saying should happen to the money? That is what that is put there for, and that is what it was used for. This has been there since 2005, so the member is worrying about something that is never going to happen.
Mr Schwarten: They opposed it then.
Mr LAWLOR: And they opposed it then, I might add too; that is also correct. Getting back to the
issue that the member for Gregory raised, the seven per cent that is in the legislation now is seven per cent of the thoroughbred turnover with UNiTAB. It is a simple mathematical calculation. Of the total turnover—that is, thoroughbred, harness racing and greyhounds—the 5.32 per cent is the same as seven per cent. So that remains the same.
The total dollars as of right now remain the same and it will remain the same just as if it were
seven per cent of the thoroughbred turnover; 5.32 per cent of the total turnover is the same. The other thing about it, which I have mentioned before, is that at the moment country racing gets 13 per cent of the thoroughbred turnover. So for everyone who thinks that Bob Bentley is the boogieman, I point out that he is spending almost twice as much. It does not get back to Bentley all the time, anyway. There are five people on that board at the moment. There will be seven. But is anyone going to suggest that Bob Bentley is going to tell Bill Ludwig what to do? Fair dinkum. The mind boggles. It is the same provision that has been there since 2005. It is there for a good reason. That is all I can say.
Mr STEVENS: The wording certainly still concerns me. The clause states that the control body
must pay that 5.32 per cent into prize money. Surely, if we have an outbreak of equine influenza, as the minister says—and we dread the fact that equine influenza may come back to us—then that prize money should still be kept as the allocation for the owners of horses and the operators in the industry who put their sweat into the racing—
An opposition member interjected.
Mr STEVENS: Correct. If the racing shuts down for some reason, then it is only appropriate that
those moneys carry over for the next season. I have no problems with the mathematical change of the seven per cent to the 5.32 per cent but, quite clearly, non-TAB meetings are an important part of the fabric of these remote and isolated communities. They are a major part of the tapestry of the social environment. It is not just all about the success of UNiTAB. I understand more than most the success of UNiTAB. I can assure members that over the years I have contributed a fair bit to it. I understand completely that wagering funds racing. But that does not mean that, because we have one focus in our racing industry, we abandon all of those smaller areas that use it as a cottage industry for entertainment—
An opposition member interjected.
Mr STEVENS: Exactly, and a business and all of those people who are employed in these areas.
It is just as important for them to have their meetings in these areas as it is for the major cities and the major areas to have their UNiTAB race meetings. We would hate to see the situation where there is a reduction in the number of clubs because they do not get this 5.32 per cent funding. My amendment is to delete part 2, which ensures that that prize money stays as prize money. If the prize money is not distributed in one year for any particular reason, that money will be in the prize money bag for the following year so that those people in those areas will have more funds to expend in the following years. The same thing occurs in the country if you have a drought. If you have a bad year then you can look forward to rain and a good season the following year. So that is why my amendment is to remove part 2. It also takes out any possibility that that money will be taken away as prize money and put into those clubs that are favourable to the racing control body for an upgrade of facilities. That is my main concern about part 2 of this clause. I believe that this amendment is valid and that the minister should not object to the removal of that part of the clause. He should support prize money for country
racing. I look forward to the deletion of part 2 from clause 11.
Mr JOHNSON: The shadow minister has made a very valid point. I will be a devil’s advocate in
the case of something unforeseen happening. Unfortunately, a couple of years ago we had that awful equine influenza, which shut down our racing industry and every other equine industry in this state. I hear the hum around the House tonight that there is a detection of Hendra virus again somewhere in our state. These events are certainly going to cripple the racing industry or any other horse industry without a moment’s notice if we do not have the protocols right. We have to get our biosecurity put in place. As the shadow minister said, with that type of scenario, we are not going to have the TAB funding.
Certainly, the money is not going to be forthcoming from there. As I see it, country racing is going to be the ultimate loser in this scenario. We saw the panic a couple of years ago because of the equine influenza. I remember that at the time of that outbreak the Bedourie race club was on the eve its race meeting. That club is located 1,000 kilometres from anywhere. But because of the criteria that was set in place by the Australian thoroughbred industry and the Queensland industry, we all adhered to the rules and the regulations. Who paid the supreme price? It was country racing. There was no need to suspend that race meeting at Bedourie and the same could apply to a lot of other areas. In that situation, the small country clubs are the ultimate losers. That is why I appeal to the minister to look at this amendment that was moved by the shadow minister because I think it is a protection for those clubs.
Mr LAWLOR: This clause is designed to protect small country racing clubs. It gives them the
protection because, in the event that we have just discussed, it prescribes the following—
The control body must use the remaining amount of the 5.32% for supporting non-TABQ thoroughbred racing.
What happens if a club comes along and says, ‘Sorry, we don’t want the prize money; we want it
spent on infrastructure,’ or, ‘We want it spent on something else.’ That is a possibility.
Mr Stevens: We don’t want that. We want the prize money.
Mr LAWLOR: I know the member does not want it but the club might. That gives them that
flexibility if they want the money spent on something else. This provision has been in legislation since 2005.
Mr Stevens: But it is using prize money for capital works.
Mr LAWLOR: This gives the clubs the protection that they want. It provides for unforeseen events like equine influenza and it allows the funds to be spent in a manner in which the club might prefer. We will not be supporting the amendment.
Mrs CUNNINGHAM: Could I seek a clarification? Does the provision also allow for the control
Last changed: May 28 2010 at 2:46 PM
Back
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
