|
According to Victoria's Minister for Racing John Pandazopoulos, amendments to
the Racing and Gambling Acts will "create a new offence prohibiting the
publication of race fields by unauthorised wagering service providers."
The proposed wording of the legislative
amendments is "a wagering service provider must not, in
Victoria or elsewhere, publish or otherwise make available a race field for
valuable consideration without the approval of the appropriate controlling
body."
The offence relates to interstate or overseas
wagering operators publishing Victorian race fields on the internet which are
visible to Victorian punters as the law cannot apply outside of Victoria's
borders.
In the Minister's second reading speech, he said "unauthorised wagering service providers generate, or have potential to derive,
significant revenue from Victorian racing however unlike authorised operators
make no financial contribution to the industry or to state revenue in return."
Pandazopoulos appears to regard Northern Territory corporate bookmakers as
such unauthorised providers, in spite of the fact that they are licensed in
their own state and pay tax to the Northern Territory government.
At issue is whether the corporate bookmakers
involved should also be paying a product fee to Racing Victoria, in spite of the
fact that "authorised service providers" such as TAB Limited and Unitab do not
currently pay such a fee.
The legislative amendments currently proceeding through the Victorian
Parliament, have been proposed by Racing Victoria. Racing Victoria
CEO Robert Nason was recently quoted as saying that "it
was necessary after a long period of fruitless negotiations on fees for
unauthorised agencies."
However Racing Victoria's
representative on the Australian Racing Board, ARB Chairman Andrew Ramsden, is
involved in incomplete negotiations with the Association of Australian
Bookmaking Companies (AABC) regarding payment of a product fee to Australian racing
clubs.
The Executive Director of AABC, Sharon Mulholland,
said "we've been waiting on a response from the ARB for months", referring to
the signing of a non-disclosure agreement which the AABC required the ARB to
enter into before providing details of its members' profitability, in order that
the level of a product fee levy could be better ascertained.
According to ARB Chief Executive Andrew Harding,
the issue of signing the NDA was on the agenda of the ARB's recent quarterly
meeting at the Gold Coast on the 13th of May. Harding, who has been on leave
of absence due to an accident since before the meeting was unable to say whether
the NDA had been ratified when contacted by the Virtual FormGuide this
afternoon.
Also surprised by the assumption of a breakdown
in negotiations was the Northern Territory Minister for Racing, Gaming and
Licensing, Sid Stirling, whose spokeswoman said this afternoon that the Minister
had written to both the ARB and Pandazopoulos asking for the reasons for the
legislative amendments "in the light of the ongoing product fee negotiations
between the ARB and the AABC."
Mulholland states that her association's members
are prepared to pay a product fee in respect of the races they offer wagering
on. However the AABC's view is that it is unreasonable for its members to pay a
fee based on turnover when the TAB's they compete with pay a profit based
amount. The AABC also believes that it is inappropriate for its members to be
banned from advertising in states where they are paying a product fee.
One of the issues which the Victorian Racing
industry will have to address if the amendments are passed through Parliament,
is why they would authorise a company such as TAB Limited or Unitab to display
Victorian race fields to Victorian punters when they are paying nothing to
Victoria, while refusing to conduct meaningful negotiations with the corporate
bookmakers.
The industry might argue that the "gentlemens
agreement" whereby each state's TAB can offer wagering on other state's racing
without the payment of a product fee is sufficient grounds to allow such a
biased fee arrangement to take place. However the mere incorporation of such an
arrangement into an Act of Parliament renders Racing Victoria subject to a
fairness test in respect of such behaviour far in excess of what might apply in
the commercial market.
The fact that the proposed legislation does not
set out the terms under which the controlling body (Racing Victoria) should
consider giving or refusing its permission seems to be a major deficiency. So
also is the complete lack of any mechanism by which it is supposed to notify the
Government of "approved wagering service providers" or for that matter its
withdrawal of such approval.
The assumption appears to be that if Racing
Victoria does not approve them, the Minister will automatically approve wagering
service providers such as TAB Limited and Unitab. This may neatly avoid the
Trade Practices issues arising from why Racing Victoria would approve of one
private company paying no product fee while disapproving of another. However it
means that the Minister has to consider applications from any aggrieved wagering
operator which is licensed in its own state and wants access to Victorian
punters.
If a Northern Territory or a Tasmanian bookmaker
was to apply to the Minister for permission to publish race fields on the basis
that it pays taxes in its own state which benefit the people of that state and
its racing industry, the situation is little different to Unitab making the same
claim for Queensland. If the same firm offered to also pay a reasonable fee to
Victorian racing the Minister could hardly refuse.
These are the amendments that Racing Victoria has
lobbied so hard to get. It would be ironic indeed if their incorporation into
legislation legitimised the very organisations it wants to ban.
© 2010 Published 31/05/05
|
