UPDATED: Greens MLA tables petition calling for end of public funding for horse racing

And I have no view one way or the other to be honest on this. Do I think its a waste of money – absolutely. Do I think there are shedloads of other instances of wasted money by ACT Government – I sure do.

I don’t get why there is an ACT track and a QBN track however – if I was ruler for a day, I’d merge them, build a brand spanking new facility somewhere (don’t care if its ACT or NSW land), and bring them into the broader NSW racing scene, and then abolish all the facade around an ACT racing industry. ACT Government could make a contribution to Racing NSW each year towards costs of the club (at a level somewhat lower then what we spend now), Thoroughbred Park could be used for a better purpose (Great spot for a stadium for mine), and we’d all be better off.

You can’t exactly complain about one set of economic consultants and then claim that the ICRC definitively showed something, when their assessment was similarly based on assumptions by economists (and a very narrow assessment at that).

Along with this, the 15% point of consumption tax only started in 2019.

Fyrther to this, the assumption that there is no linkage between racing and wagering in the ACT or Australia more broadly is extraordinarily myopic. That type of thinking would suggest that the best “economic” outcome would be for no or extremely few race tracks in Australia and everyone will still wager the same on the limited meetings and overseas events.

It’s simple ignorance of how the industry operates as a whole, with the creation of numerous supporting industries that only exist becaise of the economies of scale available.

Also, since 2010, payments to the indistry havent increased, whilst revenue has. Even if you take the ICRCs break even assessment as gospel, the situation is clearly better now.

There are definitely opportunities for rationalisation in the industry but the idea that a race track in the capital city of Australia will never be viable is just silly.

Although at least you’re freely outlining that you want to grab the land that the racecourse is currently on. That’s clearly other people’s intents as well but they like hiding behind other arguments because the land grab doesn’t fly as well in the community.

“There are definitely opportunities for rationalisation in the industry but the idea that a race track in the capital city of Australia will never be viable is just silly.”

Page 25: https://thoroughbredpark.com.au/pdf/Annual-Report-2019-20.pdf
CRC has $12.5 million in revenue. $6.5 million of that is direct subsidy from the ACT Government. Tell me just how that is ‘viable’ if it isn’t continually propped up by Government? Remember, if you dig into the figures, the POC tax probably raises somewhere between $100,000 and $200,000 a year from betting on ACT racing. Being generous, lets add in the $1m Tabcorp licence fee. That’s still a subsidy of $5m +.

The sheer fact the only answer the industry has is to say ‘give me some more sir, please sir’ through its hand out for more tax revenue says it all. It absolutely is not viable in its current structure and never will be – its as simple as that.

“Further to this, the assumption that there is no linkage between racing and wagering in the ACT or Australia more broadly is extraordinarily myopic. That type of thinking would suggest that the best “economic” outcome would be for no or extremely few race tracks in Australia and everyone will still wager the same on the limited meetings and overseas events. “

Where did I suggest it applied Australia wide or that there was no linkage? I was very specific in saying I was referring to the ACT industry in saying that ACT Government revenues are now basically unhinged from local racing industry activity. In that case, it is the simple and absolute truth. The ACT racing industry could disappear overnight, and beyond direct employment impacts, there would be little impact on the wagering and racing industry at all – measured on a statistical basis, probably zero. Canberra Gallops would be replaced by another meeting from Gundagai, from Alice Springs, from Perth, wherever. Same with the harness – the simple fact is people in Australia will punt on anything, and ACT racing product has zero ‘value add’ in terms of being anything different for 99.95% of people that punt.

As for your point about fewer tracks – have you seen any vision of Sky Racing recently? More and more international product being show even during the day – a rationalised Australian model will be the outcome at some point, whether its sooner or later.

You implied it and so did the ICRC when they reviewed it 10 years ago.

