Leggy

I guess you could consider those as experiments Murray but not really the kind of R&D I was referring to. One of the required functions of the board is: g) to undertake, or arrange for the undertaking of, research, development, and education for the benefit of New Zealand racing I presume any reasonable strategic plan would contain strategies and objectives toward that. Hopefully, once the current, but so far mostly secret strategic plan becomes accessible to the rest of us, we will see some clear strategies and objectives toward that end. Though I'm beginning to wonder if they are so ashamed of the so called exciting plan that they are not going to show it to anyone.

Thanks Don. I agree with most of what you say although I disagree that what I pointed out was in the least unwitting. I'm convinced that essentially we all want pretty much the same thing, but until the paint dries on that picture so we can all point to it and ask how does this brush stroke contribute to that scene, then we will remain stuck in my view. Yes, stakeholders could and possibly should hold the board accountable under law, but so should the minister - by asking the board the right questions. A legal challenge for me seeems it should be a last resort. I favour some well facilitated round the table collaborative conversation with a backdrop of the legal requirements of the board. If they won't front up in a forum where those questions can be asked or won't provide clear well-evidenced answers for stakeholders to consider and provide feedback on then it seems it is the ministers responsibility to get those answers. If he will not, then I'll be asking the primeminister and the cabinet why not and if that fails perhaps the opposition would like to ask some of those questions of the minister in Parliament.

That's part of my point zzz. Why is it poorly understood? I'd suggest because the current leadership have not made a convincing case. The evidence is inconsistent and I for one am not clear how that particular governance strategy will contribute in a substantial way to the longer term objectives and vision for racing or what that even is. Boardworks in their Performance and Efficiency audit of 2008 noted clearly that: "There seems to be a widespread assumption that the present, multi-componented structure of the industry cannot work. Conceptually, however, there is no reason why what is often called a

Don, if what you say is true, then the Racing Act already explicitly requires the NZRB to do this. It may not be that s16 needs to be changed but rather that s9(2) is applied to its implementation. Section 9(2) says: In carrying out its functions, the Board must

I'm forever hopeful that when we actually get to see this "exciting new strategic plan" of the RB's then it must surely contain some sort of R&D strategy and objectives for the industry.

Denny, I agree with your comment and in response to the above, I think that stakeholders in general are concerned about the quality of the product. I also agree with Don and chelseacol that leadership from the top is critical and that information sharing with stakeholders is an important part of that. For the first and most part, a clearly articulated vision, strategy and longer term objectives is required. If that doesn't come from the NZRB despite a strong message in the July 2008 Performance Review that it should, then I agree the Minister should insist on it and someone should front up here, on trackside, or anywhere else accessible to stakeholders and potential stakeholders with some clear and comprehensive sense of direction and an explanation of how the recommendations in that review are being enacted by the minister and the board. Frankly, the NZRB has persisted in being a coms disaster from that standpoint in my view and while there are rumours of a strategic plan in the Minister's recent press release, delivering it to selected folk in semi-secret meetings around the country is hardly the transparency that seems necessary. Nor is it useful to drive a seemingly unevidenced change in governance structure, also from a seemingly semi-secretive basis, when that performance review indicated that the current structure was workable. Changing the structure won't solve the problem of accountability if the legislative measures and review recommendations effecting that accountability are ignored.

Appearently it's to do with some shifting piles under the viaduct, Don.

Don't know about the moderating issue but wouldn't you agree that it takes two to tango, scooby? It's hardly an issue confined to that site either it would seem.

...and that was only for 6 months in 09 Go back a further 6 months and you'll see the CJC...another 300 grand; ARC about the same; Gallop South about 265;WRC about 240k and on it goes....

to be fair rumpole....he stole that one from hooksie

Yeah riding pretty well CWJ...think he picked up a check in 7 out of 10 rides from memory.

It appears he thinks he still is, only now he's getting paid megabucks for it. Nice work if you can get it.

I think that is a good question Dennis and a good answer Midget. It's interesting, because if I'm casually choosing a place to stop for a drink or a meal, I tend to avoid those that have and especially those that blatantly promote, pokies. Not for any moral reason per se. Just that I figure that if an outfit is focused or relies on its hospitality business rather than gambling then I'm more likely to get a better deal.

That does make a fair amount of sense Don but how do we get that to happen or something approximating it?

I suppose 'the weight at which it is handicapped to carry' could be interpreted as the handicapped weight less the allowable claim but that's certainly not how I understood it.

Correct Freda, in which case while it may have been a contracting issue it seems not to be failure under Rule330{3} {c}.

