Conference Evidence At Inquiry Questioned

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32219, 11 February 1970, Page 5

Conference Evidence At Inquiry Questioned

(New Zealand Press Association). WELLINGTON. The first confrontation between the New Zealand Racing Conference and its principal critic, the Racing Owners’ and Trainers’ Federation took place yesterday on the second day of the hearings before the Royal Commission on Racing.

The commission, Sir Thaddeus McCarthy, chairman, Sir James Doig, Mr J. H. George, and Mr H. G. F. Callam, heard the completion of the conference’s written submissions. The res' of the day was spent in cross-examination of five conference representatives—Messrs K A. Whyte, H. H. Smith, A. R. Algie. J. M. Fleming, and the Auckland Racing Club’s secretary (Mr W. N. Mackie), who is assisting the conference. The conference's written submissions covered the administration and control of racing, racing legislation and the exclusion of certain persons from racecourses. The commission was told that the conference executive committee intends to move at the next annual meeting in July an amendment to provide that on district committees the number of delegates a metropolitan club may seat shall be a maximum of one fewer than the total of delegates from district clubs, plus the hunt club representative. This would mean that for the first time in modern racing history, district or “country" clubs would have the power on paper not only to dominate district committee voting, but to man the executive committee entirely with members of district clubs. During later questioning, Mr White agreed with the statement by Mr L. W Brown, counsel for the owners’ and trainers’ federation, that on the present distribution of; voting power the Auckland.; Waikato. Wellington and Can-; terbury clubs, with the sup-1 port of one or two other; clubs with nine votes, could defeat the amendment by preventing it from gaining a two-thirds majority. All Sections | The submissions said that; ; though the conference was; ; comprised of clubs, it felt a duty to consider the inter-i ests of all sections of racing ; The conference would be sur-i prised if it were suggested that it had been reluctant to! entertain approaches from I groups such as owners, train-1 ers or jockeys Mr Whyte, questioned on! this point by counsel assist-! ing the commission. Mr R.j Savage, confirmed that such; groups had no representation at the conference, but; averred that its door was al-' ways open to them to come! and “have a yarn.” He then agreed with Mr Savage that it was one thing Ito “have a yarn” and another Ito have a voice in conference affairs.

Better Incomes The submissions stated that; the racing conference was] proud of its relations with the Jockeys’ Association and! said that at the next annual; meeting the executive would' move certain amendments to increase the incomes of joe-; keys. The proposals will be that; percentages from first, second,! third and fourth placings be raised from 4 per cent to 5 per cent in fiat races and from 9 per cent to 10 per cent in jumping events, and that losing fees shall not be less than Sl2 for a flat race and $l9 for a jumping race. The point was raised by three counsel during crossexamination. Mr Brown asked Mr Algie! whether during the negotia-j, tions the question of a change in the jockeys' attitude to an. alteration in the control of . racing had arisen. , Mr Algie said it had not;! in formal discussions, andjl when the point was pressed could not recall having heard lit raised informally, though I Ihe would have thought it:. | natural had it been raised. || Idea Rejected ! He rejected Mr Brown’s' suggestion of a “quid pro' quo” along the lines of in-!' creased percentages for the! jockeys in return for their agreement not to support any! move to supplant the present; administrative system by some type of control board. To Mr Savage, Mr Algie replied that the negotiations with the jockeys took place in early December and again denied that the talks encom- ' passed the jockeys' attitude to;, the commission. , C J »«_!l

Mr Mackie confirmed for Mr B. O’Regan (Thoroughbred Breeders' Association) that the conference had never been able to assist the breeding sector 'financially. He said that the conference) was financed by a levy on ■ clubs. Assistance to breeding' was one reason the conference! had requested a special! purposes fund from taxation I revenue. A national stud could help! solve the problem of loss of valuable breeding stock to overseas buyers. System Defended The conference urged strongly against any new system of controlling the racing industry. It spoke first in defence of the district-committee system, claiming that the disadvantages which would result from its abolition would be more consumption of the executive’s time with routine matters: less familiarity in the administration with district concerns: the loss of the executive’s time dealing with incidents which occurred nation-wide in the running of races: the loss of the knowledge and experience of district committee members: and the difficulty the executive would encounter in co-ordinat-l

