Shane,

Different subject mate. You are referring to Trackside which is one of many TABCORP products.

TABCORP operates under license from the government and in accordance with government approved conditions re commission rates etc. Anything Tabcorp does in NSW has to go through that process. That includes Trackside.

That is a one to one deal - government to Tabcorp - in which racing codes have no direct involvement.

The codes used to have direct oversight of the tote - ie oncourse wagering - but sold off that right for very big dollars when government sold off the offcourse TAB rights to TAB Ltd (later TABCORP). Greyhounds got some of that cash. Eventually, TABCORP bought out AWA and Racecourse Totalizators oncourse operations and so owned the lot (and later SKY plus radio). It then did deals with the three codes, including the ICA.

In contrast, NT corporate bookies do not deal with or via the NSW government simply because they are registered in NT and have no physical presence in NSW - digital only - and the NSW government has no jurisdiction over digital traffic. The corporates' dealings are solely with each of the racing codes.

TABCORP set up Luxbet in the NT in an attempt to limit the influence of other NT operators (it's now closed down because it never did much good). It set up Trackside apparently in an attempt to pull in business which might otherwise go to the pokies. Both were simply competitive moves by a public gaming company.

Similarly, TABCORP has done lots of international deals in order to promote 24/7 use of its system (albeit the program crowding has not done much good for declining greyhound pools). That is also the background to the establishment of SKY2. TABCORP'S philosophy in respect to racing/wagering opportunities is the more the merrier - any shape or colour will do.

So,

1. The Trackside deal is purely a TABCORP initiative and has nothing to do with the racing codes, although they do get some pickings off the bottom.
2. Government can amend Trackside conditions just as it can amend TABCORP'S wagering conditions or those for the lotteries or whatever - always subject to contract, of course.
3. In its wisdom, TABCORP thought it sensible to achieve guarantees from the racing codes about the supply of races. It offered benefits to the codes in exchange. TABCORP and the three codes agreed on the details, including minimum race numbers and commissions. Hence the ICA. This was a purely commercial transaction in which government had - and has - zero involvement.
4. Any disadvantage to greyhound racing has accrued solely and completely by its own hand. It can complain all it likes but it has not got a leg to stand on. Look for other ways of skinning the cat - commercially, entrepreneurially, imaginatively, proactively - or lay back and think of mother England.

I have offered name rank and serial number on this subject, mostly pretty factual, so there is not much point in covering it again for a "layman's belief".

You and others cannot seem to get your head around the fact that Baird and the government have, and had, nothing to do with the ICA - nada, zero, zilch. Neither did or could the moves to shut down or re-open the industry have any bearing - for the same reason.

QCs? See advisors to Percy Allan/Hogan, Alliance, a gaggle in the McHugh Commission, to say nothing of government types. Post-Percy, GRNSW was headed by a lawyer. Hogan was a lawyer (so he claims, although I suspect he missed a few classes - see an article I wrote about Tweed Heads). QCs and lawyers in abundance - beats a layman hands down.

Please read my 12 and 13 Aug posts for the full details.

That is not really the point Grant brought up - but I agree with you. In fact, it was item 10 on my 12 Aug post. Go for it.

EXTERNAL LINK

"The remaining flow of funds from the TAB to the racing industry will continue to be governed by existing commercial arrangements between the parties."

Shane,

I have to agree with Bruce on this issue.

The Betting Tax Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 (Proof) Betting Tax Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 had nothing to do with the
Inter code agreement, as shown by the above quote from the legislation bill.

Can u read again ...my original point was THEY CAN AMEND THROUGH LEGISTRATION. ...my inclusion of the bill amendment for taxation reform was to prove that Briuce had was clearly wrong & infact a number of acts of legistration had to be amended for TRACKSIDE to get up & running in NSW.. ...TRACKSIDE was my example of what can be done with the right support....if evnough minor parties hold the power in either house in NSW, then things can be done ...one party in particular is scoping for this very thing...,

Thanks

Thankyou - you got in just before I also pointed out that sentence.

People seem not to understand that a government intrusion into a private commercial agreement would constitute a mammoth change to democratic processes.

Governments do not have unlimited power. They are bound by the constitution and the laws, too. Witness all the kerfuffle about the birth qualifications of various Federal MPs, where the wishes of the government and the opposition were thrown out by the High Court.

Were the NSW government to override a legal commercial agreement then V'Landys would be into the Supreme/High Courts in a flash and he would win, just as he did with the racefield charges in RNSW v the corporates (correctly in that case).

The NSW and other governments tried to counter the introduction of corporates to the betting scene - directly and by appealing to the Commonwealth. Yet it had no specific power to do so and the Commonwealth said it did not either. The effort lapsed and so the corporates did their deals.

