HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-04-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

RACING INDUSTRY

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola:

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 re-zoning 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 publication, 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.

which the Hon. R. L. Brokenshire has moved to amend after paragraph (e) by inserting new subparagraph (ea) as follows—

(ea) matters of corporate governance within Thoroughbred Racing SA up to and including March 2009;

and which the Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins has moved to amend in paragraph 2 by inserting 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' before 'That standing order 389'.

(Continued from 8 April 2009. Page 1934.)

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN (16:20): The government opposes this motion to establish a select committee into the SAJC and various matters, although it seems to have morphed into a select committee on Cheltenham so that the opposition could get the numbers.

There are two ways you can go about being in opposition in the Westminster system of government. One is to present yourself as the alternative government and to come up with policies that you would like to see implemented—responsible policies based on the best interests of the people you represent, financially responsible policies that will ensure the soundest budgetary position in the economic circumstances that prevail at the time. You can talk to people about those policies that will be the best for the state, and you put those to the people at the next election to try to get yourself elected as the administration.

The other way that you can run an opposition is simply the method that is being employed by honourable members opposite, which is to just try to cast your net as wide as possible in stirring up trouble whether or not there is any basis or anything to be gained by agitating certain issues in the hope that by causing embarrassment, a bit of a furore and a bit of media attention you can cast the government into disrepute.

That is the entire strategy. That is what this select committee is about. It has no raison d'être apart from the opposition saying, 'Let's go on a bit of a fishing expedition, see what we can find and hopefully embarrass the government and, if it doesn't really pan out and if the media don't pay much interest, well, we'll just stop turning up. We'll just forget about the committee because that is what we normally do.' That is the way in which members opposite are approaching this matter.

I note from the Notice Paper that in the parliament of South Australia there are 10 standing committees—four unpaid and six paid. The paid committees are established under the Parliamentary Committees Act and the act that establishes the Aboriginal Lands Standing Committee. I imagine that the administration of those committees costs some hundreds of thousand of dollars, if not millions of dollars, given that members are paid to serve on six of those committees; they have committee secretariats. The whole purpose of setting up the parliamentary committees system was to enable scrutiny of legislation and affairs of state and government administration.

What we have in this council is a determination to try to create some sort of media sensationalism by setting up a plethora of select committees. If this motion is successful, we will have 11 select committees of this council. Of course, that does not include some of those which have already wrapped up and reported since this parliament was convened after the last election.

Let us have a quick look at the select committees currently on the Notice Paper. There is the select committee on the collection of property taxes, which has been going since before 2006—so that is at least three years. There is the Select Committee on Unlawful Practices Raised in the Auditor-General's Report—which the opposition would like to refer to as 'stashed cash'. I do not know whether members opposite are trying to get into Erskine May as the longest running select committee ever, but that has been going for about six years and they cannot get anyone interested in meeting. They want to call witnesses who are not interested in being there.

The Select Committee on the Atkinson/Ashbourne/Clarke Affair is still on the Notice Paper; and we all know about the farce with that. It was not until the government took the initiative on that issue that the opposition suddenly found it had a report that it had to quickly draft in order to pretend that it had a position on it. There is the Select Committee on Families SA. From memory, is that the one which members changed almost instantly after the committee was appointed because, assumedly, some members realised that all the hearings were going to be in camera? They were not going to be media events, so membership of the committee quickly changed.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I have a point of order, Mr President. The comments made by the Hon. Bernie Finnigan about why the committee on Families SA changed are simply not accurate. I would like him to withdraw that.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Finnigan is entitled to his opinion.

The Hon. A. Bressington: To tell lies!

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Finnigan is entitled to his opinion on the issue.

The Hon. A. Bressington: Then he should say 'in his opinion'; not that it is actual fact.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I can see on the Notice Paper that the Hon. Ms Bressington has an opportunity to speak after the Hon. Mr Finnigan.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I did say that I assumed that to be the case. If the Hon. Ms Bressington says that I assumed wrongly, then she is free to correct the record.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: There is the Select Committee on SA Water. I am not quite sure what has happened with that one, but it has been around for a while. There is the Select Committee on Staffing, Resourcing and Efficiency of South Australia Police. I think it took six months for the committee to have its first meeting. Then we have the select committee on PIRSA about the mud cockles and pipis. There is the Select Committee on Taxpayer Funded Government Advertising Campaigns—I am not sure whether that has yet met—and the Select Committee on the Taxi Industry in South Australia has met once.

