TTR Live Blog: Rosehill Inquiry Hearing 2

Cover image courtesy of the Australian Turf Club

Welcome to our live coverage of the second hearing on the Proposal to Develop Rosehill Racecourse. We'll be bringing you continuous updates from Parliament House, keeping you informed and engaged throughout the proceedings.

Whether you're unable to watch the live stream or prefer real-time written updates, this page will serve as your source for all the key moments, insights, and developments.

Stay tuned and refresh your browser often for the latest updates.

Last update: 4.21pm

Session 8: Chris Waller and Richard Freedman

Rosehill-based trainers Chris Waller and Richard Freedman rounded out the eighth and final session of the second hearing.

Waller began his statement by emphasising that Rosehill is the home of his highly successful training operation, which employs around 100 staff. He acknowledged the pressing housing shortages and the challenges faced by young people trying to purchase their own homes.

However, Waller stated, “I do not think giving up the Rosehill racecourse for housing is the right way to go when you consider the great loss this would be to the entertainment and life of so many who live in Western Sydney. Once Rosehill is gone, Western Sydney has lost one of its greatest community attractions.”

While Waller expressed his strong support for retaining Rosehill, he also indicated his openness to explore alternative proposals, such as partial sales of underutilised areas of the Rosehill precinct for housing. Waller cited successful apartment developments at Sha Tin (Hong Kong), Flemington, and Doomben, as well as Caulfield’s recent repurposing of land both inside and around the racecourse, as examples of how Rosehill could be better utilised.

Freedman opened his statement mentioning that he’s “open to the idea” before raising a list of concerns he has with the process, given the lack of information provided to anyone - but particularly the Rosehill-based trainers whose lives will be turned upside down with the shift to Horsley Park.

“We are flying blind here,” Freedman said, reiterating that a major upgrade in facilities would need to be guaranteed before a sale could be seriously considered.

He then raised the reality of “living in a construction site for a decade and trying to train horses out of it”, which would be likely if there was a partial site selloff, mentioning, that unlike Waller, he was not in favour of that as an option.

When questioned about his absence from the first hearing, Waller firmly denied any suggestions that he was advised not to attend by any parties, stating, “That’s not true. I get a bit emotional and decided to put a submission in as it is a little bit intimidating.” He went on to explain his reasons for appearing today, acknowledging his self-interest as a trainer at Rosehill.

“I could see there was a weight of support around what I was saying anyway,” Waller later said when Hurst asked further questions.

Throughout the inquiry, Waller elaborated on Sydney's projected growth over the next decade, emphasising that Rosehill is likely to become the heart of Western Sydney, with a potential population of 5 million people, and declared, “we need a racetrack.”

He also spoke passionately about the vital role Rosehill can play in the community, underscoring the importance of maintaining a racetrack for the future of racing and the broader benefits it could bring to Sydney as a whole.

Hawkesbury was raised as another option for training, however both trainers mentioned that it would not suffice. Freedman specifically stated that leaving Rosehill for Hawkesbury was not an upgrade.

Session 7: Dr Rosemary Elliot , Dr Andrea Harvey and Dr Paul McGreevy

A trio of animal welfare academics stepped up next, with Hurst being first in line to question the three researchers on their opinion around horse racing welfare queries.

Dr Paul McGreevy first mentioned his research on the whip, outlining that he believed it hurt the horse. Hurst asked McGreevy if it was Racing NSW who had blocked progress toward a whip ban. He could not confirm it, however, mentioned that he’d heard rumours that were the case.

Dr McGreevy went on to mention that Racing Victoria is showing great leadership on whip reform and embracing the science around whip use from a progression in welfare perspective, while other jurisdictions such as Sweden and Norway now conduct whip-free racing.

Dr Rosemary Elliot then spoke to their recommendation for the industry to implement a whole-of-life tracking process, stating: “We support a national horse traceability register”.

Latham then asked her about verification of the Sentient group’s statistics: “The sentient website says that 30% of thoroughbreds born in Australia get to race, only 30%, but the real figure is 74% according to the official data. How have you got it so badly wrong?”

Dr Elliot didn’t appear to know the statistics well, saying “we’re talking about, what did I say, 40%, or something, of them, so say 30-40% don't get to race, of those who do get to race there's quite a high drop-out rate each year”.

Mark Latham thanked Dr Andrea Harvey for her work on the brumbies in the Snowy Mountains. He asked for a comparison of the lifeline of a brumby in the wild with that of a Thoroughbred racehorse, citing the heightened nutrition, vet care and lower rates of infection seen in Thoroughbreds.

