Written By Bruce Teague, Senior Australian Greyhound Racing Writer Thursday 9th May 2013 

This cannot be allowed to go on forever.

A Commission of Inquiry into Queensland racing,
just announced by the state’s attorney-general, represents the fourth
such examination of racing in recent years. Running it will drag $3
million out of the state coffers, money which otherwise would be better
spent fixing racetracks and promoting new business, or paying out some of the $10 million promised to greyhounds following the resumption of the Gold Coast track. It follows an unfavourable report by auditors into the alleged failure of the previous administration
to put numerous construction jobs out to tender, and to excessive
payouts to former employees, two of whom then went to work for the
contractor in question. The process used to select a preferred
broadcaster has also been strongly criticised for lack of transparency.

Queensland has also wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars on consultants drawing up plans for two new greyhound tracks at Logan and Deagon, neither of which have gained approval. Another million is mooted for plans for a new dual code complex at Ipswich.

But take a look at the other states.

Last year the Victorian parliament delved into misconduct
by greyhound officials betting on their own races – something which
followed similar problems amongst staff in at least one raceclub. Racing Victoria
and its consultants also opposed, with little justification, the RNSW
move to charge betting operators fees based on turnover, a policy since
endorsed by the High Court. RV has had to pull its head in, and is now
counting the extra cash.

Canberra racing people, like RV before it, set up
its own inquiry and also adopted the same Productivity Commission-based
errors which favoured the share of gross profit option for racefield
fees. All the above folk had ample and detailed warning about their
faulty reasoning, including from this writer.

Before that NSW had a barrister look into how racing organisations
were structured. That almost guaranteed an examination of the fine
points of the law rather than the underlying purpose and performance of
racing boards. Admittedly, that was a periodic requirement under
legislation but it also followed a revamp of organisational structures, re-combining
two greyhound boards, and was succeeded by an overdue change of tack in
selecting board members with no direct affiliation with raceclubs
(although all current members have previous experience with local racing
organisations).

At the NSW gallops, the newly created job of CEO to Racing NSW
was advertised in the Financial Review, amongst other newspapers. The
following morning the appointment of the current occupant was announced.
Hmmm. RN is the major beneficiary of the commission cross-subsidy from
NSW greyhounds and refuses to budge on a proposed change to the ancient
agreement. Also in NSW, a candidate for an unpaid job on the committee
of the AJC (now ATC) placed his own feature ad in the same Financial
Review. Hmmm again.

The SA Racing Minister commissioned an independent inquiry into
governance in that state following reports of vote rigging at the
gallops (also in regard to spots on the committee). It also uncovered
widespread conflicts of interest in the harness field.

SA greyhounds are running on an even keel, its controlling board
being almost wholly independent. Even so, its progress is questionable.
In its last annual report, the chairman was quick to congratulate itself
on an increase in betting turnover but failed to mention that it was
also running more races. Hardly a full disclosure. Still, unlike NSW, it
has been able to negotiate an improved share of betting commissions.

Tasmania has also re-jigged its racing organisations, putting
everything directly under the control of a single government
instrumentality, including the management of race meetings, with clubs
relegated to an even lesser advisory role than they had before.
Unfortunately, the state is struggling and still losing money in large
amounts, resulting in more questions in parliament. Finances have not
been helped by the enforced switch from Tabcorp’s Supertab to the much
smaller Tatts pools. This followed the latter’s buyout of the local
government-owned Tastote, which itself was near profit-less after giving
away huge discounts to big professional punters. (One such punter was
able to build the renowned $250 million Museum of Old and New Art on
Hobart’s outskirts, now Tasmania’s biggest tourist attraction).

The WA dual management system – RWWA
controlling tri-code policy and finances and GWA running greyhound
races – did not fare well under the revised racefield fees system and is
under some financial pressure. Its Racing Minister (since removed) made
a schoolboy error in trying to ban Betfair, a move which apparently had support from one or more codes. The High Court quickly put a stop to that.

Everywhere, states are saying what good fellows they are by diverting cash to breeding
incentives and low grade distance racing yet not one has ever bothered
to audit the effectiveness of these programs. These are ideas that may
have some validity but we still don’t know if the punters who provide
that cash are seeing a good return on their investment – or any return
at all. Probably not.

And now we have the current Queensland government taking potshots at
the previous Labor-appointed Racing Queensland organisation (with some
justification) due to alleged improprieties. However, the new Queensland
practice of insisting on appointing insiders to its many racing boards
is likely to prove a huge barrier to progress – it’s a system which has
been tried and failed. A public company would attract sanctions for
doing that.

The chairman of Greyhounds Australasia, in a speech to Racing
Ministers last year, claimed we were looking at a profitable and growing
industry when his own statistics show that breeding
has declined over the last decade while any extra money through the
till has come from new bottom level meetings which attract only mug
gamblers and from improved commission splits from some kindly
governments. Turnover at premium meetings has actually declined. GA
meetings are secretive with agendas and outcomes unknown except for the
occasional media release of veterinary-related matters.

All this is occurring in a climate where product quality and racing’s
share of the gambling market is falling and where nothing is being done
about either. Indeed, in Greyhound Racing,
more and more slow dogs are being encouraged to join the work force to
fill TAB-created slots, while the code refuses to study the science of
track design, relying instead on an amateurish “she’ll be right”
philosophy, and persevering with disruptive tracks..

Please add all these up. They say that racing is in a permanent state
of conflict, dissention, confusion, obfuscation and mismanagement. They
say that it is not set up the right or best way. They say that we
should go back to scratch, start again, and establish a system that can
better compete in the modern world

There is only one group that can start that ball rolling – the Racing
Ministers Council. If they want to create a more efficient industry,
better satisfy public demand, and give their Treasurers and the public
more taxes to play with, they must embrace major reform, starting with
the establishment of a national betting pool. Will they have the courage to do that? Let’s hope so.

This is what should be on the front pages. The Singleton-Waterhouse episode is peanuts by comparison.