Of course, Baird (legally) passed a law to ban the industry but the mob quickly found him out. They chucked out the coalition MP in Orange, whereupon Baird soon changed his mind. Baird disappeared and Grant got demoted. Democracy worked.

The upshot is that what commentators here would like to see (indeed
most of us) might happen in North Korea, China or maybe Russia but it will not and cannot happen here.

I repeat - find other ways of skinning this cat.

More generally, it is a lesson to all of us to carefully examine all laws, regulations or agreements, actual or proposed, to assess their short, medium and long term implications. If in doubt, object. It may be your career that is at stake.

The NSW government has played down the possibility it might intervene to change the TAB revenue-sharing agreement between the horse and dog racing codes, a key recommendation of a review into the troubled greyhound industry.

That recommendation would have added $23.3 million in revenue annually to greyhound racing as one way of paying for additional regulatory costs at the expense of harness racing, which would have its share of wagering revenues fall from 17 per cent to 11 per cent.

The 99-year inter-code agreement was negotiated in 1998 when Peter Vlandys, now the chief executive of Racing NSW, was the head of the harness racing industry. It allocated 70 per cent of TAB revenues to thoroughbreds and 13 per cent to greyhounds.

READ NEXT

Seven dead in bridge collapse
JACQUELIN MAGNAY
Currently thoroughbreds contribute 67.3 per cent of wagering turnover, while the greyhounds contribute 21.7 per cent.

Instead, the government is considering revising the distribution of the tax harmonisation revenues, a measure that would add $10.5m annually to the greyhound industry by 2019.

Headed by former premier Morris Iemma, the review recommends that Greyhound Racing NSW be split into a commercial arm and an integrity commission, which would have broad powers to enforce strict new rules. While the reviews recommendations have yet to be accepted by the Berejiklian government, representations have already been made to Racing NSW, the thoroughbred racing body, that no legislation to alter the revenue sharing agreement is planned.

Mr Vlandys told The Australian yesterday that legislating to alter a private agreement would have been the worst precedent in commercial terms.

The (agreement) is very complicated and the gentleman on the panel recommending its change is the same gentleman who agreed to it, he said.

The review panel also included representatives of the Greyhound Breeders, Owners and Trainers Association and the RSPCA. GBOTA chief executive Brenton Scott said he was confident that the industry and its participants can regain community trust via reform.

The inequity in our wagering funding model has been clearly identified by the panel, with firm recommendations for government intervention, he said.

Racing Minister Paul Toole said it would be highly unusual for parliament to intervene in a commercial agreement.

Labor said it was up to the racing codes to renegotiate, but did not say if it would support legislation to force changes if negotiation was unsuccessful

Another confirmation ..,.oh yes its possible YES YES YES, as most knew...,the strategy is already been drawn up post NSW election, if the marbles fall our way.....theres examples aplenty where government (state & federal) used legislation to go around an commercial agreement ..,,

Cheers

Can you post the agreement here please.

Totally wrong. I would put it in the same bracket as Cessnock regaining TAB status. Well, worse actually, because that was highly unlikely and illogical while this one is effectively impossible legally unless V'Landys agrees to a change. And pigs might fly.

Have you seen it ?

To put it another way,for arguments sake, imagine if greyhounds were receiving 30% and thoroughbreds 50% of current distribution. Do you think the government would be sitting on their hands.

Would that it were. You claim ...

"Government can simply amend appropriate legislation such that distributions from Tab are made directly to each code in proportion to percentage of wagering generated".

No it can't. The government is not a party to the ICA, nor does "appropriate legislation" address the possibility.

You havent answered my question. You know about it, but have you seen it ?

Can we summarise please?

Alan Cameron recommended a change to the ICA.
Minister Face recommended a change to the ICA.
GRNSW (Allan) recommended a change to the ICA.
Alliance recommended a change to the ICA.
GBOTA recommended a change to the ICA.
Some media supported the recommendation.
The Borsak Inquiry supported the recommendation.
Scott says the Reform Panel recommended a change to the ICA.

so,

Government (LibNP) declined to act.
Labor declined to enter the argument.
Several QCs have failed to find a way to act.
RNSW have refused to act.
Government has addressed and amended other legislation but not this one, primarily because (a) it is not legislation and (b) it can't.
Government has had the opportunity to take compensating measures elsewhere but has refused to do so.
GRA/GBOTA/NCA said it was a good deal.

The bird has flown. The horse has bolted. It's a dead duck. Move on.

You write that different entities have recommended for the ICA to be changed. Why would they express it if you think it cant ?

Several QCs ? Who are they ?

Have you seen the document ?

Its not a good deal.