“I understand that 28% of the general horse population dies of colic, but among racehorses, it’s less than 9%,” said Latham. “I think generally my understanding is the thoroughbred can live to 25 years but the wild horse is more likely to live to 10 years of life.”

Dr Harvey responded by stating there isn’t “good scientific data comparing the two populations and that the outcomes would be extremely variable”.

Session 6: Jason Abrahams and Julia Ritchie

Breeders and passionate ATC Members Julia Ritchie and Jason Abrahams stepped up to the plate as the two representative speakers on behalf of the Save Rosehill group. Ritchie opened her piece by querying the comments and allegations toward the attitude of animal welfare by breeders raised by V’landys in his session, before Abrahams read a strong statement clearly stating the position of the group against the sale.

“We and many, many others in the club and in the broader industry are steadfastly opposed to this sale,” Abrahams said.

“It is an insult to the members who have supported the ATC and its predecessors for generations, a violation of the cultural norms of a member-based sporting club, and a warning to all of our peers across the city whose golf courses, tennis courts and football fields might stand in the way of the next development.”

Chair and Liberal MP Furlow opened the line of questioning requesting the duo clarify who the Save Rosehill group members were, with Ritchie outlining that it was a group formed to focus on communicating to ATC Members.

Ritchie was asked to share her perspective on the conversations she frequently has at the races regarding the proposal to sell Rosehill. She responded by stating that she has had between 150 to 200 conversations on the topic at each raceday, and not a single person she spoke with supported the sale.

Asked specifically about the members forums, Abrahams added:

“There were two members forums held, of which members had to apply to visit. I attended the Randwick version of the forum, it was standing room only, so that tells you how engaged the members were and there was vehement anger in the room towards the submission and the proposal and there was a conga line of people wanting to give their thoughts before the microphone to the board.”

Abrahams reiterated the opinion made in the Save Rosehill submission that two premium tracks were needed for Saturday racing, and they did not believe that the Brickpit site was a viable alternative.

Funding model raised again

It was raised once again that there are major questions being raised around the funding model of Rosehill Racecourse, with Abrahams mentioning that it needed to be thoroughly reviewed.

“The funding for racing changed in 2012 and from that point onwards corporate wagering went to Racing NSW, the ATC continued to receive funding from the TAB, the TAB’s revenues have decreased whilst corporate bookmaking continues unabated,” Abrahams said. “So it’s more about the model for funding for the clubs as opposed to how the wagering is going to continue.”

He further stated: “There has been a funding shortfall… for a long, long time. It's like stepping back in time 50 years.”

“The best example I can give you is that at the forum the Chairman said that to continue the maintenance of the ATC on a per annum basis, they would need $12 million to keep the four tracks going and they could only afford $4 million, so therefore they had a shortfall of $8 million for the maintenance of the four tracks and yet we see that Racing NSW has $286 million sitting in term deposits. So there is a funding issue for the clubs, most definitely.”

Abrahams went on to raise a pertinent query about why the ATC, who had repeatedly mentioned that funding issues was the motivation for the proposal to explore the Rosehill sale, had already spent $300,000 on due diligence when their members were so strongly opposed to it.

“You can daresay that at least the Chairman and potentially some of the board are severely out of touch with their membership group,” Abrahams said.

The pair were asked by committee member Faehrmann their thoughts on Racing NSW’s involvement in the Rosehill proposal, with Abrahams answering: “I would say nothing happens in NSW racing without Racing NSW having their fingerprints all over it.”

Session 5: Peter V'landys and Graeme Hinton

Racing NSW CEO Peter V'landys began the session with a strong statement, alleging that "fabrications and falsehoods" were being spread by individuals using the Rosehill inquiry to tarnish his reputation. He pointed to a specific email that encouraged people to fabricate evidence, describing this as a deliberate attempt to undermine Racing NSW.

V'landys expressed deep concern that these alleged fabrications were being improperly used in the inquiry, aiming to discredit the submissions from those involved. He went on to clarify the misinformation surrounding the inquiry, particularly rejecting the notion that Racing NSW had prevented individuals from attending or that it was their idea to sell Rosehill.

V’landys then alleged that a letter received the night prior from breeders was ‘in contempt’ of court as it discouraged him giving evidence at the hearing. He attempted to table a redacted version of the letter with the committee, but it was rejected due to not being the full version.

Addressing the recurring concerns about the 'funding model' raised during the hearings, V'landys clarified that the distribution to clubs has significantly increased due to the revenue generated from race field legislation. He explained that while clubs continue to receive funding from the TAB distribution, they now also benefit from contributions by corporate bookmakers and the funding model was revised to ensure that clubs spend the money appropriately, with Racing NSW directly allocating funds for prizemoney.

