RACING INDUSTRY

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. T. J. Stephens:

1. That a select committee of the Legislative Council be appointed to inquire into and report upon—

(a) the sale of Cheltenham Park Racecourse;

(b) the rezoning of Cheltenham Park Racecourse;

(c) the relationship of decisions made in connection with the sale of Cheltenham Park Racecourse with proposals for the redevelopment of Victoria Park;

(d) matters of corporate governance within the South Australian Jockey Club up to and including March 2009;

(e) the role of Thoroughbred Racing SA in relation to the above matters; and

(f) any other relevant matter.

2. That standing order 389 be so far suspended as to enable the chairperson of the committee to have a deliberative vote only.

3. That this council permits the select committee to authorise the disclosure or publications, as it sees fit, of any evidence or documents presented to the committee prior to such evidence being presented to the council.

4. That standing order 396 be suspended to enable strangers to be admitted when the select committee is examining witnesses unless the committee otherwise resolves, but they shall be excluded when the committee is deliberating.

(Continued from 25 March 2009. Page 1732.)

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (17:09): I will not talk for a great deal of time about supporting this select committee, but I give notice on behalf of Family First that we very much support this select committee investigating the racing industry, and I will have more to say in due course. Therefore, I will not retrace what the Hon. Terry Stephens and others have said about this matter in the council.

In our opinion, it is important to scrutinise any claims of corruption in any area, including in racing. To put this in perspective, just across the border last August an independent review found that criminal activity within the Victorian racing industry was rampant and 60 recommendations for reform of the industry were sought, including the appointment of a racing integrity commissioner. So, it is important to understand that we already have the situation just across the state border where problems have occurred with the racing industry.

I have sat around numerous cabinet and party room tables that have received representations over the years from the racing industry. It was always coming up with a proposition to the government of the day, hoping for support from the parliament and lobbying parliament and government for more taxpayer money and then reassuring the community, the government and the parliament that, if it received this package, everything would be fine for the racing industry and that it would not need the additional ongoing support of taxpayers through government.

Of course, at the same time, over the many years that this was occurring—even in my first years in the parliament back in 1993, 1994 and probably 1995—it was always put to me by those colleagues who were very much pro the racing industry that it was the third largest industry in the state and it therefore needed all this support because of the jobs and everything else that it created. Today it is not anywhere near that level, which is unfortunate, but it is still the situation that a lot of taxpayers' money goes in but there are major problems with the industry.

I want to touch on the sale of the Cheltenham racecourse. I believe it is very important that this select committee, independent of the racing industry, government and any other individual organisation or representation, an absolutely independent select committee of the parliament of the people of this state, is supported to do its work.

I, for one, was very concerned about the sale of Cheltenham and the issues regarding the work leading up to the proposed sale agreement. I was concerned that there seemed to be such a rapid push to do this work between government, the South Australian Jockey Club and others with respect to the sale of Cheltenham at a time when very strong representations were being put forward by the Cheltenham Park Residents Association, which I see as a professional, genuine, bona fide group of local citizens, desperately trying to ensure that open space, stormwater harvesting and proper recreational opportunities were implemented with respect to that land if, indeed, it was to be something other than a racetrack facility. In fact, one only has to look back through the history to see that it was never intended for there to be housing development on that land. I also became concerned about the behaviour of litigants towards the association in relation to the racecourse sale and rezoning, which is of great concern.

A lingering issue with respect to the Lipman Karas report involves the draft report. This is one of the many really important reasons why, in our opinion, this select committee needs to be approved by the Legislative Council. It is alleged in the draft report but not in the final report that there were issues relating to many of the matters around the sale of the Cheltenham racecourse. That part was removed, and I think it is very important to find out why it was removed and who initiated its removal. These are questions that the community would want answered.

There are also membership stacking allegations, including people being invited to join through Facebook, and other coercion, and those allegedly involved in those matters. I understand that the Norwood Community Club has some involvement in those matters. Family First was involved in a battle at West Richmond for some of our constituents there against a new pokies venue that was to be a joint venture between the SAJC and the Norwood Community Club. I would be interested in asking questions about the SAJC's relationship with the club, as I understand some of the rise in membership is being blamed on some sort of alliance with this particular club. Interestingly, when you initially looked at the application for this super pokie machine venue, it appeared that it was for the Norwood Community Club, but when you actually delved into it a joint applicant was the South Australian Jockey Club.