We should not forget the select committees that have wound up. The select committee into Glenside started off as one of the great injustices facing the state; we were going to abandon the mentally ill. Once members opposite realised that it was not going anywhere, it quickly ground to a halt. We had the select committee into the Elizabeth Vale Primary School. Again, the big bad government was rolling the interests of a local community because of this poor principal who had been victimised and made a scapegoat by the terrible government. They were out there holding press conferences and rallying the troops but, suddenly, when they realised that the evidence showed that the school had a record of mismanagement, poor management, failing standards and financial irregularities, they ran for cover. We could not see them for dust.

One can confidently predict that in this case, once the first two or three meetings of this committee (if it gets up) have been held, the media will lose interest and then members opposite will lose interest—particularly if they realise things are emerging that will embarrass the Liberal Party—and I can just imagine members opposite running for cover like nothing on earth. That is what we will see with this committee.

Again, it is bringing this chamber into disrepute. Members are not even acting like a student representative council, whose members tend to operate with more integrity and more attention to the welfare of those they represent than some honourable members in this place.

We have seen that it has quickly become the Cheltenham select committee, because they want to ensure they have the support of certain members who are more interested in Cheltenham than the events surrounding the SAJC, so they expanded it in order to ensure they are accommodated. Every player wins a prize when it comes to select committees in this chamber.

The Minister for Police in another place made a ministerial statement on Tuesday 24 March, and he provided details of the actions taken by him in relation to SAJC matters. What is extraordinary about the speech by the Hon. Mr Stephens in relation to this motion is that he spent the majority of his time reading media transcripts. We are not surprised because the only place where they get any of their questions or ideas is either from The Advertiser or ABC Radio. They do not seem to have any possibility of coming up with ideas of their own. As well they might, given the events of the past 24 hours when the Leader of the Opposition in this state, along with a few other people in his party, has been humiliated beyond all reckoning by participating and indulging in and leading the charge on this extraordinary allegation about irregularities and all sorts of illegal activities.

It appears that there is no substantiation for those allegations—none whatsoever. The opposition is left entirely red-faced. It is little wonder that members opposite restrict themselves to reading out media transcripts. Coming in here and reading out what was said on 891 Radio and what has been written in The Advertiser is a much safer bet than relying on their own sources, particularly if those sources happen to come from the opposite side in their own party—which may well have been the case. It appears that twittering may not be the only skill that certain assistant staff to members have.

So, it was to be expected that the total flimsiness of the case advanced by the Hon. Mr Stephens was based entirely on speculation in the media. Back in 2005 the Liberals said that the sale of Cheltenham was a matter for the jockey club.

During the debate on the Adelaide Parklands Bill the Hon. Angus Redford, who I assume they have not disowned, even though that is the Liberal Party's way, said:

In relation to Cheltenham the position of the Opposition is that it is a matter for the jockey club and its members and not a matter for this parliament or the government to determine what should or should not happen in relation to Cheltenham.

Back then it was hands off: the Liberal Party did not want to know, as it was a matter for the SAJC, but now, when it wants to make sure that the Hon. Mr Parnell and others are worried about what is going on with Cheltenham and would prefer to see the entire site left as open space or a wetland, suddenly it is its No.1 priority. The question must be asked: why has it changed its position? It is clear that it is nothing more than a political stunt by the opposition.

The racing industry was corporatised by the former Liberal government in 2000. The effect of that corporatisation was to hand control of the racing industry to three independent racing corporations representing each of the three codes of racing. As a result of corporatisation by the then Liberal government, the state government no longer has control or influence in the industry's management, allowing the companies to manage their business.