p ing clubs within any district. The submissions next ex- , pounded the benefits of volun- , tary administration, which has * always been the heart of the control of racing in New Zea- ’ land. , New Zealand racing, it * claimed, enjoyed a high reputation m this country and abroad. I Club, district and executive committeemen were prompted by “a genuine desire ’ to put something into the sport out of 5 which they have derived so p much pleasure. ’ 1 But, the submissions con- ■ tinued, had they not proved , themselves competent they would not hold the offices *hey j did. 1 Legislation imposing "some * other system of administration . or control" was unnecessary and undesirable, and the creation of a statutory body to coni trol racing "would undoubtedly . be against the wishes of a great r majority of men with expedience of administration in h racing." •‘No Demand” , The establishment of such a body might cause many present > administrators to cease to serve . racing and would impose in the . public name a system of control for which there had been ’ no public demand. In cross-examination Mr . Brown asked Mr Whyte if the claim that statutory control was 1 against the wishes of a great I majority of racing administra- - tors was based on belief or the result of some type of survey. ’ Mr Whyte admitted that be'lief, based on his discussions •with an unspecified number of I administrators, was the basis ■'of the claim, and agreed thati ■ there were many .experienced .racing administrators who 1 :would take a contrary view. He then agreed that efficiency, Jias well as enthusiasm was. necessary to the administration! of racing, adding that in his opinion it had been run as I jefficiently as it could have been —that "everyone was doing his { best." Mr Brown proposed that apart; from its financial problems racking had a certain gloomy out-j look which could be based .partly on inadequate admmi-; stration. , He suggested further that J there was a need for a critical consideration of the administraItion of racing, with no question 'either of the enthusiasm or inItegrity of its administrators. ! Insurance Query Mr Brown questioned all the {conference representatives ex | ;cept Mr Fleming and when the 'reading of the submissions wasl finished he began with Mr Algie. The conference's submissions. Mr Brown said, contained no reference to an insurance scheme for jockeys Did the 'conference consider the present (scheme adequate and efficient?! Mr Algie thought not. but (there was a finance problem and the conference tried 10l achieve a balance between con ' tributions to the general trust' fund and the expenses of owners. Mr Brown suggested that any inadequacy in the general trust 'fund was not due to a lack of finance, but Mr Algie replied that the increase in income lover expenditure in the last two years, because of the raising of the accident fee. had only restored an earlier position .which had been depleted He agreed that the level of the fund was likely to continue to I rise. Levy Fund Mr Brown then turned to the importance attached in the conference submissions to the re-

lention of the half per cent - levy fund now used for the - construction and maintenance s of facilities on racecourses. > Mr Algie said that the amount available from the levy was committed four or five years t ahead. Mr Brown questioned the prudence of such mortgaging but J Mr Algie replied that if clubs i had scheduled building projects they felt these should be carried out as soon as possible, partly because of rising costs. The commitments were made, he said, on a definite underI standing that the fund would 1 be continued. (The fund has run ' so far on Government-author-ised renewal at five-year intervals.) ' But in response to Mr Brown's 1 questions he said there had ’ been nothing certain to guarantee the continuance of the levy. Mr Mackie said he could not see any Government terminal- • Ing the levy without warning. Centralisation Mr Brown asked whether more money for clubs would not be better used under some kind of centralisation. Mr Mackie replied that the , centralisation Issue was sometimes a red herring. Where it was contemplated the financial considerations had to be weighed against the continuance of a club as an amenity. He quoted France as an example of a country with "hundreds" of small clubs and suggested that the question was not whether there should be centralisation but whether building by these clubs should be restricted. A member of Hip conference executive since 1955. Mr Smith • said he would not personally {concede that centralisation wa» •m issue of mainr importance •hough he aereed that it could nroduce substantial benefits for »hp Industry • He agreed that the conference .<!♦** w»nt centralisation. Mr Brown Quoted the 19« r Reid Committee's recommends ’ion that centralisation should be mandatory and asked if the ;nre«ent conference policy of "persuasion and encourage ment" was in accord with that Mr Smith agreed that the confrenee would like mandatory powers but he admitted that the independent committee recommended bv the Reid Committee to investigate the matter had! never been set up. Mr Brown asked which clubs had been "persuaded" to centralise since the Reid report and was told two. but con {eluded after more questioning that these two. Wairio and Rangitikei. had done so voluntarily. He claimed that of nine clubs listed in the conference's submissions as having central ispd since 1950. none had been persuaded by the conference. All Refused He then moved to the "encouragement" phase of conferience policy and found that 10 clubs had been approached In the last four months, all of ; which had refused to move. He suggested, and it was con firmed by Mr Smith that fear of identity ’ loss by clubs which centralised and intervention from political quarters would be continuing difficulties. In reply to a question from Mr Savage. Mr Smith said the conference had held up the pay ment of halt per cent moneys to Rangitikei and Westland in the last 12 months. Both Mr Smith and Mr Algie agreed with Mr Savage that the freezing of half per cent funds. would have been an effective weapon in the move toward centralisation. Mr George asked Mr Whyte to give an example of political

pressure impeding centralisation but Mr Whyte said that re ports of political intervention were "hearsay." Sir Thaddeus McCarthy raised with Mr Smith the matter of a conference policy decision made last year concerning the centralisation of certain clubs on the West Coast. This had not been implemented and he wondered why the conference had changed its mind. Mr Smith replied that the club's involved "had good cases" against the scheme. Use Restricted? Sir Thaddeus McCarthy queried the distribution of half per cent money. Originally, he thought, it had been intended to help clubs really darning or deserving it. The present policy, he said, led clubs to think it their right and had restricted the effective use of the money. He asked Mr Algie if he would agree with claims that district committees gave approval of half per cent money too lightly Mr Algie said he could not speak for the workings of dis trtet committees but he said that the executive also exam Ined every application. The conference opposed anv relaxation of exclusion imposed under the Crimes Act. The hearing will resume on Monday.