Month: June 2020

by Brian de Lore
Published 27^th June 2020

As of this week, racing has new legislation which the Minister has designated for enforcement from August 1^st. That will be the day the Racing Act of 2003 gets consigned to the dustbin and the day the new Racing Bill comes into effect.

Few in racing will have read the legislation for its reworded second reading (103 pages), and of those that did read it,  few will be aware of the SOP (Supplementary Order Papers) introduced by the Minister on Tuesday which made quite a few changes to the Bill.

How much influence the three codes had on those changes is unknown. Very little information of that nature is coming out of Petone.  

Today, prizemoney of $139.6 million was announced for the 2020/21 season for less races in both thoroughbred and harness racing which is a retention of the amount allocated over a year ago for 2019/20. Owners and trainers will be relieved about the commitment not to reduce, but it is hard to know precisely how this is being funded.

The $10 million saved in recent redundancies may be budgeted into prizemoney, and so it should be. After paying the outstanding debts of $26 million and keeping the clubs in idling mode during COVID-19, $15 million out of the $50 million bailout might be left for stakes money but that would mean none of the debt to the bank of $47 million has been paid down.

Throw in the $4 million of betting levy for this season, and budget in the $8 million of betting levy for next season and a flaky SOI can be visualised. Then budget-in some Betting Information User Charges (Racefields) yet to be earned for the coming season, and you might get to $139.6 million – how else do you get there?

No one wanted to talk today, so the above is a bit of guesswork. But if you know the profit is heading for the small figures and prizemoney is announced for $40 million more than it should be on previously used distribution protocols, the top-up has to have come from somewhere.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s an outstanding announcement for owners after what’s happened. But if it’s based on allocation of profits not yet earned, then it’s fundamentally flawed and might have serious repercussions if something goes amiss.

The success of any operation is reliant on the people running it, and racing needs to bear that in mind as it enters the uncertainty of the 2020/21 racing season , already facing a financial cliff face of jagged edges to climb.

About 18 months ago, Cabinet approved the Messara Review as its guide for the reform of racing. Has Cabinet’s resolution been followed? Here’s a comparison of the 17 recommendations of the Messara Review with what appeared this week in the Racing Bill.

The Messara Review recommendations are in bold:

1 Change the governance structure, so the NZRB becomes Wagering NZ with racing responsibilities devolving to the individual Codes. This will sharpen the commercial focus of TAB operations and improve the decision-making and accountability of the Codes.

Many of the responsibilities have devolved to the codes but not all. The opportunity for Ministerial intervention appears everywhere in the Racing Bill but more importantly the makeup of the board of TAB NZ will be the crucial factor in the future governance of racing.

The Messara Review (MR) recommended the following:

The existing NZRB should be renamed Wagering NZ and all of its racing regulatory functions should be transferred to the Racing Codes.

The Board of Wagering NZ should comprise 7 members as follows: • Independent Chair appointed by the Minister on the recommendation of the Selection Panel appointed by the Minister, 14

• Chairs of three Racing Codes or their delegates,

• Three Independent members appointed by Panel comprising above four members. • All Independent members including the Chair of Wagering NZ must meet the following criteria: • have experience in a senior administrative role or experience at a senior level in one or more of the fields of business, finance, law, marketing, technology or commerce; and

• have a proven knowledge of the Racing or Wagering Industries; and

• are not members of the Board of a Racing Code, a Race Club or a kindred body.

The Chair and the independent Directors should be appointed for three year terms and be eligible for re-appointment with a maximum period of appointment of six years.

The legislation should also stipulate that a member of the Board appointed in the member’s capacity as Chair of a Racing Code does not have a conflict of interest merely because of the members’ role with the Racing Code.

The Racing Bill says:

Governing body of TAB NZ

(1) The governing body of TAB NZ consists of up to 7 members appointed by the Minister, as follows:

(a) 3 persons appointed by the Minister on the recommendation of the selection panel following:

(i) the nomination of New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing Incorporated, Harness Racing New Zealand Incorporated, and New ZeaPart 3 cl 45 Proposed amendments to Racing Industry Bill 36 198—2/SOP No 516 land Greyhound Racing Association Incorporated (or by Racing New Zealand acting on behalf of the racing codes); and

(ii) the process described in section 46A; and

(b) the rest of the members appointed by the Minister on the recommendation of the selection panel following the nomination and consultation process described in section 46A. (1A)

The Minister may veto a nomination made by the racing codes under subsection (1) but, if the Minister does so, the codes may make 1 or more further nominations until the Minister and the codes agree on the nominee.