V’landys reiterated the Racing NSW commitment to owners: “the people that fund the industry isn't the punter, isn't government, it's the owner of the racehorse”.

Tudehope interrupted the opening statement, mentioning that the duration was too long and cutting into the question time. This prompted V’landys to wrap up his statement by declaring that: “Racing New South Wales leads the world in animal welfare. Even though some of our participants want to bring it down. We have the best program of any program and I challenge anyone to say against it.”

Chief Operating Officer, Racing NSW, Graeme Hinton briefly addressed the necessity for Racing NSW to assess the racetracks, emphasizing that finding a replacement track in Sydney is of utmost importance if Rosehill is sold. He stressed the critical nature of identifying and designing this new track, highlighting the “significant benefits of Homebush as a site. It is close to public transport, in a major event precinct, it’s closer to the centre of Sydney than Rosehill and overcomes a lot of the shortcomings of Rosehill, that we hear on a regular basis.”

Hinton went on to say, “we see our role as thinking big on these ideas so that we can discharge our duties and not be derelict in our duties in making sure that we consider all possible outcomes that are the best in the interest of the industry, we look at Homebush as a 20-year, 50-year opportunity for the industry, not something that is easy to achieve, not something that is driven by short term interest but something that needs to be assessed absolutely in its completeness”.

The funding model

Furlow opened questioning by asking V’landys to outline what he meant about the industry oversight and approval needed by Racing NSW.

V’landys outlined the Racing NSW obligation to the industry. He covered off in detail that his comment was about oversight and about ensuring the ATC spent the proceeds from the sale on the benefits to the members.

“We never ever said we wanted to take the money,” V’landys stated.

The comments quickly became heated between V’landys and Latham, with the Independent MP seeking clarification on the minutes from the meeting, with V’landys stating in the meeting that the money would be directed to the industry. The CEO mentioned that it depended on the interpretation of the minutes.

V’landys had support from Liberal MP Hon. Bob Nanva regarding his treatment as a witness, with regular points of order raised to interrupt the questioning.

Latham questioned V’landys strongly about several integrity issues, firstly, regarding the treatment of Racing NSW employees, then regarding an accusation by a trainer about a letter being sent to ‘not accept nominations’ of his horses. A point of order was raised and the Chair, Furlow, agreed that the question was not relevant to the matter at hand.

Vlandys did speak up to clearly outline that the accusation about his interference in stewards inquiries being incorrect, stating: “I have never ever ever interfered with a Stewards inquiry, ever.”

Tudehope asked V’landys if he specifically thought the funding model could be improved, to which he answered: “As I said, we have to act in the best interest of the Racing industry as a whole. By giving them the $90 million towards prize money, it guarantees that money goes to prize money, otherwise it would go to overseas trips or could go to anything.

“Whose overseas trips?” clarified Tudehope.

“The ATC, some of the board members do attend meetings overseas,” said V’landys.

The Liberal MP, Tudehope, then pushed the line of questioning further, keen to hear V’landys thoughts on improving the funding model to give the ATC more autonomy.

“If we increase the funding, it makes them (the ATC) inefficient,” replied V’landys.

Animal welfare queries

Animal Justice Party Member, Hurst, took over from Tudehope with the questions, first asking V’landys about his position on the use of the whip, which he defended as a practice that did not hurt the horse.

She asked specific questions about allegations of employee complaints at Racing NSW, which were strongly denied by V’landys.

The questioning then went into the costs of the retirement of racehorses, with V’landys specifically outlining each line item. He justified the current accounting disclosure in the Annual Report regarding it not specifically outlining the Equine Welfare Fund items, stating it was the way their reporting has always been done. After Hurst’s request, V’landys promised to provide more disclosure in this area, stating: “We've got nothing to hide. We're proud of what we do. Transparency is your friend.”

V’landys then went on to say:

“The reason people are focused [on the Equine Welfare Fund], they have never focussed on any other expense of Racing NSW, but they're focussed on this. You know why they’re focussed on this? Because they want to show that it is too expensive to rehome horses and that we should allow them [those requesting this information] to put them in abattoirs. That’s what the campaign’s about. They want to get rid of me so they can put horses into abattoirs.”

Hinton was questioned by National Member, Fang, about the decision not to engage with the Sydney Olympic Park Trust to determine if the Brickpit site was a viable option before proceeding to invest in investigating the proposal.

