Dept Favours Board To Control All Racing

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32349, 15 July 1970, Page 5

Dept Favours Board To Control All Racing

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON. Alternative systems of control for racing and trotting were canvassed by the Department of Internal Affairs yesterday before the Royal Commission on Racing.

Presented by the department’s secretary (Mr P. J. O'Dea), the submission first examined the present situation, noting that there was no unified control between galloping and trotting and that neither conference was established by legislation. The Totalisator Agency Board was established by legislation and joined the conferences in a common jurisdiction in its restricted and specialised area, but its legislation did not, though it could, exert a strong guiding economic influence and control over the industries.

Under gaining legislation, the department said, the Government had no mandate beyond its control over the number and allocation of totalisator permits, inspection of totalisators, licences for non-totalisator meetings and the Minister’s function of approval or rejection of the T.A.B. scheme w varjaj tions on it ” Not Favoured The submission looked at the prospect of statutory control for the conferences and doubted that the merits claimed for this would follow. It would not make for a unified approach to common economic problems, or make much difference to the present practical execution of the functions of the conferences, nor, the department felt, would it even be effective because of the constitution of the conferences as associations of clubs. If more unified control were desirable to provide for common action or resolution of differences, statutory recognition was unlikely to achieve it The establishment ot a statutory trading corporation to run the industry was examined only briefly. it would be feasible, the department said, to set up an organisation which would charge the cost of running racing against income from betting and various charges and fees—but this would be completely at variance with the traditional organisation of racing and trotting in New Zealand and would afford no opporttunity for voluntary participation in the industry. Board Scheme The themes mainly mooted in the submission were the establishment of an advisory board and the board of control scheme. The allocation of dates, the submission went on, was probably the main matter now within conference jurisdiction on which an advisory board might make recommendations to the Minister, ft might advise him not only on the standard of facilities provided by clubs but on allocation as it implicated rationalisation Qf the date structure, circuit development and regionalisation or centralisation.

The board might also deal with other matters concerning permits, the T.A.B. and racing legislation generally, but its advice would be in addition to, and not instead of, that tendered by the department itself. Such a board would involve a much greater degree of direct Government control and direction, the department said. If betting on dog-racing were authorised. the submission added, it would be appropriate to include a representative of the Greyhound Association on the board.

The submission gave greater coverage to the idea of a board of control, which is distinSuished from ah advisory board y possessing executive powers. Replace T.A.B. The control board could be established by replacing the conferences and T.A.8.. or by making it a further administrative tier above them. The submission said that it would be preferable to establish it as an additional tier in order, to re* tain as much voluntary participation in administration as possible. It would be preferable for the conferences and the board to have separate, defined powers. The board would almost inevitably replace the T.A»B. because of the key role of T.A.B. profits tn the racing economy. The main purpose of a'control board would be the efficient administration of major economic policies, which would entail overseeing the number and situation of tracks. Increased regionalisation or centralisation, assistance to or closing of uneconomic tracks or clubs a maior review of the date structure. possible development of circuits. T.A.B. profit distribu tion. half per cent fund distribution and capital expenditure l by clubs, and the retention of

capital reserves from T.A.B. profit for various purposes. On the functions of the control board, the department said there seemed to be only four it would assume from the conferences—date allocation, half per cent administration, club registration and the cancellation or suspension of registrations. Appointments Under normal procedure for statutory boards the chairman and members would presumably be appointed by the GovernorGeneral on the recommendation of the Minister for three-year periods with eligibility for reappointment.

A maximum of seven or eight members would be sufficient. It could be that no particular qualifications for members would be specified in legislation, but there were two alternatives—a nominated board consisting of the chairman, three members from a panel nominated by the racing conference and three from a panel nominated by the trotting conference, or a board requiring specific qualifications with a chairman, two members appointed for their trotting knowledge, two for their racing knowledge, one <or hie knowledge ofc finance or econo ones and one for his knowlft ge of administration. . Such a board would act in a qua si-judicial manner, the department said, and suggested that there might be a right of appeal from it to the Administrative Division of the Supreme Court.

Sunning costs would be a first charge on T.A.B. profit along with special costs for research

or other projects, and the conferences would continue to derive their funds by levying clubs. The department concluded by observing that in its view the Minister would retain the functions and powers now vested in him. Similar Case After Mr L. W. Brown, Q.C., (Racing Owners and Trainers’

Federation) declined croisexamination on the grounds that the submission was very close to his federation’s case; Mr B. McClelland (Trotting Conference) questioned Mr O’Dea. Referring to a suggestion quoting the administration of the half per cent fund as an example of the conferences’ incorrect use of their powers, Mr McClelland asked if Mr O’Dea was aware the conferences had

ministerial approval for the i method. I Mr O’Dea said he had not 1 known when the submission was i written that the method had ministerial approval. t He did not agree with the i suggestion that dates were not'j

a major issue of contention between the codes. Mr T. F. Fookes (Racing Conference) noted the department's objection to fragmented administration and said that under a board of control a club might be forced to deal with a district committee, the minister and the board, and suggested that this was fragmentation. Mr O’Dea rejected the suggestion. Mr M. Forrin (Trotting Horsemen’s and Trainers’ Association) asked if the board of control would determine drivers’ and jockeys’ payments. Mr O’Dea accepted that the trotting conference was not representative of all those engaged in the industry.