2 Establish Racing NZ as a consultative forum for the three Codes to agree on issues such as entering into commercial agreements with Wagering NZ, approving betting rules and budgets for the integrity bodies, equine health & research, etc.

Originally left out of the first draft of the Racing Bill, the overwhelming support of the submissions and the Transport and Infrastructure Select Committee, this MR recommendation was reinstated for the second reading for very good reason. The MR said:

There are several facets of racing administration where the Codes will need to act collectively for the efficient operation of the overall Racing Industry. These include:

• Entering into commercial arrangements with Wagering NZ • Development of racing calendar in conjunction with Wagering NZ

• Approving budgets, plans and administrative support for the JCA, RIU and the Laboratory where required. 17

• Consulting with Wagering NZ on whole of industry issues such as Betting Rules, and financial support of the NZ Equine Research Foundation and the Equine Health Association.

To effectively manage these functions, it is recommended that the Codes participate in a body named Racing NZ. This body would not be established as a separate administrative body but would merely act as a consultative forum between the Codes. It would not be empowered to act unilaterally without the approval of the Codes.

3 Change the composition and qualifications for directors of regulatory bodies.

The Racing Bill has not followed the recommendation of the MR. Instead, the powers that be have penned their own wording but that is not say that it isn’t satisfactory as it specifies a representative from each of the codes plus two who are appointed by the racing codes acting jointly.

4 Request that a Performance and Efficiency Audit of the NZRB be initiated under section 14 of the Racing Act 2003, with particular emphasis on the operating costs of the NZRB.

This recommendation wasn’t followed as specified as no emphasis was placed on operating costs. As well, John Allen engaged Grant Thornton – a company with no previous experience in the thoroughbred industry – who produced a five-year performance and efficiency report at great expense which has been of no value to the industry.

5 Amend the Section 16 distribution formula of the Racing Act 2003 to a more equitable basis for fixed 10-year terms.

Recommendation 5 has not been followed and the wording in the new Racing Bill leaves the door open for Sport to cease being a customer of the TAB by participating on the board and taking a larger slice of the profits. The Racing Bill offers no formula to guarantee racing’s take which may be reduced as a percentage of revenue.

6 Initiate a special review of the structure and efficacy of the RIU and allied integrity bodies, to be conducted by an independent qualified person.

This recommendation was not carried out in the manner prescribed because the MR implication was that the Reviewer be a person who had previous experience in the integrity side of racing. The MR stated: “…it is recommended that the Minister retains the services of an appropriate person well versed in stewarding policies and procedures to review the overall Integrity model for its efficacy, independence and accountability.” Instead, an ex-policeman unfamiliar with the racing industry was appointed which rendered his report toothless due to his lack of experience.

7 Begin negotiations for the outsourcing of the TAB’s commercial activities to an international wagering operator, to gain the significant advantages of scale.

Rated by John Messara as the most important of all 17 recommendations, this clause has not yet been attempted in any shape or form.

8 Seek approval for a suite of new wagering products to increase funding for the industry.

The introduction of new wagering products hasn’t occurred. It would have been an automatic follow on from a partnering/outsourcing agreement by piggybacking on the partner’s IT development   

9 Confirm the assignment of Intellectual Property (IP) by the Clubs to the Codes.

The IP stays with the clubs/codes after Clause 81 to assign full control of it to TAB NZ was deleted from the legislation after appearing in the first reading in December. Strong opposition to Clause 81 came through the submissions and the Select Committee complied.  

10. Introduce Race Field and Point of Consumption Tax legislation expeditiously. These two measures will bring New Zealand’s racing industry into line with its Australian counterparts and provide much needed additional revenue.

The MR devoted four full pages of the 82 pages of the Review as a blueprint on the procedure to make it work. Two years on, New Zealand is receiving some voluntary Betting Information Use Charges (Racefields) but the lack of urgency to get the rates set and finalise the whole deal has cost millions. Feeling the need to change the name from Racefields to BIUC and also Wagering NZ to TAB NZ is suggestive of the RITA insecurity in putting its own stamp on the changes or its reluctance to follow the MR, as was the brief. The bottom line is that RITA has been found wanting on wagering issues and particularly on setting these revenue earning streams in place.

11. Repeal the existing betting levy of approximately $13 million per annum paid by the NZRB, given that the thoroughbred Code is a loss maker overall, with the net owners’ losses outweighing the NZRB’s net profit.