“ACT industry in saying that ACT Government revenues are now basically unhinged from local racing industry activity. In that case, it is the simple and absolute truth. The ACT racing industry could disappear overnight, and beyond direct employment impacts, there would be little impact on the wagering and racing industry at all – measured on a statistical basis, probably zero. “

This is the exact point that I’m refuting. It ignores all context of the racing industry as a whole and how it operates, because the same argument can literally be made for any racecourse until there are no racecourses left and apparently the same amount will be wagered on US or UK racing products.

And the same argument could also apply to almost any semi viable cultural pursuit that government’s fund in this manner.

ie. why do we fund the local film industry, film goers will just replace their viewing with Hollywood films.

Why do we fund any professional sport, people can just watch the NBA and NFL.

Because the racing industry as a whole generates far more revenue than that subsidy in both taxation and economic activity for the ACT.

Once again you are trying to isolate the ACT component from the racing industry as a whole, which is exactly what I’m saying is unreasonable. The ACT industry does not exist in isolation and the idea that long term wagering revenues wouldn’t be affected by its removal is just wrong.

To ignore the context of how the industry actually operates and how people get involved in it in the first place (through direct experience) is just nonsensical.

What you could argue however is that their needs to be better national funding models such that the ACT and other jurisdictions receive the true value for the product they are providing but that is another matter entirely.

I’d also be interested to hear if you want to apply the same logic to other areas of government spending. At least the racing industry provides a significant taxation base to government, the same cannot be said for almost the entire arts industry and much of the sports and wider entertainment industries as well.

Do you want all funding in these areas to be removed despite the clear benefits they bring in both social benefits and wider economic activity?

I mean there won’t be a need for the stadium you want to build if we require the teams who play there to actually fund and build the thing with their own profits, correct?

Lets look at the hard figures. The Canberra Racing Club has turnover around $140 million per annum on its racing product. Total racing turnover in Australia is around $31 billion. That’s less than 0.5 per cent of total industry turnover.

It is a rounding error in the grand scheme of things, and as shown by the demise of the greyhounds (Noting something I did not support at all), its disappearance has made exactly zero difference to national industry outcomes.

It is a simple fact, I don’t understand why your trying to pretend it isn’t. I’m not advocating some grand plan to get rid of all – if Thoroughbred Park was Flemington or Randwick, then its a different story and your point might have some validity.. But its not – it is all but in name a country level club – just with much larger salaries for its executives. Despite the strongest growth in non-government funding in history over the past few years through race field product fields, the fact more than 50% of its funding is Government subsidy says it all. It’ll never, ever be stand alone viable.

On other areas industries and areas, I’m not unhappy for a similar approach. But I note the community benefit from many of these areas is massive compared to racing. Outside of the couple of piss up days a year, noone goes to the races, and its direct employment levels are far below those in other industries. It also has a substantial negative externality associated with it too in terms of harms from gambling.

The need for a national funding model has been clear for a decade – it’ll never happen though. That doesn’t mean ACT joining Racing NSW and QBN/CBR merging woudln’t be a far better outcome than current arrangements.

But what you’re saying isn’t a simple fact, it’s just ignoring the wider context and long term implications of what you’re proposing.

What you are actually proposing is that the ACT should leach off interstate/overseas racing products because it would make immediate economic sense.

What this ignores is that the same could and does apply across the country. Every other jurisdiction could also externalise the costs and increase their profits for a short time until there is no local product or industry.

But the ACT industry doesn’t exist in isolation. People only get involved and spend money because of their direct connection and cultural history with it. If you don’t maintain that, people will be off spending their money elsewhere. It’s the same reason why you couldn’t just replace Australian sport with overseas sports or computer generated sporting events and expect revenue to remain the same.

I would also disagree with your assertion that the community connection to racing is solely around a few “pissup” days. As you’ve said, it’s a $31B national industry and the local government receives millions in additional taxation because of the local community involvement in it.

Compared to the other entertainment and art industries, racing is far more economically viable.

And I’ve got nothing against merging the two local clubs but it would clearly be superior from a long term perspective to do so at the ACT racetrack site due to its location and the clear and obvious opportunities for growth due to that location.

You mean like, transparency and full disclosure BEFORE the election, so people could be fully informed before they cast their vote?
We are talking about the greens here.