Rumpole, do you think this is one of the public meetings to explain the RB strategic plan that Minister Carter announced last week?

Correct Midget. © fail to ride a horse at the weight at which it is handicapped to carry;

I'd be interested to know what the figures for betting on overseas product actually are and how they are broken down. The other matters are rather more complex as you say, and some may argue, even with respect to the above, that clubs and NZ racing should only be paid directly for turnover on the product they produce. On the other hand, the onset of the ability to bet on offcourse events on all codes when oncourse is another offsetting factor if that is included in clubs oncourse turnover figures. In the beginning you said "I thought I was the only one who noticed that there is now a legally established principle ("he who pays the piper calls the tune"). This of course is applicable to governance, proportional split of TV broadcast time and of course revenue apportionment on a code specific basis." However, when I pointed out that this principal should then also apply to the current NZTR distribution to clubs, you dismissed that as irrelevant: "as to TBs getting their house in order "first", this is not relevant to the issue we are discussing" Would you not agree that clubs are being asked to compete on the same unequal business basis that you consider nonsensical in the code distributions? And should that not also be remedied in the interests of 'natural justice'?

Don, is it not possible to ascertain whether, and if so to what extent, a distortion in fact exists? On face value, in 2009, total racing turnover was $1,371,082,000. Thouroughbred turnover was $473,863,450 (34%). Yet the stakes payout to TB was 58.4 million (56%) of the total 104.4 million. On that basis, we are getting 20 million too much. I'm no accountant, but perhaps you would more clearly detail how a benefit of 3-5 million could occur from amendment of s16?

Apologies. It was a long post I haven't raced anything here since last season though I currently have two yearlings being started. That said, I have owned, bred and raced numerous thoroughbreds in five different countries over the last 35 years, been a licenceholder here in two different capacities, relied on the industry for a full or part-time living for at least two decades of that and am currently more focused on other things. In case you misunderstand me, if it weren't for current issues including governance, management and legislation including s16, I probably would be more involved as we speak. I might note that I agree with you about s16. I joined this thread which was originally about code voting rights in the one racing proposal, because I disagreed that the 'pay the piper' principle could be used to alter s16 and later that the notion of natural justice made a strong argument for that change. My more recent comments were reflecting that different views exist on the mechanics of achieving a preferred future for the industry in part because there is no well articulated consensual picture of that future. I also posed some beginning wonderings as to how we might more likely effect such a change, engage all stakeholders and find the necessary leadership to do so.

Sorry Don, you'll have to point me to the post containing the question I didn't answer. I must have missed it.

Don, I assume Joe is referring to his inquiry in post #81 which you replied to without answering his question.

Politicians have to be mindful of chat rooms John Carter - New Zealand's Racing Minister. Blogs and Internet chat rooms are relatively new media, and certainly ones us politicians have to be mindful of. There appears to be little or no censorship and this media is part of what is referred to as "citizens' media" - where any person can report on anything entirely from their viewpoint, rather than worrying about what other media have to worry about such as accuracy and facts. No doubt, it has its place. But what concerns me from a racing viewpoint is the inaccuracy of much of the information that appears, particularly in the chat rooms, and the destructive nature of some comments. The racing industry is facing some big decisions about a collective way forward that will bring benefits for all. More revenue needs to be generated to ensure the viability of participating as breeders, owners and punters - the groups that generate the jobs for those who make their livelihoods out of the industry. I'm encouraging all those involved at a management level to work together and to put what appear to be historical differences behind them. So it is disappointing to see the racing chat rooms being used as a debating chamber with much of the information inaccurate at best. Being involved in racing management appears to be a thankless task. However, I have seen that those charged by the three codes with representing their best interests do just that. Similarly, the racing board is committed to increasing revenue. Racing board personnel are holding sessions to explain the board's strategic plan at various racing venues around New Zealand over the next two weeks. I urge people who make their livelihood from racing to go along and hear what is happening in their industry. As with politics, if you don't participate, you cannot then make sport of knocking everything those who are actively participating do. I guess that's the real problem with blogs and chat rooms - armchair critics have a lot to say and a way to say it. There is of course, the option to ignore/not read or respond to what is said. But I would like to see a racing industry where those putting in an effort to make things better are not being constantly undermined. None of us minds constructive criticism. I, for one, want to hear all good ideas. But to sit on the sidelines and snipe, rather than participate, doesn't do anyone in racing any good at all. Wouldn't it be great if the chat rooms were used to debate innovative ideas that would benefit everyone? That's what racing needs right now. by Hon. John CARTER (New Zealand Minister for Racing)