This Recommendation was enacted at the next May Budget when Minister Peters negotiated the repeal of the Betting Levy, even if he had to compromise and claw it back gradually over three years. This season’s levy ($4 million) and next season ($8 million) are likely to be part of the make-up of the promised prizemoney pool for next season of $139.6 million.

12. Clarify legislation to vest Race Club property and assets to the Code regulatory bodies for the benefit of the industry as a whole.

The most controversial and emotional Recommendation is 12. Most people in racing want to see racing thrive nationally but for some not if it means taking something out of their backyard. The legislation to achieve a national result is well covered in the legislation from Clauses 22 through to 27 but despite it becoming law on August 1^st there is little doubt we have not heard the last of it.

13. Reduce the number of thoroughbred racetracks from 48 to 28 tracks under a scheduled program. This does not require the closure of any Club.

Recommendation 13 is in the process of happening, as much from the NZTR venue reduction plan had already commenced when research commenced for the writing of the MR. On publication, the MR stated: “Our research indicates that there are too many tracks for the scale of the industry — a conclusion also reached by a number of previous reviews and reports dating back as far as 1965. I believe that the number of thoroughbred racetracks can be reduced from 48 to 28 tracks progressively over the next five years commencing 2019/20; this will free up property assets which can be realised for the benefit of the industry as a whole.”

14. Upgrade the facilities and tracks of the remaining racecourses with funds generated from the sale of surplus property resulting from track closures to provide a streamlined, modern and competitive thoroughbred racing sector capable of marketing itself globally.

Little if any upgrading has happened in recent times due to the parlous state of racing. The MR was clearly relying on the upgrading of facilities through increased profits and John Messara has repeated many times it is a suite of recommendations that will be effective only if all are adopted.

15. Construct three synthetic all-weather tracks at Cambridge, Awapuni & Riccarton with assistance from the New Zealand Government’s Provincial Growth Fund. Support the development of the Waikato Greenfields Project.

One of the first recommendations adopted by Minister Peters was funding to be made available from the Provincial Development Fund. The Cambridge track is in the process of completion while Awapuni and Riccarton are guaranteed funding, albeit both clubs are cash strapped but need to find the funds to accommodate racing’s side of the agreement. Again, the activation of this recommendation was dependent upon the new revenue streams of other recommendations in the MR.

16. Introduce robust processes to establish traceability from birth and the re-homing of the entire thoroughbred herd, as the foundation stone of the industry’s ongoing animal welfare program.

Traceability of foals from birth to re-homing has not yet happened and may not for some time at the current rate of progress. The MR stated: “…we recommend the introduction of robust processes to establish traceability from birth and the re-homing of the entire thoroughbred herd, as the foundation stone of the industry’s ongoing welfare program.”

17. Increase thoroughbred prizemoney gradually to over $100 million per annum through a simplified three-tier racing model, with payments extended to tenth place in all races.

The MR did a significant amount of work on the distribution and tiering of prizemoney, but again the size of the prizemoney pool increasing was dependent upon the adoption of all the recommendations, and especially Recommendation 7.

The MR stated: “It seems that the NZTR have a very complicated minimum prizemoney matrix with minimum prizemoney for the same class of race varying across 6 different meeting categories and for minimums to be different for different classes of race at the same meeting.

We have proposed to NZTR that they adopt a different model with minimums being the same for all classes of races for each venue Tier that we propose should apply in the future in New Zealand, that is for what we call Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 venues. Given the different qualities of meetings at each Tier level, and particularly at different times of the year, we propose that Tier 1 and Tier 2 meetings be divided into A and B categories.

We have also taken into account a potential doubling of prizemoney in New Zealand to about $100 million, arising from the initiatives described in other Parts of this Review, and determined what the appropriate allocations of prizemoney between the Tiers should be given the likely number of races run to be at each tier level.”

Footnote:

The completion of the legislative process and the passing into law of the Racing Bill 2020 is the end of a long, drawn-out process that began three years ago when Minister Winston Peters campaigned to the racing industry for reform and won the racing vote.

The end result is this Racing Bill. The arguments of what it should be, how it should happen, and what benefits it should provide have been long and tiring, and win, lose or draw the time comes to withdraw from the battle. These pages have attempted to inform, highlight the injustices and present the best options for the stakeholders, but barring the failure of the final process of ‘Royal Assent,’ the industry has a new set of rules ready for the new season.