Concerns were raised last Thursday about whether or not Thoroughbred Racing SA (TRSA) acted upon matters put to it some time ago, involving the handling of payments to lobbyists and increases in fees for those on Thoroughbred Racing boards. I advise my colleagues, in case they have not had a chance to look on their desks this afternoon, that I have an amendment to allow the select committee to consider governance issues within Thoroughbred Racing and not just in relation to its actions concerning the SAJC. Racing is a subject of considerable wagering and on-course and off-course betting, and this Easter weekend we will see the Oakbank Racing Carnival, which is always a good family event, where the sort of successful management of a racing carnival that one likes to see will be in evidence.

To make a couple of other brief points, we saw rushed legislation on racing last November, involving the Authorised Betting Operations Act. That was specifically directed at integrity agreements, another oversight for the racing industry. That bill, interestingly enough, turned out to be flawed and the government has had to come back to us this week with a new urgent bill. We have to ask whether this was sloppy work by the minister. A situation came about with national headlines, where the racing minister made an announcement that SA Police would investigate the SAJC, and appeared on television indicating concern about the matter—yet the same minister is the Minister for Police. We note that there are fresh board elections on 13 May, but at this point there is no guarantee that the problems encountered will be resolved. A new board is no protection against conduct of the past being repeated.

I will finish with a couple of media quotes. All sections of the media—whether it be print, radio or television—have expressed enormous concern on behalf of the community about the events around allegations involving the SAJC and Thoroughbred Racing to the point where I cannot remember more media focus on an issue in recent years than there has been on this issue. Clearly the media believe there needs to be an independent inquiry on this matter. I will quote a few transcript pieces that are important to consider in support of this committee. A transcript from ABC 891 states:

This program can confirm to our listeners that concerns regarding Mr Ploubidis' travel arrangements were put to Mr Bentley more than a year ago, but our source tells us that it appeared nothing was done following a meeting to discuss these issues. We also understand that these concerns were never brought to the notice of Thoroughbred Racing's governing board, even though it is alleged that Mr Ploubidis put to Mr Bentley, the Chair of Thoroughbred Racing, issues regarding travel arrangements. These concerns were, however, raised again with the Lipman inquiry into the jockey club. That inquiry resulted in Mr Ploubidis being sacked. Mr Ploubidis has denied doing anything wrong, and is suing the jockey club, TRSA and Mr Bentley for unfair dismissal.

The transcript continues:

This program has also been told that one of the first things Mr Bentley did on being appointed Chairman of Thoroughbred Racing was to take steps to increase the Chairman's fees from $25,000 to $50,000. Regarding payment to lobbyists last week, we revealed that former Labor MP, Nick Bolkus, this year has been paid more than $130,000 by the jockey club for his work regarding the sale of Cheltenham Racecourse. We're now aware that Mr Bolkus has been paid about $35,000 by Thoroughbred Racing for his work in lobbying the state government for taxation relief. That payment, we understand, was disputed by a previous TRSA board, but it was approved by the current Thoroughbred Racing board.

It then concludes:

While our source does not want to be identified, we understand the source is prepared to give evidence to the forthcoming parliamentary inquiry into racing.

The ABC 891 program is prepared to come out with those serious matters on public radio, and that source is indicating they are concerned and want to give evidence. They say that the only way to do that is through a parliamentary select committee inquiry into racing.

I want to put another couple of points on the public record to strengthen our support for this, and I will refer to several more quotes, as follows:

We haven't been given the opportunity to interview Mr Bentley. Instead we've been sent a statement and we'll read that to you, it's about a page, because it's important that you hear what Mr Bentley has to say on these matters. It says—'The following is prepared for ABC Morning Program in response to claims made on air this morning. In response to claims that TRSA chairman, Philip Bentley, did not act on information regarding travel reimbursement for Jockey Club CEO, Steve Ploubidis, Mr Bentley was made aware of the information around March 2008 by the then TRSA Chief Executive Officer and CFO, but was led to understand that the Jockey Club had taken the appropriate action with regard to this information. As such, Mr Bentley did not feel it appropriate to inform the Thoroughbred Racing Authority's board. The CEO chose not to inform the board either.'

