TTR Live Blog: Rosehill Inquiry Hearing 3

Welcome to our live coverage of the third 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 after the session begins at 9.30am on Thursday, 12 September.

Last update: 5.47pm

Session 7

Dr Saranne Cooke - Chairman, Racing NSW

Dr Saranne Cooke’s appearance before the inquiry was marked by a staunch defence of Peter V'landys, and her firm rebuttal of claims that the organisation lacked appropriate governance.

During her testimony, she faced questions regarding governance issues, V'landys’ broad delegated authority, and transparency at Racing NSW. When asked whether V'landys was overly involved in matters such as steward inquiries, Cooke defended his role, explaining, “He has the authority to oversee integrity, but in practice, he does not interfere.” She added that V'landys is crucial in addressing the complex challenges the racing industry faces, especially as social licence and wagering concerns continue to grow. She emphasised the board’s confidence in V'landys’ leadership, stating, “He remains the best person for the role.”

Cooke was repeatedly pressed about specifics, often taking critical points on notice, such as the date of V'landys' last contract renewal, the performance review process for the CEO, and the scope of his delegated authorities. Cooke explained that the CEO has a financial delegation of $1 million, adding, “We evaluate this annually,” but did not provide additional specifics when questioned about other decision-making powers V'landys holds. She also took on notice questions surrounding the internal Racing NSW committee that refers to steward matters, how often it meets, and its independence from V'landys' influence.

During the session, Cooke faced several questions regarding Racing NSW’s HR functions. She clarified that while there is no dedicated HR department, HR responsibilities are managed by the Assistant Legal Counsel, who oversees recruitment, performance reviews, and any workplace complaints. Cooke also mentioned a whistleblower policy but did not elaborate extensively on its use. When pressed for more details, such as how often the HR function is engaged or the specific workings of the integrity committee, she opted to take several of these questions on notice.

The inquiry also sought clarity on Racing NSW’s strategic direction, particularly its relationship with the Racing Industry Consultancy Group (RICG), which Cooke affirmed as a critical consultative body but noted, “They have not yet delivered a position on the sale of Rosehill.” When pressed on governance, Cooke maintained that Racing NSW operates with transparency and accountability after committee members raised concerns that their involvement in RICG had been limited, with delays in the strategic planning process.

In relation to the sale of Rosehill, Cooke maintained that Racing NSW had yet to make a formal decision, pending completion of due diligence. She said the potential sale is a "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity" that could significantly benefit the industry, but acknowledged that key details, including the construction of an alternative track and the evaluation of options like the brick pit or Warwick Farm, required further scrutiny. “It’s too early to make a definitive call,” she said.

A significant moment occurred when Cooke was questioned about the board's approval of submissions to the inquiry, particularly documents that were rejected. Cooke defended the process, stating the board had been "fully briefed" and that there were no internal concerns. When asked about an August 9 letter submitted by V'landys to the committee that was allegedly rejected due to its redacted content, Cooke denied any wrongdoing on the CEO’s part.

Throughout the session, Cooke demonstrated clear loyalty to V'landys and Racing NSW’s governance structure. However, her reluctance to give definitive answers on several key issues, instead opting to take them on notice, left many questions open - only to be answered when the final report is published.

Session 6

Mrs Deborah Prest - Horse Trainer

Deborah Prest, a country trainer in New South Wales, delivered a pointed testimony raising concerns of deep flaws in the governance and transparency of Racing NSW, with a specific focus on the role of CEO Peter V’landys. Prest criticised the lack of consultation with trainers, owners, and participants, noting that executives act without accountability. She specifically targeted Racing NSW's failure to handle welfare funding appropriately, stating, "our prize money is taxed... and there’s absolutely no information about how it’s spent."

She pointed to the Equimillions initiative, which offers free entry to horses rehomed by Racing NSW but required a paid entry for privately rehomed horses like hers. Prest highlighted how Racing NSW controls and benefits from the rehoming process while independent efforts are overlooked. She argued that more effective solutions, such as sponsoring small state shows to promote rehomed horses or consulting those actively involved in rehoming, should be implemented.

Prest was also particularly critical of Racing NSW’s emphasis on putting horses in sales rather than focusing on responsible rehoming. She highlighted the issue of rehoming unsuitable horses, noting the importance of trainers' expertise in assessing whether a horse should be humanely euthanised. She added, “Racing NSW might let people think they have control over the horse, but they don’t once it leaves the industry.”