No more flogging a dead horse. I’m consigning this episode to the history side of my bookcase, and moving on to write about something else. Thanks for reading this far.

Brian

by Brian de Lore
Published 20^th June 2020

Here is racing’s biggest ever certainty: That TAB NZ is not a sustainable business for the long-term benefit of New Zealand racing and finding an overseas betting operator with which it can enter into a partnering arrangement is an inevitability more for the immediate future than the long-term.

Events of the past three months have underlined the urgent need for New Zealand racing to think globally rather than nationalistically about how it can manage this business sustainably as it enters the third decade of the 21^st Century. Narrow-minded detractors have resisted the basic concept of entering into a mutually beneficial arrangement with the belief they are giving something away for nothing.

COVID-19 hasn’t held racing back as much as this ‘old boys neurosis’ about partnering the TAB, which might be a better description than the word ‘outsourcing’ as stated in the Messara Review. The difference is only subtle; semantics, as one is obtaining services from an outside supplier while the latter might be defined better as a strategic relationship to achieve a sustainable, competitive advantage. In both cases Kiwis retain full ownership of the TAB.

Resistance to partnering comes from people scared of the dark; the anti-entrepreneurial who imagines the bogeyman is hiding under the bed when they switch the light out at night. How can anyone be against a partnering arrangement before negotiations even commence? – but the flat-earthers are definitely out there alive and well.

…the gambling world has consolidated with mergers…

In a short space of time, the gambling world has consolidated with mergers and takeovers rife in 2019 and this year. Scale is everything and the May completion of the merger of Flutter and the Stars Group to form a Dublin based company with a market cap of £10 billion is proof enough.

The Stars Group released this statement on April 30, 2020: “With the overwhelming approval of our shareholders last week and receipt of all remaining regulatory approvals, we look forward to completing our combination with Flutter next week. We are very excited about the potential of this combination, which will create a global leader in online betting and gaming with a portfolio of trusted brands, complementary best-in-class products, diversified revenues, stand-out technology and, most importantly, outstanding teams of exceptional people around the world.”

The point is, such mergers are based on the pooling of resources and synergies to save the group hundreds of millions of dollars, particularly in the areas of IT development and marketing. Recognition of the advantages comes with shareholder approval who only ever vote with their pockets.

Australian based betting operators, including Tabcorp, are still showing an interest in a partnering (partnering, not a merger) arrangement with our TAB. I say still because in the two years since John Messara in his review strongly advised the New Zealand industry to start negotiating, betting revenue in New Zealand has been stalled or declining, and the deal in 2020 might not be as good as the one that was possible in 2018. Nevertheless, partnering is a better option than seeing a further reduction in prizemoney distributions and the inevitable depletion of racehorse ownership and defections to Australia.

Even the smaller Australian corporate bookmakers will struggle to survive long-term and trends world-wide suggest more mergers or thinning by natural attrition. Long-term, New Zealand wagering can neither afford to market itself against the corporates or go it alone.

Marketing costs are increasing faster than betting revenue

Marketing costs are increasing faster than betting revenue, making smaller operators less competitive – between all Australian betting operators the spend annually has risen from very little to in excess of $300 million. The movement away from the tote to fixed-odds has also reduced margins.

The advantages of partnering go something like this: Instead of TAB NZ funding its own FOB platform with commitments for ongoing payments for the next 10 years – total cost in the vicinity of $200 million, they do what RWWA in Western Australia did and pay a flat fee of $7 million annually to plug into Tabcorp’s FOB and benefit from their ongoing IT developments.

Or, New Zealand negotiates a larger package and includes all of its betting services and 100 percent comingling of the pools, and achieves massive cost savings on salaries and wages, IT development, turnover related expenses, advertising and promotions, comingling, rent, repairs and maintenance, accountancy, consultancy, travel and accommodation and a $14 million cost shown as other expenses.

Three years ago, Deloitte prepared a report to assess the potential from a partnering arrangement and concluded $70 million in cost-saving synergies were available. But cost saving is only one-half of the potential benefits of partnering because a good agreement will provide an avenue for saving future capital investment and opening up several new revenue streams.

Using the most advanced technology by plugging into Australia might bring back a sizeable proportion of the 35 percent loss in the TAB customer base. The service from the TAB would go from woeful to wonderful. The failure of the FOB and its dodgy website may see it written off and red carded into history, and yields would likely improve with a competitive FOB coupled with better risk management and hedging processes. As well, customers would have available a full range of betting options that our TAB only dreamed of introducing but could never afford.