V’landys stepped in to confirm that $200,000 had been spent to date on due diligence around the proposal to sell Rosehill Racecourse, and $25,000 had been spent specifically on research around the Brickpit site. He defended the option as a viable choice to explore, despite Fang mentioning that the Sydney Olympic Park Trust had their own plans for the site.

V'landys then raised the $20 billion value mentioned by Charny, and clarified that a $23 billion valuation of Rosehill could be realised in the long term. Latham asked for evidence of the figure, to which V’landys confirmed he would provide it if necessary.

Liberal MP Nanva posed a series of questions that allowed V'landys to confirm that the funding model was structured to minimise the risk of a potential reduction in wagering revenue. V'landys agreed with this assessment.

Session 4: Richard Callander

Richard Callander's questioning opened up with his personal opinion on the sale proceeding, to which he stated that he didn't believe the sale would or should go ahead.

He was promptly asked several questions by Latham about discouraging trainers to attend the hearing, to which he denied any wrongdoing about applying pressure.

“Did you discourage John [O’Shea] from attending [the inquiry]?”

“No I did not.”

“So at no stage did you say to any of our witnesses, it’s better off for racing if you don’t go?”

“Not at all.”

Callander was questioned about who he has had recent conversations with, and mentioned he has not spoken to V’landys about the inquiry.

Hurst asked Callander how he was appointed to the NSW Trainers Association CEO role, which he said the specifics were difficult to recall because of the time period. However, it was taken on notice that Callander would clarify the details.

When discussing the details of the Brickpit, Callander was not favourable of that option for a replacement racetrack. He also said that transport would be an issue if trainers had to relocate to Horsley Park as a training venue.

Latham completed the session by asking Callander (reminding he was under oath) about the secret commission situation regarding the sale of Lil Caesar, which saw Callander disqualified for a six month period.

“Have you ever spoken to any of the executives at Racing NSW seeking assistance for Chris Waller on an integrity, steward or investigations matter? Not on Lil Caesar”.

Callander: “No, certainly not.”

Session 3: Garry Charny

Racing NSW Member Garry Charny opened his piece outlining his roles within the horse racing industry. He also gave a humorous correction to Gai Waterhouse’s statement from the first hearing about not knowing a member of the Racing NSW Board, mentioning that he had horses in training with Waterhouse and knew her well, stating “she does in fact know who I am and where to send her bills”.

The litigation costs incurred on behalf of the NSW industry was a hot topic throughout the Charny questioning, with the committee eager to learn more about the process of Board approval

Charny confirmed that V’Landys does not need board approval to commence legal proceedings on behalf of Racing NSW, and he is entitled to commence proceedings up to a projected cost amount of $1 million, giving him authority to make the decision without the board for anything estimated to cost less than that amount.

It appeared the committee were also keen to determine how much the Board was involved in approving the actions of its CEO.

Charny admitted that from his experience, V’landys had a broad scope in terms of his ability to act, acknowledging that the current delegated authorities in place for Racing NSW may be in need of a “fresh pair of eyes” as it currently offers the CEO a wide scope to act.

Charny also mentioned his belief that the composition of the Racing NSW Board could be improved, particularly regarding the gender balance, and that “there were insufficient younger members coming through, so there was no real succession.”

When questioned about his thoughts on governance tenure of a CEO Charny admitted ‘I would say it’s getting towards the end of a good period’. He mentioned that V’landys was a very effective ‘tool’, but he would consider his position over the latest experiences around Rosehill, saying: “I’d have to have a long think”.

The salary of V’landys was requested, however Charny mentioned that he believed it was confidential and would take it on notice.

Hurst stepped in to ask Charney about the property purchases by Racing NSW, and if their portfolio investments had come out of the Equine Welfare Fund, to which Charny did not confirm its accuracy.

Hurst: “That's not on any sheets you've receive as the board”

Charny: “No”

Charny asked to conclude his session to make a statement about the valuation of Rosehill Rosehill. He believed that the $1.6 billion was a correct number in terms of its value today. However, Charny then explained that over a long-term project period, a value of closer to $20 billion would be more accurate.

Session 2: Caroline Searcy and Timothy Hale

ATC Board members Caroline Searcy, in person at Parliament House, and Timothy Hale, via a Zoom call from Singapore, stepped up for the next session.

After opening statements explaining their positions, the committee quickly asked both Board members what their feedback from Members about their feeling towards the sale was. Searcy and Hale confirmed that the members they have spoken to are “very much against” the sale.

“After $300,000 has already been spent by the ATC, why are we continuing with this process?” Farlow asked. Searcy explained that it was a duty of the Board to complete the due diligence to explore the proposal.

The $5 billion valuation was once again queried, with Hale admitting: “we have never been provided with a valuation showing $5 billion.”

