Conspiracy Theories Are Generally Just That

Not being an Australian citizen and therefore not a voter, I haven’t had to concern myself too much with politics in this country.

The derisory attitudes many Australians have towards New Zealanders, just as prevalent, I have to say, amongst Australians in breeding as anywhere else, acts as a disincentive to becoming Australian. It’s a bit like the Germans and the war – never being allowed to forget they lost it, contribution to everything else overlooked.

Why Australians have this attitude towards their poor, little defenceless cousins across the ditch, possessors of someone else’s land just like them, I can only wonder. I’ll read some Freud and perhaps find the answer.

(As for the sheep jokes, there are far more sheep in Australia than in New Zealand. The reason that's not widely appreciated is because the Australian sheep are camouflaged - they are the same colour as Australian grass).

I might be on the first plane back ‘home’ (I wasn’t born there, either) if it wasn’t for the hapless political system in New Zealand. Can you take seriously a country of 4 million people with 120 representatives in Parliament, 60 of whom aren’t even elected and seem to turn up just whenever they please?

I like the robustness of Australian politics and its characters even if, in this media-driven age, so much of it is reduced to image, spin, perception and superficiality.

Something I’ve kept a distance from, because I’m only a fringe dweller, is racing politics in NSW. How hard it must be to make progress in organizations that are inherently factional and sectional-interest driven.

So I look on from the sidelines at the latest attempt at reform of racing’s management in this state. The Board of RacingNSW will be an all-powerful body. There’s nothing it won’t control or influence the direction of, from money to programming and all points in between. In this climate, conspiracy theories grow like mushrooms. Even a mug punter like me is entitled to have one. But I'll get in before anyone else, I may not have a good grasp of the fine print so welcome anyone taking the opportunity here to set the record straight and paint the correct picture.

What guarantee is there that the composition of the soon-to-be appointed five person membership of the independent Board of Racing NSW is not already a fait accompli?

As I read it, under the recently passed Thoroughbred Racing Amendment Bill, the Appointments Panel consisting of nine industry representatives appointed by the NSW Minister for Racing, decides who the five Board members will be, “on skills based criteria”.

The Panel’s composition is subject to Ministerial approval but their nominations for Board membership appear not to be. Is that correct?

The Panel is “assisted” in finding potential members of the Board by an external recruitment agency which has already called for nominations.

This could be shadow boxing. It is not incumbent on the Panel to act on the advice of the external recruitment agency.

Votes of six of the nine Panel appointees are required to approve the nomination of a Board member. I believe originally seven votes were required, but the number has been cut back.

How do we know that there hasn’t already been, or will not be, horse-trading to secure votes between some proposed applicants who might come from strong vested interest backgrounds determined to spread their influence, and some Panel members?

The new Board’s existence depends on the continued approval of its performance by the Appointments Panel. If those natives get restless, it will take a 75% vote for the Minister to dismiss the Board.

Is there any step in this process which assures all industry stakeholders, big and small, that personal merit and that alone will be the criterion on which Board nominees are assessed?

It seems to me that the Board may be “independent” only in the sense that it has been given unfettered power to act on almost all issues affecting the welfare of racing on NSW, but that is not the same as having an “independent” membership. It is quite possible that persons may get on this Board who are there to do the bidding of the Panel voting blocks which put them there.

I don’t regard this as particularly transparent. What are the checks and balances on the conduct of the Appointments Panel? If there are none, there are presumably no checks and balances on the nominations to the Board.

Someone also explain to me why the Appointments Panel is composed of nine industry representatives, appointed by the Minister, while the Racing Industry Consultation Group, set up under the Bill to consult at least on a monthly basis with RacingNSW, has the same composition but different personnel? Is this to make it look like the members of the Appointments Panel would have no influence on the Board once they’d made their appointments? Really?

Grass roots racing people fear breeder domination of the policy-making instrument in racing. Will our racing become less multi-dimensional and just a vehicle for the sale of stallion noms and promotion of the commercial end of the breeding sector as if nothing else in the sport is important?

And without any doubt whatsoever, racing does not need a dictator, neither here in NSW nor anywhere else. Are there any examples of dictatorships which have been benign, enlightened and for the good of all? It’s a dreadful form of government which millions have given their lives to topple.