James O’Doherty: Coalition is left at the barrier over racing role
What should have been a straight forward motion turned into a Coalition filibuster that amounted to very little on the floor of parliament, writes James O’Doherty
Opinion
Don't miss out on the headlines from Opinion. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Just before 7pm on Wednesday night, when Opposition racing spokesman Kevin Anderson rose to speak in Parliament on a bill to give Racing NSW chairman Russell Balding two more years at the reins, his Coalition colleagues were still waging war over how they were going to vote.
Anderson, I was told, was sent down to the chamber and told to speak for as long as possible while the Coalition fought out its position behind closed doors.
He ended up speaking on the legislation for more than 40 minutes, in a contribution which delved into everything retired racehorses can do, just to chew up time. Anderson went into the specifics of cattle mustering, “cutting or prancing, dancing, or whatever the case may be”.
He may as well have been reading the form guide.
Upstairs, Liberal and National MPs were furiously debating whether they should support
Balding staying on as chair, try to impose new governance and oversight rules on the racing regulator or do both.
This was the parliamentary equivalent of building the plane while flying it, only for the entire thing to crash in a heap.
Anderson’s filibuster was the culmination of more than 24 hours of chaos in the NSW Coalition over something that Liberal and Nationals MPs broadly believe to be a “bottom order” priority.
While the question of whether to extend Balding’s term as Racing NSW chairman is an important issue, it is not something on which the Coalition should have expended what little political capital it has.
From beginning to end, the Coalition’s position was bungled by a leader who has elevated political misjudgement almost to an art form and some on his frontbench that were trying to score a short term win over the government without thinking of the consequences.
The failure in Mark Speakman’s judgement was not about extending Balding’s term as chair, per se, that is a different argument.
The majority of Racing NSW stakeholders want him to stay because of his success to date.
Racing minister David Harris argues that extending Balding’s term again is needed to secure the future of a $3.3 billion industry.
“Corporate stability during some challenging negotiations in coming months is crucial to the future continued success of the industry,” he said earlier this month.
Some, including breeders, argue otherwise.
Speakman’s problem was how he — and manager of opposition business Alister Henskens — managed the party room and their parliamentary tactics.
The issue has also exposed the Coalition’s racing spokesman as not being fully across his brief. At one point during multiple meetings about the issue, Anderson told shadow cabinet colleagues that the government did not even need legislation to extend Balding’s term.
That was simply incorrect.
Liberal MP Ray Williams first raised the question of whether the Coalition would support Labor’s bid to extend Balding’s term last week, after the minister introduced the legislation required to give the chair two more years. The matter was shut down. It was discussed at length in shadow cabinet on Monday, where a decision was delayed again.
Anderson and upper house leader Damien Tudehope were tasked with working on some amendments to, as Speakman said later, put “stronger governance structures in place for Racing NSW”.
That went to the Coalition’s leadership team on Tuesday morning before a full meeting of Coalition MPs ahead of the parliamentary week.
The leadership group decided that the Opposition would try to change the way Racing NSW is governed, by making the body subject to “the direction and control” of the minister.
The amendments would have made Racing NSW subject to the Auditor General and forced the body to appear before budget estimates, among other things.
When the amendments went to the Coalition party room, more chaos ensued. At one point, Speakman kicked backbench MPs out of the meeting so his cabinet could thrash things out again.
Opponents argue the amendments would put “brainless bureaucrats” in charge of the racing regulator, akin to putting shackles on a top class sprinter.
The changes also threaten to take Racing NSW from the front of the pack to dead last among interstate bodies by curtailing agility and innovation.
In meetings that at some stages descended into “screaming,” sources said, it was argued that the amendments introduced an idea that was never part of the simple debate over Balding’s position — that the integrity of Racing NSW was in question. Those in favour argue that they are simple changes to give parliament more “oversight” over a powerful body that regulates a huge, important industry
One wonders why, if this oversight was actually needed, the Coalition never pursued the changes during more than a decade in power.
It appears that the amendments were more about forcing Labor, with the help of the crossbench, to lose a vote on the floor of parliament.
That would be embarrassing for Premier Chris Minns but means nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Ultimately it was the Coalition who were embarrassed on the floor of parliament, when the amendments were thrown out on a technicality.
They decided to let the bill pass the lower house and have another crack in the Legislative Council.
Crisis talks were underway on Thursday in a bid to find a compromise that was suitable for everyone, including Racing NSW.
Under Speakman’s leadership, the Coalition has handled a proposed extension to Balding’s term so badly that they became the story, ripping open old wounds of internal division that may never really heal.
Maiden: Poll guru returns for yet another Voice
If you thought something sounded familiar when the ex-Labor Senator unveiled her new party, you weren’t alone, writes Samantha Maiden.
The real reason why Harry and William will reconcile
Striking similarities between Charles and his younger son at the mid-life crisis points of their lives suggest Harry will eventually mature and find happiness — and make up with William, argues Angela Mollard.