We, of course, recall the spectacular failure of the privatisation of the South Australian TAB by the former Liberal government in 2001, when it managed to let go of one of the jewels in the crown of state assets to interstate interests for a pitiful return. The Hon. Mr Stephens claimed in his speech that the review by Lipman Karas in relation to the SAJC went back to membership-based decisions taken since 2004, including the sale of Cheltenham. This is not correct. Thoroughbred Racing SA has made very clear that the decision to engage Lipman Karas to undertake the review into the SAJC was not initiated as a result of any concerns or issues in respect of the sale of Cheltenham or the SAJC's decision to vacate Victoria Park.

On the afternoon of Thursday 5 March, the Minister for Police was provided with a copy of the Lipman Karas report by Thoroughbred Racing SA on the basis that he formally agree to a number of conditions, including that he keep the contents of the report confidential and that he acknowledge that Thoroughbred Racing SA maintains its claim of legal professional privilege in relation to the entire report. Following the reading of the report, the minister sought Crown Law advice as to whether the full report or parts of the report should be referred to South Australia Police for consideration in order to determine whether there were any matters that warranted further investigation.

Acting on advise, the Minister for Police immediately referred the report the following day to South Australia Police. Furthermore, on 4 March the Independent Gambling Authority was provided with a copy of the Lipman Karas report by Thoroughbred Racing SA. The authority has inquiry powers that enable it to require people to come before it, to take an oath or affirmation and to answer all questions put to them. If the authority perceived that any integrity issues were at stake, it has the necessary powers to fully investigate those concerns.

In a minute to the Minister for Police dated 19 March 2009, acting deputy commissioner Mr Graeme Barton said the following:

I advice that SAPOL is of the view that tabling in parliament of the Lipman Karas Report into the South Australian Jockey Club would potentially compromise current investigations being conducted by the joint task force, comprising SAPOL and the Office of Consumer and Business Affairs and any future prosecution proceedings. For these reasons it is recommended that the report not be tabled until the investigations are complete.

Given that the report is already with South Australia Police and the Independent Gambling Authority, the public interest in accountability of having appropriate bodies investigate or take action has been satisfied. The formation of the joint task force and the commencement of investigations is the most appropriate way of ensuring these allegations are fully and transparently investigated. Unlike the opposition, I have full confidence that SAPOL and the Office of Consumer and Business Affairs will carry out their investigations thoroughly and in a professional manner.

This government will not agree to the wasting of time in parliament by supporting another select committee. The matters raised in the Lipman Karas report are now the subject of police and Office of Consumer and Business Affairs investigations. The establishment of a select committee may prejudice those investigations and any proceedings that may flow from those investigations.

Avoiding comment on matters that are the subject of police investigations or matters that are before the courts is an important principle of our criminal justice system—a principle that largely has been respected by this parliament and one that is very practical in that it avoids these matters being tainted by inappropriate public comment. This select committee will serve no purpose and will simply create greater anxiety in the racing industry and may potentially compromise current investigations being conducted by the joint task force and any future prosecution proceedings.

For those reasons the government opposes this motion. We believe the appropriate investigations are in train and we do not want to jeopardise them by going down the track of having a select committee. The opposition is more interested in creating a sensation and trying to beat up as much whiff of scandal and impropriety as possible, rather than what is in the best interests of getting a just outcome and protecting the future of the racing industry in this state.

How extraordinary that the Hon. Mr Stephens, who I know is fond of racing and I imagine enjoys attending race meetings, should be involved in what is such a grave threat to the future of the racing industry in this state in potentially trying to turn these events into a political circus rather than letting the course of justice go through its usual process, in which we should all have confidence. The government opposes the motion.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (16:36): I also rise to speak on this issue of a parliamentary select committee into the SAJC. Although I am not as opposed to select committees as the Hon. Bernie Finnigan appears to be, I believe they serve a useful purpose for this parliament.

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan interjecting:

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Every one you read out you are opposed to, and that is about all we have had here. All that aside, parliament has select committees to get to serious issues that affect the general public where there is perceived to be misconduct or unfair decisions made by government departments or whatever.

I think they do have a place in this parliament; obviously, they do have a place, because we have them. However, I do not support this select committee inquiry into the SAJC, simply because I believe we are crossing a boundary. There are issues before the courts. In the Hon. Bernie Finnigan's contribution, we heard that it was stated by South Australia Police that having this select committee and having documents tabled might interfere with the judicial process.