I quote again from one of the presenters, who says:

The release goes on—'In response to claims that one of Philip Bentley's first acts as TRSA chairman was to increase the chairman's fee…

Again, they are confirming that the chairman moved allegedly to double their fee. The response from the chairman was:

This is untrue and really raises views about the motives of the person making that claim. A committee comprising a representative of the South Australian Racing Club's council, a representative of the Jockey Club, and an independent representative made a decision to increase the remuneration fees for the seven directors to $200,000 per annum. Mr Bentley was consulted over the composition of the amounts for the chair, deputy chair and directors. He recommended an adjustment to their scale, which involved lowering the proposed chairman's fees and increasing the deputy's fee. The chairman is remunerated at $43,000 per annum.' Again we don't have an opportunity to interview Mr Bentley on this, but it's my understanding that is still an increase of close to $20,000. The statement goes on—'In response to claims that a former TRSA board refused to pay an invoice to Nick Bolkus and that this was subsequently paid by the current TRSA board. The TRSA board inherited a contract between the company and Mr Bolkus from the previous board and as such was legally obliged to honour this contract.

It goes on and on. I just highlight those points and put them on the public record because of everything else that has already been said in the media and the general concern out there. I do not know what other members have been hearing when they are out and about throughout South Australia, but I have had quite a lot of representation from constituents in rural regions who have rung and said, 'We strongly support the concept of a select committee into the racing industry. We have concerns and we believe it is time there was a thorough independent investigation into this.' They have lobbied me as a member of the Legislative Council to support the committee. When you go to other functions or you are just out generally, people talk to you about what really is happening with the racing industry.

Frankly, it is not healthy for the future of the racing industry to have this cloud over it, and there is an opportunity now for a select committee to be formed to investigate this and come up with recommendations that I hope will see a racing industry that all South Australians can be proud of and that will be able to grow in the best interests of the industry without the innuendo, allegations and all the other references that are certainly very damaging to all those bona fide people involved in the racing industry. I move:

To amend subparagraph (f) of the motion, as follows:

Insert after the words 'any other relevant matter' the words 'and matters of corporate governance within Thoroughbred Racing SA up to and including March 2009'.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (17:25): I move:

To amend paragraph 2. of the motion, as follows:

Insert before the words 'That standing order 389' the words 'That the committee consist of six members and that the quorum of members necessary to be present at all meetings of the committee be fixed at four members and'.

I support the motion in its amended form.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:26): If the allegations of membership rigging and other improper conduct only related to a local pony club, then it might be appropriate just to let the organisation deal with it itself. However, it seems that the allegations in relation to the SAJC have far more significance for the people of South Australia than if it were a small private concern. The terms of reference for this inquiry highlight a couple of those: Cheltenham and Victoria Park.

We are yet to see the full extent of the allegations—the Lipman Karas report has not been made public—but, if it turns out that there was invalidity in the processes of the jockey club and members were allowed to vote who were not entitled to, then decisions may have been invalidated as a result. It seems to me that there are those two important issues, one of which was saved and one of which is at more risk, that we can revisit.

Regarding Victoria Park, fortunately, the proposal for the multi-purpose facility or the big grandstand did not amount to anything, but when it comes to the sale of Cheltenham, its rezoning and its subdivision for housing, then clearly we need to make sure that we get to the bottom of it. I think that we owe it to, in particular, the people of Cheltenham and the western suburbs to have a look at the decision-making process to see whether their loss of open space was, in fact, a valid decision.

However, we owe this to more than just the people of the western suburbs. We owe it to all of the people in Adelaide to investigate whether or not the decision to sell and subdivide for housing could be reversed and we could revisit the question of using Cheltenham as a water resource area, in particular, for stormwater capture, cleansing, aquifer recharge and then recovery later on. It is the last remaining area in the western suburbs of sufficient size for that type of project to go ahead.

I think this inquiry is timely. The issues of Cheltenham and its rezoning would suffice as stand-alone issues and are deserving of inquiry in their own right but when you combine it with the fact that the decision-making bodies have all these question marks hanging over them, allegations of illegality, then I think it makes it even more important a genuinely independent inquiry to be undertaken, and I cannot think of a better body to do it than a select committee of the Legislative Council.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.