One of the most notable moments in her testimony centred on a Freedom of Information (FOI) request she submitted. When she initially requested information, she was told by Racing NSW that they were not subject to FOI. However, after consulting with government officials, Prest persisted and found that they were indeed subject to FOI requests. She discovered through this process that V’landys himself was the privacy officer for Racing NSW, which she pointed out was a clear conflict of interest. "I mean, seriously, are we to believe that with all the stuff that's gone on in this inquiry, they’ve only had about six FOI requests?" she remarked.

Prest also raised concerns about the prevalence of bullying within the racing industry, suggesting that such issues are often handled through non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). She expressed frustration with Racing NSW’s denial of entering private settlements or NDAs, indicating she had heard directly from individuals involved in these cases. Prest noted that while she lacks access to the specific NDAs, she believes the widespread belief within the industry is that these agreements are used to quietly settle disputes.

Session 5

Dr Peter Kerkenezov - Veterinary Surgeon

Ms Carolyn McDonald - Former Stablehand

Dr Peter Kerkenezov and Ms Carolyn McDonald presented to the committee in what could be described as a disjointed and tangential discussion, with their testimony largely unrelated to the core topic of the Rosehill Racecourse sale. Both appeared to use the session as a platform to air long-standing grievances about the broader racing industry, focusing heavily on welfare concerns.

Dr Kerkenezov, an equine veterinary surgeon, spoke extensively about foot imbalances in horses, which he claimed were a major factor in breakdowns and injuries, suggesting that these issues are often overlooked by racing authorities. He repeatedly stressed that "too many unfit horses are walking onto tracks across the country" and called for more rigorous veterinary checks.

McDonald, a former stablehand with family ties to the racing industry, echoed concerns about horse welfare but again offered little direct insight into the sale of Rosehill. She referenced stables at Rosehill, recounting anecdotal stories of horses becoming “cast in the box” and expressing concern about confinement conditions, despite admitting not having ever worked at that racecourse.

The testimonies of both witnesses lacked coherence and often veered off-topic, making it difficult to see how their arguments tied into the committee's inquiry, largely missing the mark in addressing the key issues surrounding the sale of Rosehill.

Session 4

Mrs Carla Armanet - CEO, Sydney Olympic Park Authority

Ms Karen Jones - CEO, Office of Sport, for Sydney International Equestrian Centre

Carla Armanet, CEO of the Sydney Olympic Park Authority, outlined the significant logistical and environmental challenges in using the brick pit quarry as a replacement venue for Rosehill. She highlighted the site's proximity to roads, stating “the boundary of the brick pit is less than 5 to 10 metres from roadways, including the light rail corridor,” and noted the extensive engineering required to stabilise the cliffs. Armanet also emphasised the site's environmental importance, describing it as “a critical habitat for the green and golden bell frog, one of the largest populations in NSW.”

Karen Jones, CEO of the Office of Sport, raised concerns about the Sydney International Equestrian Centre as a potential relocation training site, noting that “no formal documentation has been provided by the Australian Turf Club for review.” She confirmed that while the ATC had visited the site, there has been no meaningful consultation, leaving many questions unanswered. Jones pointed out that without detailed plans, it was impossible to assess whether the proposed Centre of Excellence would fit within the current facilities.

Environmental and planning complexities

Both witnesses stressed the complexity of the proposed relocations. Armanet elaborated on the environmental constraints, emphasising the critical role the brick pit plays in Sydney’s ecosystem and water management system, with Armanet pointing out that “the site stores up to 300 million litres of water and supports 121 native species.”

Latham queried the engineering requirements that would be needed to stablise the site, and when asked whether the pit's structure could accommodate a racetrack, Armanet confirmed the outer edges of the pit tend to collapse during heavy rain, due to the 90-degree slopes, making it an engineering challenge that would require stabilisation to approximately 30 degrees for safety.

“You would have to regard it as an engineering feat along the lines of the pyramids or something to actually achieve this racetrack? Maybe Racing NSW have got engineers of that scale for their pharaoh,” Latham quipped.

Armanet explained that the brick pit's conservation areas are protected under strict environmental regulations, adding, “any development would require changes to current planning controls, which has not been initiated.” Similarly, Jones highlighted the lack of engagement from Racing NSW and the ATC, noting that despite the public discussions, “we have not been asked to prepare any feasibility studies or contingency plans.”