…potential for a much-improved phone app and website

Plugging into Tabcorp’s or a Sportsbet computer also has the potential for a much-improved phone app and website. The TAB website was launched only 18 months ago with the FOB, but from day one it has never been satisfactory and is not fixable, or the funds aren’t available to fix it – the latter the more likely of the two as not all the Openbet updates have been done due to lack of money.

Below budget turnover and the onset of COVID-19 has surely dampened-down the negotiating limits on a partnering deal, but such an arrangement could also include a worthwhile upfront fee and an agreement that provides a guaranteed level of income annually and a profit share of the additional profit generated by the partnership over and above the benchmark.

A sophisticated betting partner will also utilise the value of New Zealand’s unique global time-slot – an opportunity that won’t materialise under the present regime. That would mean a consolidation of New Zealand venues to produce better racing surfaces and aesthetically improved visuals of New Zealand racing on which the Asian market can bet at 9.00 AM in Hong Kong. The potential for New Zealand racing to develop that Asian market is massive.

The business of betting in New Zealand would be better served under the control of a good commercial operator and run separately to the organisation associated with running racing – the Australian system proves it works. New Zealand is infested with government control which is still visible on every page of the wording put forward for the second reading of the Racing Bill.

In a letter written to Minister Peters recently, I asked five questions of which he answered two. One of the Minister’s answers said: “The Government does not accept the success of all recommendations rests solely on the recommendation of seven (meaning Recommendation 7 of 17 in the Messara Review). Having said that, the Bill will allow the industry greater commercial freedom to explore options such as outsourcing and partnerships.”

The opposition to partnering is gradually disintegrating. The IP (Intellectual Property) is coming back to the codes, and the landscape is changing, and the passing of the Racing Bill will hopefully lead the industry closer to a TAB run commercially and profitably for the stakeholders of racing and a brighter future.

by Brian de Lore
Published 5^th June 2020

If you have a successful business you’re looking to run into the ground and send broke, the New Zealand TAB has almost completed writing the perfect blueprint, but don’t call its helpline for the recipe because it’s become famous for providing no help.

In fact, the helpline at the TAB has brought to light numerous recent stories of the phone ringing unanswered or operators arguing with disgruntled punters rather than appeasing them, and even hanging it in their ear.

Punters consulted to write this blog produced one who claimed eight of his previous ten calls to the helpline had gone unanswered.

An overabundance of stories about the poor treatment of customers and a reduction in services can only be a reflection of a leadership team that doesn’t care about the bottom-line result.

Rumblings about a toxic culture within the walls of the TAB from various disgruntled TAB employees…

It’s not a new thing. Rumblings about a toxic culture within the walls of the TAB from various disgruntled TAB employees have been audible most the way through the John Allen reign of terror, and since. Good people are known to have left voluntarily, and others who have expressed disagreement in policy direction have experienced the shove.

And now, the customer interface which is where any successful organisation meets its customers and keeps them happy, has been dismantled to save around five percent of the TAB’s annual cost. The reason offered to The Optimist: Executive Chair Dean McKenzie didn’t tackle the problem of redundancies himself but gave the cost-cutting assignment to his executive team, hence Stephen Henry addressing the staff at redundancy meetings and not McKenzie himself.

Any well-run organisation displaying strong leadership would have started with the executive team and worked its way down – not the other way around. The TAB has lost its way because it has focused on IT development with a strange, misguided and overblown self-belief they had the expertise to develop a FOB that would compete in the global wagering market.

Vanity overcame logic, however, and the customer became the casualty. Strange is it not, that of all the businesses that should require extra careful customer attention, The TAB NZs focus on its VIP and Elite Customers while ignoring all us ‘mug punters’ has surely backfired with the loss of 35 percent of its customer base. Don’t accept that COVID-19 was the cause.

John Allen: …the top 1.5 percent of our customers produce 56 percent of our turnover.

Two and a half years ago, the then CEO John Allen said the most accurate thing he ever said: “We need new customers otherwise we are vulnerable to that very small number of elite customers – the top 1.5 percent of our customers produce 56 percent of our turnover. And they are being sought by every betting agency in the world.”  

Needing them and getting them were two separate destinations, but Allen never accepted that scale was against all his plans, and overseas IT development and massive marketing budgets were obstacles too big to conquer. Between Tabcorp and Australian betting operators, the spend on marketing is currently $300 million per annum.