The conversation moved to the ATC’s funding model, after Searcy raised it as a key issue, with TAB turnover declining in recent years. The question was asked: “who is stopping the conversation about a funding model?” Searcy responded that it would need to be a Racing NSW decision, and the ATC was completing the Rosehill process first before exploring that further.

The Chairman (McGauran)’s relationship with the CEO of Racing NSW (Peter V’landys) was queried by Animal Justice Party MP Emma Hurst, asking if “that relationship has created any influence within your organisation?”

Searcy answered that the relationship between the two organisations is close but that it was important that they had a very strong relationship. She admitted that the Racing NSW influence “possibly goes too far, but I'm not sure it's necessarily because of that relationship”.

The fourth track requirement was discussed, with Searcy confirming she believed a replacement track was definitely required and premier racing in Sydney could not be sustained with only three tracks.

Session 1: Peter McGauran and Steve McMahon

Opening up the proceedings for the eagerly anticipated session is the Chairman of the Australian Turf Club, Peter McGauran, and Steve McMahon,

McGauran opened up with a prepared statement outlining the challenges the ATC faces, including how funds come in via TAB distributions, which is in decline, and the lack of a sustainable business model. He suggests that the ATC can sell Rosehill Racecourse to future-proof the club and considers the sale a fantastic opportunity.

He said that he hopes the information can be fully gathered to allow for a vote and a decision later this year.

Steve McMahon proceeded with reading his prepared statement, which outlined the timeline of meetings that led to the decision to consider the sale of Rosehill Racecourse and the opportunity it presented for the ATC to “secure its financial future”.

Liberal MP and Committee Chair, Hon. Scott Farlow proceeded to seek clarification from McMahon on the specificities of the timeline for “Project Wattle”, querying exact dates throughout.

Farlow queried when the idea of the Homebush Brickpit site came to light as an option for a replacement racecourse, which McGauran said they didn’t look at until after the Member Forums. Before then, McGauran said the club had in mind that Warwick Farm would be upgraded to be the secondary premier track.

Farlow pointed out that the site had been ignored as a development for the Olympics: “This is a site that was ruled out for development when it came to the Olympics, the biggest infrastructure in the state's history.”

Committee member National MP, Hon. Wes Fang, grilled McGauran on the practicalities of the Brickpit site as a racecourse, raising several questions about the size and shape that make it challenging to accept as a viable solution. McGauran mentioned he would reserve his assessment until the engineering report came back.

Valuation of Rosehill

Liberal MB, Hon. Damien Tudehope, delved into the $5 billion valuation of the Rosehill site, querying the legitimacy of the figure: “You’re suggesting though that there is going to be a return to the ATC of $5 billion. How did you get to that figure?”

“That’s a calculation provided to us by experts in the area after all the contingencies are subtracted,” McGauran responded. “There have been few, if any, to my knowledge, large-scale developers who have contested the estimate.”

Independent MP Mark Latham weighed in on the valuation discussion, mentioning that the two figures were contradictory.

“So your estimation of $2 billion today is obviously relevant to what you're planning to do. So isn't that a clear contradiction, that this $5 billion figure is not credible, and it's not from a professional valuation?”

McMahon explained that the rezoning and the metro station would determine the specific value.

McGauran was asked to outline the timing of the ATC Board meetings and their inclusion in the proposal consideration process, and if he believed the proper corporate governance was followed.

“Before going to the state government to say you wanted to sell the full Rosehill site, shouldn't you have got a board decision to authorise that?” Latham asked.

“It’s the most important asset you own at the ATC, you’re going to the Premier of New South Wales to say let's work together to sell this, without a board decision to authorise that action.”

McGauran asked to take legal advice on that matter.

The conversation moved to a discussion about the dire state of the infrastructure at the ATC facilities. McGauran mentioned that trainers need better facilities, and to remain relevant to a younger customer base, upgrading the facilities is essential, stating: “If you don’t plan for the future, then you are a hostage to it.”

Labor MB Hon Bob Nanva queried where the proceeds of the sale would be directed, which McGauran confirmed would be going to the benefit of the ATC members.

Then Farlow raised a common question that has been on the lips of many: “But if you can develop on the Brickpit side, as you say, shouldn't the government just be turning the Brickpit into housing?” To which McMahon replied that they’re just examining the site.

The schedule

This inquiry follows the first hearing on Monday, 22 July, where strong allegations were made by licensed participants, not only against the proposal itself but also alluding to major governance issues within Racing NSW.

Friday's schedule will take place as follows:

© State of New South Wales through the Parliament of New South Wales