Session 3

Mr Rowan Fisher - Director, Commercial Transactions, Department of Enterprise, Investment and Trade

Ms Katie Knight - Executive Director, Commercial Transactions, Department of Enterprise, Investment and Trade

Both Fisher and Knight confirmed they first became aware of the ATC proposal on November 2, 2023, after receiving an email from the Cabinet Office. Fisher explained that they were asked to provide advice on potential transaction pathways, clarifying that "we were not initially aware of a full sale of Rosehill; we were focused on providing options for the Metro location."

Development of Project Wattle

The committee probed further into the development of Project Wattle, questioning how a metro station inquiry evolved into a broader proposal involving residential development. Knight noted that “housing was a strategic priority of the government,” leading to the creation of four transaction options, though she insisted that "there was no explicit request for a full sale at that time."

When questioned about the origins of "Project Wattle", Knight attempted to clarify that "Project Wattle was just a name assigned for internal tracking purposes," stating that there was no formal project at the time. However, the committee pressed her on the irony of assigning a project name without an official project in place, to which Knight reiterated, "It’s just a convention for pre-lodgement discussions". The panel seemed sceptical, as they highlighted the disconnect between the name and the actual state of the proposal, and what that might indicate.

Committee members Fang and Latham were particularly critical of how a simple request for metro-related advice led to the creation of "Project Wattle," a document that included potential housing development options. Knight defended this by pointing to the government's focus on housing, stating, “We prepared scenarios to reflect the broader context, even though the inquiry was about the metro.” However, the committee questioned why the document went beyond the original scope, highlighting scepticism about how the process unfolded.

Fang and Latham questioned why no one had ensured that the project’s scope was accurately understood, particularly as housing development had been added to a document that was supposedly only concerned with a metro station.

When questioned about the scant details in the initial email—focused only on the metro—Knight defended the team's actions, explaining that "the government was very clear on its priority around housing." She admitted they acted quickly, leading to the development of the four-option document in just four days.

Knight was also confronted about an email where she described the project as “super exciting,” raising concerns about impartiality. She responded, "We’re passionate about our work," rather than the enthusiasm conflicting with the government’s impartiality in the unsolicited proposal process.

As the session closed, Fisher confirmed that no one from the Premier's office had contacted him directly after the initial email, yet the proposal moved ahead rapidly. The committee pointed to the irregularities and urged a review of how such proposals are handled to avoid ambiguity.

Session 2

Mr Peter Regan - Chief Executive, Sydney Metro

Peter Regan, Chief Executive, Metro Sydney advised his role is to inform and present options to the government around a new metro station at Rosehill Gardens. Regan was asked when he first found out about the proposal to develop Rosehill Gardens, he stated, “I first became aware of the proposal from the agency before it was announced.”

Regan advised he had received an email in early November with respect to what was potentially a station box design. The committee asked Regan to clarify his understanding around what the New South Wales Government inquiry was asking from him, “So, I understood I was being asked to comment on what was the potential and feasibility of that alignment (to build a station).

“From memory the diagram presented was slightly different to the alignment of tunnels that were in place at the time.”

The committee also questioned Regan whether he was aware the ATC had met with an independent review team about the potential of a station at Rosehill, “Yes, we were aware that the ATC had met with an independent review team around August 10 last year.”

He clarified the statement regarding the 40,000 residences advice that was provided to the Metro review team, “During the period of the metro review we were looking at different potential options and one of the key factors that we were looking at was the potential housing possibilities from an insertion of a station.”

Contamination point

Regan outlined some issues that arose from the initial review of the Rosehill Gardens site’s suitability for a station, “one of the interesting things is there’s clearly some very heavy contamination in the land around the Rosehill Racecourse... the sites generally around have been subject to very heavy industrial use and very significant chemical pollution over the years.”

Regan continued, “When I first heard the consideration of Rosehill, one of the key differences, I guess, is that the climate is less contaminated than the adjoining land. We are very conscious that contamination can spread through groundwater underneath sites and technical testing is underway at the moment to get a better understanding of the actual condition of the land on the Rosehill side as well.”

Mr Latham pushed Regan if there had been any results from the testing yet to which Regan replied, “We haven’t got the results. They’ll come in the balance of this year. However, I think there is an expectation that the contamination will be lower than the adjoining sites. But how much is there? That’s why we need to test.”

Session 1

Mr Simon Draper PSM - Secretary, Premier's Department

Mr William Murphy PSM - Deputy Secretary, Strategic Projects, Premier's Department

Ms Kate Boyd PSM - Secretary, Cabinet Office

William Murphy, Deputy Secretary of the Premier’s Department, is asked about his first awareness of the proposal. He states: “Formally, the first time I heard about the redevelopment proposal was during a meeting with Steve McMahon on the 8th of November, 2021, when he came to discuss the location of a metro station.”