Allen should have heeded his own advice, which in reality, was the advice of his executive team because he didn’t know the business. But his executive team was made up of several former associates at NZ Post/Kiwibank brought with him from his days of NZ Post and a couple of relatively inexperienced employees from Tom Waterhouse Bookmaking in Sydney.

Punters have never been loyal animals, and the depletion of customers has been across the board. Allen, at that time, also talked about his VIP customers:  “the VIP customers who are very large punters – 20 or 30 of them around the world – they are betting on our products if we are competitive as long as they get all the data they require.”

Sportsbet in Australia offered the same man a free $1,500 bet if he deposited $1,000.

Offering substantial rebates to the biggest punters has proved a false economy, and it raises the question of how many of the VIPs remain? One of the Elite customers was this week offered a free $50 bet on the TAB NZ if he deposited $100 into his account. On the same day, Sportsbet in Australia offered the same man a free $1,500 bet if he deposited $1,000. Who’s winning that battle?

The so-called ‘mug punters’ now have no weekly printed formguide to purchase, no radio trackside interviews and talkback, a FOB platform that offers poor odds on a poorly designed website that continually gets ‘hung,’ the closure of more TAB retail outlets and the promise of no live betting operators on-course but instead ‘betting pods’ or self-service terminals that are cumbersome to use and don’t payout.

It’s hard to fathom why years ago the television exposure of racing to the general public was extinguished when Trackside went from free-to-air to pay-TV with the Sky package. How do you get new racegoers interested if the product isn’t free to view?

Then consider that all telephone betting has ceased, including the exempted special cases, and TAB NZ is the only betting operator that charges a debit/credit card fee of $2.15 regardless of whether you deposit $10 or $100, and you reach the conclusion it must now be really managed by the Women’s Christian Temperance Union which has set out to discourage all betting.

…two earn just under $300,000 while the other six earn over $300,000 and reputedly up to $620,000

But that was last week’s joke. This week we still have to consider that the people making these decisions are basically the same eight executives, of which two earn just under $300,000 while the other six earn over $300,000 and reputedly up to $620,000 (McKenzie).

McKenzie said in his Update on May 26^th, “An independent review of the structure of the Executive Leadership team is underway with consultation on any proposed changes expected to start next week.”

Why an independent review? McKenzie is in the job and should by now have worked out how to run it on a shoestring, which he really should have had worked out a year ago. But if making a decision is the issue, then using a paid consultant is historically typical for this organisation.

One former employee passed the comment that if the entire executive team stayed in bed for a month, it would not be detrimental to the TABs performance. The inference was that if the computer was operational, the business would run itself – and as good a cash business as the TAB could be,  it was only ever big enough to feed a few platoons, not an entire army.

Getting the customers back and revenue up to a sustainable level is problematic. COVID-19 has interrupted racing and changed habits, which may never result in a return to our former ways and, in particular relevance to racing, betting practices. Punters have generally concluded they are getting no service and a lousy deal from TAB NZ, and anecdotally the evidence suggests they are looking off-shore in greater numbers.

The saving grace could be the content of the legislation which will be tabled in parliament early next week

The saving grace could be the content of the legislation which will be tabled in parliament early next week and hopefully get its second reading soon after that. If the rewrite favours the consensus of the almost 1,000 submissions and is passed into law by July 1^st as scheduled, racing gets its chance to see the early exit of RITA and the implementation of some positive changes.

A throng of stars needs to align for that rare possibility of hope to become a reality. But while Minister Peters did renew RITA for a further year in a statement he released on Wednesday, when the same announcement appeared on the RITA website later that same day, the caveat on the renewal of RITA appeared in a footnote.

The footnote stated: “The Directors’ terms will end on the enactment of the Racing Industry Bill or on 30 June 2021 – whichever comes first.” The enactment of the Bill is imminent if we are to get a second reading next week.

The Select Committee wasn’t available for comment this week because, under its protocols, it is inappropriate to make comments before the legislation comes up for its second reading. But in previous conversations with both National Select Committee members Andrew Bayly and Ian McKelvie (Shadow Minister for Racing), they are positive about the content.

All this means nothing, however, if an under-performing TAB on the top of RITAs $47 million debt to the ASB Bank trivialises racing in the coming season, because of NZRB/RITAs point-blank refusal to properly investigate the outsourcing/partnering of the TAB and restructuring as outlined in the Messara Review two years ago.

The Review clearly warned the Minister and all of New Zealand that it didn’t have the luxury of waiting, but that warning went unheeded, and today New Zealand racing is paying the price.