Looks like Brian may be going to rename his site The Pessimist
Racefields cast in the starting stalls
by Brian de Lore
Published 5 July 2019
Five days into RITA (Racing Industry Transition Agency) and all’s quiet on the proverbial Western Front. No statements, no appearances, no initiations, and no action of any aesthetic nature.
If RITA were expected to fly into Petone on a magic carpet last Monday morning and wave a magic wand and fix a plethora of industry ailments, then a lot of enthusiastic, hopeful, voyeuristic industry stakeholders would have departed disappointed.
Not quite as big as the let-down from New Zealand’s Cricket World Cup effort against England in the early hours of Thursday morning. That was an appalling performance that lacked intensity and commitment.
We don’t expect the Blacks Caps to win the World Cup because it’s now blatantly obvious they are not good enough. But we do expect RITA to front up to the racing industry – now that they have taken the reins from NZRB – and tell us what they are doing and when they are doing it. They owe that to the industry at the very least.
Why? Because they don’t own the industry; it belongs to the participants. RITA is a representative committee that has been seconded to play a part in fixing it, and while doing that why wouldn’t they take the opportunity of making a deserved gesture to racing people and give a running commentary on how and when?
The MAC in its own words in the Executive Summary of its Interim Report stated: “The Committee has engaged with the racing industry openly and transparently. As change progresses, dealings with the industry and communities must continue to be transparent, inclusive and robust.”
The industry advocates transparency and accountability from all administrators and with history in mind should be casting suspicion upon newbies from outside racing – 16 years of being fed on a mushroom diet of darkness and unpalatable decision-making. RITA needs to fix that by showing the way forward as its statement suggests.
First board meeting for RITA next week
RITA has its first board meeting next week (July 10th), and one can only assume that in the interim the NZRB accounts have been uplifted and a team of auditors is working flat-out as you read this to discover what NZRB has been cooking up in the creative kitchen at Petone – Their Kitchen Rules!
When known, RITA should be open about it and reveal all the irregularities and years of misuse of racing industry funds. It seems that deception and glossing over reality is a way of life at Petone because it has also continued into RITA’s first week.
By Monday morning NZRB had deleted its website masthead and replaced it with a RITA equivalent, and in this new format the CEO John Allen bio claimed he has been working for RITA since March 2015. Fantasy – just make it up as you go, John.
It’s a reminder of another laughable occurrence at one of Allen’s Racing Industry Conservation meetings (the travelling circus) at Matamata last year when he claimed NZRB hadn’t gone and borrowed money to prop up the minimum stakes to $10,000 – the $22 million over two years. But when questioned further by one of the seven attendees it turned out that NZRB already had a substantial overdraft facility and they were merely using that – sleight of hand or chicanery as it’s sometimes called.
Then, just to top it off, outgoing NZRB chair Glenda Hughes last week sent a departing email to the NZRB staff which stated: “I am immensely proud that the Board is leaving the NZRB in a much stronger position than we inherited. I’d like to acknowledge that the investment in the FOB was not only the right decision but will prove critical in the long-term sustainability of the industry.”
On reading that fiction, a wry smile must have come to the face of even the most ardent gravy-trainers at NZRB.
A stumbling block for RITA
In last week’s blog, I concluded by saying, ‘…from Monday racing can commence a journey down the path of greater prosperity.’ Upon further investigation, it appears that statement is subject to a significant caveat which could be a stumbling block for RITA.
We are in the first week of the new legislation coming into effect, and theoretically the new revenue streams of racefields (betting information use charge) and POC (Point of Consumption levy) should be returning to the codes somewhere between $250,000 and $500,000 per week – but it isn’t.
Nothing is coming in except one voluntary payment because the designated authority, DIA (Department of Internal Affairs) has not negotiated the agreements with the overseas betting operators – yes, we are in the hands of an inefficient bureaucratic process that lacks expertise in this area and moves at a snail’s pace.
Every week that goes by without those agreements is collectively costing the three codes up to a half million. The exact amount isn’t known because the POC levy is the income derived from New Zealanders betting with overseas operators and without collecting it, no-one knows how big the pot will be. We can only assume it will be massive given the anecdotal evidence of Kiwi punters deserting our TAB for a better deal with Australian-based corporates.
In the 123-page Interim Report by the MAC (Ministerial Advisory Committee), the recommendation to the Minister was to appoint the codes as the designated authority to negotiate and collect the Betting Information Use Charge, but that advice was ignored and DIA was appointed.
The MAC also advised that DIA collect the POC levy which is more understandable because the overseas betting operators would be revealing commercially sensitive information which they wouldn’t want to divulge to a body such as NZTR. But to make DIA the authority for both is silly.
The Racing Reform Bill No.1 went through under urgency to get the new revenue streams active ASAP, but when the barrier gates slammed open on Monday morning the industry failed to jump. It’s Friday and we are still cast in the gates having missed the start by five days and counting.
Australia started collecting racefields in 2008, albeit contested in the courts for a period, and here we are 11 years hence with the legislation passed but still floundering in the familiar pool of indecision. Lack of preparation, lack of consultation, lack of readiness, and the result is revenue down the drain.
The July 1st date for the new legislation was mooted way back at the beginning of the year so what excuse can there be for not having the rates agreed upon and the agreements in place for day one. It’s pathetic, to say the least, and overseas betting operators must be laughing their heads off at this show of mismanagement.
Codes should be the Designated Authority
All desperate for cash and racefields being their property, the codes would react with the enthusiasm of a dog with a meaty bone if they were the authority. NZTR could have acted as the aggregator for all three plus sport and had these agreements in place. CEO Bernard Saundry is vastly experienced in racefields in Australia and was the obvious choice as opposed to some non-racing bureaucrat in DIA.
Under Clause 65 AE of the Racing Reform Bill No.1, the Minister has the power to influence a change on this point. It states: “The Department may delegate in writing any of its functions or powers as the designated authority to another entity.”
The absurdity of the situation is highlighted in the Messara Report, which states: “We do not believe it is appropriate for government or a government department to assume the role of designated authority for the issue of a betting information use agreement and it is more a role for an industry body…codes and sport in the best interests of their respective industries and stakeholders.”
When The Optimist recently posed the question of collection of BIUC levies to the Minister’s office, the reply came back: “Offshore betting operators wanting new agreements for betting use information agreements will need to wait until the offshore charges regime is brought into being through regulations.
“The offshore betting operators raised the need for consultation at the select committee, and this will be addressed as part of the regulation setting process.”
The interpretation of that response is ‘the DIA is a government department and the delay will be at our leisure.’