I am not saying that there is not cause for concern, but I do believe that the police investigations and the judicial process should be allowed to go through their normal course and be completed. At that time, if there are still issues that we in this parliament have concerns about, by all means, I would support a select committee at that point in time. However, right now, I cannot in all good conscience say that I agree with the timing of this select committee. As I have indicated, I am not saying that I do not believe that there may be matters of concern, but there are police investigations and also court proceedings in train, and we need to be very careful. If we do not want the judiciary encroaching on our turf, I believe that we should not be encroaching on their turf, either. We need to have a healthy respect for that separation. It is our job in this place to make sure that we stick within our mandate, and I honestly do believe that this select committee is blurring the line. As I have said, I do not support this select committee.

I want to make one more comment about all the other matters, as the Hon. Bernie Finnigan did. We do not often agree on very much at all—I did not agree with the first bit of his contribution, but regarding the rest of it: credit where credit is due. There are all these other issues now encompassing thoroughbred racing and Cheltenham. All these things have now been dragged into this select committee on the SAJC.

I believe that every political party in this place will use this particular select committee to run their own agenda. I do not believe that anyone is too concerned about what is actually going on in the SAJC. I see this as being an opportunity for some to raise a red flag, for the Greens to wave their green flag about Cheltenham, and for the Hon. Robert Brokenshire to express his concern about thoroughbred racing—all in together this fine weather! In this particular case, I am voting against a select committee—not that I would do that often.

The Hon. R.P. Wortley: Very sensible.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I am a very sensible person, and I thank you for acknowledging that, again on the record—I have been overcome by this over the past two days. Anyway, I am not going to rave on. I just think that we need to be careful that we do not overdo these processes and that the general public do not become conditioned to parliamentary select committee inquiries. Once upon a time, I think select committees were held in awe.

The Hon. R.P. Wortley interjecting:

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Well, they used to mean something. I think we are now getting to the point where some people are becoming more and more sceptical about that process. Rarely do they see that an outcome is actually achieved, and I believe that is a fault on both sides. When a select committee inquiry makes recommendations, I believe that those recommendations should at least be considered by the government and debated. However, that does not even happen. These reports seem to be put on a shelf to gather dust, never to be seen or heard of again, and I think that is a shame.

I believe that this select committee is politically motivated. I do not believe that it will do any good for any of the citizens we in this place are paid to serve. Of course, everyone else is jumping on board, including the minor parties, and bringing in their own particular issues. I think it has quite distorted the whole thing. I say: leave it alone and let the police and the judiciary do their job and then, if we have concerns, by all means we should step in.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH (16:43): I think the Hon. Ann Bressington makes a number of very good points. This is an ad hoc, band-aid process. It brings to mind some of those old jokes about 'How many of whatever does it take to conduct an inquiry into corruption in South Australia?' However, I do support this select committee, because we are responding to a distortion. We are responding to a distortion of the means we have to find out the truth: the watchdogs we have are toothless; our freedom of information laws are blinkered and, as a result, we are left blind to find out—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: Well, I am making a general point: the general point is about openness in South Australia. We have a number of connected threads here between the sale of Cheltenham Park, its rezoning and governance issues. There are a number of connected threads. I think most of the other processes in place will take a rather narrow approach, and they will not necessarily draw these threads together in a way in which this select committee could.

I will just come back to the general case which makes me inclined towards this particular select committee. We are severely limited in South Australia in terms of how we uncover the truth behind matters. We have an Anti-Corruption Branch, but it cannot compel people to appear. We have an Ombudsman, but the Ombudsman knocks back people who do not have a direct interest—who were not directly affected by a circumstance—and often those are the very people who cannot afford to complain. We have FOI laws, but the FOI laws have all sorts of strange exemptions, as we heard yesterday. So, our watchdogs are toothless, and we are left blind, and our FOI laws leave us blinkered.

So, I think a body such as this select committee, which can take a broad look and draw the threads together, is actually quite a useful initiative. I do not know exactly what it will find, but I am fairly certain it will find a number of things of public interest and, as I have said, it will be able to take a broader approach than the other separate inquiries in train, and for those reasons I support it.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (16:44): At the very least we should answer some of the points that were just raised by the honourable member when he talked about watchdogs and anti-corruption branches and so on. The honourable member should well know that the Lipman Karas report was referred to the anti-corruption branch of the police and, as I understand it, apart from one issue, any issues of wrongdoing in relation to the SAJC were referred to OCBA, because they were breaches of the relevant act.

I think one of the issues that also needs to be pointed out is that some of these matters, including one involving myself (and therefore obviously it would be totally inappropriate for me to speak about it) relates to the rezoning of the Cheltenham Park racecourse. The residents association has exercised its right—and I have no problem with that—to challenge that decision. That is currently before the courts, so is it not completely inappropriate that a select committee of parliament should be investigating that matter?

The Hon. S.G. Wade: You don't need to be on the select committee.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: But the fact is that the matter is before the courts; why should a select committee be looking into matters that are currently before the courts? It goes against all convention and good practice. It is not just that: it is also the case—so the media tell us—in relation to Mr Ploubidis taking the SAJC and I think Mr Bentley from Thoroughbred Racing before the courts. Surely it is completely inappropriate to be examining matters that are currently before the courts. Those matters may or may not be resolved, but how inappropriate it is to do that.

I do not want to contribute to this debate at any length, because it is quite inappropriate to talk about some of the matters when they are before the courts, but it should be pointed out, in view of the contribution we have just heard, that the decision to sell Cheltenham racecourse was made by the SAJC. I was sitting in parliament at the time when the then shadow minister for racing, the Hon. Angas Redford, supported that. I do not intend to criticise the Hon. Angas Redford's comments; in fact, I actually agree with the thrust of them, that is, that the matters concerning the future of racing should be in the hands of people in the racing industry themselves.

Surely, if we are interested in the outcome of racing, I suggest the action we should be taking is joining the SAJC in taking an active participation in it and voting for the board that we think will do the best for the industry. I would have thought that, at present, given that there is a board election on—and I think it is at a crucial stage—it is important for the future of racing in this state that the SAJC has a united and viable board that will best look after the interests of racing, but is that a role for the government or for the members of the SAJC and the members of the racing industry? I would suggest it is the latter.

The Hon. Mr Winderlich also talked about FOI laws and so on. Well, the SAJC is not a government body; it is made up of members of the industry. It was its decision to sell Cheltenham racecourse and I understand that, regardless of where one sits on the factionalised board of the SAJC, there appears to be general agreement (if I read the media correctly) that the racing industry should now move on, put the past behind it, try to get a united board and act in the best interests of racing. That is what I would like to see happen, as a very—

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: That sort of comment shows the sort of politicisation of this issue. The honourable member is talking about Bolkus. We have all heard who is running: we have had Bob Gerard making comments and we know that former deputy premier Graham Ingerson is running. Does that really help us? I am not really interested in the background of those people involved with racing. I actually think there are people from both sides of politics involved in racing, as there should be; it is a very important industry.

I am a very occasional racegoer; I was fortunate enough to go to, and very much enjoyed, the Saturday race meeting up at Oakbank, and if I go once or twice a year that is probably it for me. I actually enjoy the experience. I would like to see this industry thrive. I suggest it can best thrive by allowing these elections to proceed and allowing a new board, which hopefully will be representative of the industry and hopefully it will move forward, but in my view to continue through a select committee to keep dragging up, going over and regurgitating these issues which have been the cause of a factional division within the SAJC for so long cannot be in the best interests of racing in this state.

There are two good reasons to oppose the motion: one is that to look at it is not in the best interests of racing; secondly, and perhaps more importantly, there are issues that are currently before the courts. They should be settled at that level, and to have a parliamentary committee intruding on them and possibly therefore leading to some miscarriage of justice or some form of interference with the courts is inappropriate. For those reasons I support the view of the Hons Mr Finnigan and Ms Bressington that we should not support this select committee.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON (16:50): I had not intended to make a contribution on this matter; however, having heard the last contributions from government members, I think it is incumbent upon me to make a response. In their desperation to ensure that this committee does not meet and that the truth in relation to these matters is not exposed to public scrutiny, it is suggested that the sub judice convention of parliament would prevent this select committee from sitting.