However, Murphy admits he received a drawing from McMahon a few days earlier that included what appeared to be a residential development plan. “And so at that point that I wondered whether there might be an alternative proposal in their minds.”

The committee digs deeper into the timeline, with Murphy explaining that the drawing, while primarily about the metro station, led to “speculation on my part about a broader redevelopment plan.”

When asked why he forwarded the drawing to Investment NSW, Murphy explained it was to get advice. He went on to mention that Investment NSW created a code name for the project: ‘Project Wattle’, “a normal process when dealing with early-stage unsolicited proposals.”

The committee continues its line of questioning, focusing on how the project developed so quickly. Murphy notes, “I sent the drawing to Sydney Metro and Investment NSW to get a sense of what was feasible,” but claims he was not initially aware of any plans for the full sale of Rosehill.

In response to committee members' surprise at the speed of developments, Murphy added that it seemed logical that if the ATC was considering residential options, so they should have advice prepared.

Questions on the Premier's office role

Murphy was asked whether anyone from the Premier's office was involved in pushing the process forward. He said he was not aware of any direct engagement from the Premier’s office, but acknowledged that such coordination wouldn’t be unusual.

Murphy was asked what happened with Katie Knight’s advice regarding the unsolicited proposals process. He responded, “Her advice was that most appropriate process for government to receive that would be the unsolicited proposals process, and we passed that on during the November 8th meeting.”

The committee referenced the ICAC guidelines and asked why the USP process was chosen when rezoning could have been an option. Murphy responded, The ATC was seeking more than just rezoning; they wanted a metro station and other support from the government, which necessitated a broader proposal.

Murphy confirmed he first forwarded the ATC’s metro station drawings to Sydney Metro on November 2. He explained, Sydney Metro was already reviewing potential new stations, but this was the first time I made them aware of ATC’s specific proposal. The committee also inquired whether Mr. McMahon was aware of the challenges and costs associated with building a metro station at Rosehill. Murphy couldn’t recall exactly but suggested it may have been discussed during the November 8 meeting.

Murphy was asked to clarify the ongoing land valuation issue, noting the disparity in estimates—from $5 billion announced in December to figures as low as $1.5 billion. Murphy responded, “As you can imagine, there's a lot of things that need to be worked through and validated and resolved, and that's the process that we're working with the ATC.”

The committee pressed on the importance of getting an accurate valuation, with concerns raised that if it’s not of the right order, the ATC wouldn’t move forward, and this whole process could fall apart.

It was confirmed that something substantial enough for the ATC members to vote on will be provided “in the next 12 months.” However, Latham voiced his disagreement, arguing, “It should be in the next three months, with the vote by the end of the year.”

Replacement racetrack sites and environmental challenges

The inquiry shifted focus to the need for a new Class 1 racetrack in Sydney, a prerequisite for the sale of Rosehill. Discussions centered around the “brick pit” as a potential site, though environmental concerns were raised about the wetlands adjacent to it. When asked about government involvement in resolving this, Murphy stated, “We’re working through that as part of the stage two process.”

Murphy confirmed that relocation efforts are part of the stage two process, including detailed proposals for accessing land for new training facilities at Sydney Olympic Park and a potential site at the Sydney International Equestrian Centre. When asked about analysis on the “brick pit” site, Murphy acknowledged the environmental challenges, and their assessment was part of the process. He also clarified that any development at this site would still be subject to a separate planning process.

Murphy outlined key elements of the proposal: “The ATC would vacate Rosehill, relocate racing to another location, upgrade Warwick Farm, and build new training facilities.” He also noted that a metro station at Rosehill is a critical part of making the deal viable from the ATC’s perspective.

When asked about probity risks, Draper emphasised that the process has “an independent probity advisor and a series of mechanisms in place” to manage any potential conflicts of interest. He reiterated that the unsolicited proposal process is structured to keep government officials at arm’s length from decision-making, ensuring impartiality.

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.

The second hearing on Friday, 9 August, evolved into a battleground where financial realities, governance controversies, and deeply personal accusations clashed in a high-stakes showdown. At the center of this unfolding drama was Peter V’landys, CEO of Racing NSW, who launched a series of explosive allegations about “wealthy breeders” engaging in a deliberate campaign to discredit him and Racing NSW, going so far as to claim that these individuals were spreading falsehoods to manipulate the outcome of the inquiry.

Friday's schedule will take place as follows: