Page 2318 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 3 August 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
then they would seek the turnover on their races in Queensland; and they would seek their turnover on the races in Tasmania.
Traditionally, of course, it just has not functioned in that way. There has been, over many decades, an acceptance that a percentage of the turnover on thoroughbred racing would go back to that code in that particular state. Is there really an expectation that each jurisdiction would specifically track the turnover on their individual state’s racing and chase it down from other states? It is absurd.
Mr Steel’s amendment calls upon the government to oversee a newly agreed and flawed MOU between the government and the racing codes. This is despite the fact that there are some aspects of the MOU which are actually unworkable; they are just not workable at all.
In the consultation with the two racing codes, both harness racing and thoroughbred racing made it abundantly clear to government that they are not able to comply with some of the things in the MOU, in particular in regard to whip-free racing. In the consultation it was explained very clearly that both codes are run under the umbrella of either Harness Racing New South Wales or Thoroughbred Racing New South Wales, and that the meetings are run under the rules of those organisations; so they have no ability to change those aspects of their operation.
I note the reference to public reporting of the economic impact of the racing industry and the breakdown of POCT revenue. I also note that it is pretty clear, certainly based on the media reports and all of the information that we are getting, that the economic impact of the racing industry will be declining because it is not being sufficiently funded. The figures that were given in that previous assessment that I quoted will be lower because more trainers have left. They are going, because it is unsustainable.
I also note that Mr Steel talks about the medium term in regard to a sustainable revenue stream. I wonder whether that is an indication that the minister is of the belief that the funding stream will cease at the end of this MOU. Ms Clay, in her speech, suggested that she was speaking of a “transition” for the racing industry. That is what she said today, yet we understand that, in a number of weeks, the Greens will vote against the funding in this particular calendar year.
Mr Barr has outlined that that is all they can vote on; they cannot go to forward estimates. They can only go to funding in this particular year. Although Ms Clay speaks about a transition, the Greens will come into this chamber in a month and vote against that funding that is in this budget now. They will be going with execution immediately. That does not sound to me like a “transition” at all.
The only other thing I would point out in closing is that the Greens have indicated they are supporting this amendment from Mr Steel. I want the Greens to think very carefully about this, because although they have indicated publicly that they are not supporting the race funding, in terms of that line in the budget, in a month’s time, in supporting this amendment, are you not actually supporting the race funding? Although it is not mentioned in the “calls on”, the text of this amendment from Mr Steel is all about how the MOU operates. You want to oversee the compliance
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video