The sub judice convention is that, if there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to proceedings before a court, parliament should not engage in any activity which might create a real and substantial danger of prejudice. There is no suggestion that a properly conducted select committee—and all of our select committees are properly conducted—could not honour that obligation. The suggestion that simply investigating these terms of reference will result in a real and substantial danger of prejudice to proceedings before a court is absolute nonsense.

I intend to serve on this committee, and I look forward to doing so. I am sure that its chair, whoever that might be, and the committee members will ensure that parliament meets its public obligations in relation to those matters.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (16:52): I thank all honourable members for their contribution, their interest and, I think, generally their genuine concern about racing in this state. I know that I for one have no qualms whatsoever about instigating this motion in relation to this committee, and I sleep well at night knowing that I am interested in racing and its best interests.

When talking about the possibility of the select committee, the leader in the other place (Martin Hamilton-Smith) said that it was warranted and that sunshine is the best disinfectant. Quite frankly, if the government had played it in such a way that it consulted the opposition and the minor parties, perhaps it would not have come to this. However, typically, it said, 'We know best, and there is no point consulting with the opposition. We can be privy to information, but you can't be trusted with that information.' Of course, straightaway, a cloud of distrust hovered over the issue.

I was pleased to hear the Hon. Bernard Finnigan let us know that, once the police investigation and the OCBA investigations are completed, the Hon. Michael Wright will table the Lipman Karas report. That is a very kind gesture, but I wish that it had been made earlier.

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan interjecting:

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I am sorry, but that is exactly what you indicated. The opposition looks forward to reading the report, as I am sure do the minor parties. It will be interesting to see why it was held back from us in the first instance.

We are looking for an open and transparent industry and, in my contribution to open this debate, I indicated how much money the people of South Australia contribute to the industry and so we have a genuine interest to make sure that it is open and transparent. I look forward to the support indicated by other members, and I understand why the government will not support this committee—because it has a policy never to support select committees. Heaven knows, it would not want to find the truth about an issue, would it?

I go on the record again to say that, in the forthcoming board elections, I wish all parties well. I have friends and associates on both tickets, and my advice to all parties has been, 'Elect your board, get on with it and make sure that it is as open and transparent as possible.' Certainly, in my role as opposition spokesman for racing, I would like to put behind us the scenario, when you attend the races on any given day, of people constantly telling you rumours and innuendos about who is doing what. It is time that we swept in, cleared the air and allowed racing to get on with what should be a very bright future. With those few remarks—

The Hon. I.K. Hunter interjecting:

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I will respond to that interjection. I am not a member of the SAJC. I am quite happy about the fact that I can look at this from a totally independent point of view. I have invested in racing in the past, and I have a history in racing. The Hon. Ian Hunter probably would not know which end of the horse was going around. He should come along to the inquiry, and I look forward to his participating, should he be the government's representative. With those few words, I again thank honourable members for their contribution. I look forward to the vote, and I look forward to a positive future for racing when we sweep away the malaise that hangs over it.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire's amendment carried; the Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins' amendment carried.

The council divided on the motion as amended:

AYES (12)
Brokenshire, R.L. Darley, J.A. Dawkins, J.S.L.
Hood, D.G.E. Lawson, R.D. Lensink, J.M.A.
Parnell, M. Ridgway, D.W. Schaefer, C.V.
Stephens, T.J. (teller) Wade, S.G. Winderlich, D.N.
NOES (7)
Bressington, A. Finnigan, B.V. Gago, G.E.
Gazzola, J.M. Holloway, P. Hunter, I.K.
Wortley, R.P. (teller)

Majority of 5 for the ayes.

Motion as amended thus carried.

The council appointed a select committee consisting of the Hons R.L. Brokenshire, J.A. Darley, R.D. Lawson, R.K. Sneath, T.J. Stephens and R.P. Wortley; the committee to have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to adjourn from place to place; the committee to report on Wednesday 17 June 2009.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT