With confidential evidence reportedly ending a long-term friendship, the “chilling effect” has become unmistakably real, right as the Racing Act Review reaches its most delicate stage. The Racing Office’s silence on process integrity has done little to restore confidence. It’s up to the industry to trust Hazzard to deliver – and stand by – a strong report, by putting concerns on the record through submissions.
With submissions to the Racing Act Review closing on Monday, the NSW thoroughbred industry is approaching the first real opportunity in decades to influence how its governance will be structured for the long-term. The review, led by former minister Brad Hazzard, will move through several layers of government before any change occurs.
But this early stage – where evidence is gathered and the foundations of the report are formed – is where the credibility of the entire process is built. Recent events have made that point uncomfortably clear.
Last week’s leak of the contents of a private meeting between the NSW Trainers Association’s Richard Callander, prominent owner Richard Pegum and trainer Brett Cavanough – released almost immediately after their meeting with Hazzard – is not scandalous so much because of the leak itself, but because it echoes behaviour for which Racing NSW were recently reprimanded.
According to Sydney Morning Herald journalist Chris Barrett, the trio had raised major concerns about Racing NSW’s governance – a narrative suggested to not have aligned with the regulator’s expectations.. The substance of their evidence was reportedly relayed back to Racing NSW quickly, despite believing their discussions would be confidential.
What happened next is the most telling part.
Barrett reported that once the evidence reached Racing NSW, CEO Peter V’landys sent Pegum an angry text message abruptly retracting an invitation for a casual barbecue catch-up and expressing his displeasure in terms that left Pegum – a long-time ally across both racing and rugby league – shocked.
Not only did this reportedly fracture a long-standing friendship, but the conduct attributed to V’Landys appears to closely mirror the concerns spelled out only weeks ago by the NSW Parliament’s Privileges Committee. That committee reprimanded Racing NSW for actions that, in its view, “may have had the effect of deterring potential inquiry witnesses from coming forward to give evidence for fear of reprisals – the so-called ‘chilling effect’.”
The parallels are impossible to ignore. Here we are, on the eve of the most important statutory review the NSW racing industry has seen in decades, seeing the same pressure – retaliation pattern emerge.
What should have been a confidential stakeholder meeting instead highlighted longstanding governance concerns at the heart of the system. When confidential conversations lead to personal repercussions, it raises the perception of an organisation – and a leader – more focused on preserving authority than preparing for reform.
Integrity of the Racing Office
When The Thoroughbred Report put direct questions to Minister Harris’ Racing Office about the leak, its implications, and whether Harris could give stakeholders confidence that the review was being handled with the seriousness it demands, the Office declined to make any comment.
And that ‘no comment’ statement is a major concern, because the first stop for Hazzard’s report – once submissions close and his recommendations are drafted – is the Racing Office itself.
The industry will likely not see Hazzard’s original draft, but a version shaped after it has passed through Harris’ lens; the same office which has given no public assurance that the review is insulated from ‘chilling’ behaviour to deter unsatisfactory evidence the Privileges Committee formally cautioned Racing NSW against only weeks ago.
In other words: if there was ever a time for the Racing Office to show that integrity sits above all else, it was now. Its refusal to do so leaves a vacuum – one that can only be filled by the reviewer himself.
Enter Hazzard
It is rare, in racing or politics, to have a figure leading a process who is independent and broadly respected. However, Hazzard is described as such.
He served in the NSW Parliament for more than three decades, including as Attorney-General, Minister for Health, Minister for Planning, and Minister for Family and Community Services. Across successive governments, he developed a reputation as a steady, pragmatic, and independent operator – who could manage complex portfolios without political theatrics.
During the pandemic he became one of the state’s most visible and broadly respected leaders, known for his blunt clarity and refusal to indulge in factional games. His record of navigating high-scrutiny environments is likely why he was appointed.
Hazzard’s career has been defined by steadiness, clarity and a commitment to fairness, traits that have been in short supply during the racing industry’s recent governance battles and most desired in this review.
And he appears to be approaching the review with a seriousness that contrasts sharply with the chaos surrounding it.
Stakeholders from every corner of the industry have offered the same assessment after meeting with him: he listens. He probes. He asks the uncomfortable questions without theatrics. He wants to understand the structural failures, and what’s really challenging industry confidence in the regulator.
This is why many now believe the review could become his legacy.
In 2035, will we look back and call this the Hazzard Review – the moment NSW racing finally corrected its course? The moment the governance culture shifted towards genuine accountability, transparency and long-term thinking?
Let’s hope so.
But even the strongest independent reviewer cannot make major changes without the evidence to justify it. His work is only as powerful as the industry’s willingness to support it – and the government’s willingness to protect it. If stakeholders stay silent, Hazzard cannot build a mandate for reform. If the review receives only a narrow set of voices, the case for structural change becomes easier to dilute.
The Racing Reform Group NSW
The specific exclusion of funding from the review’s scope was a missed opportunity. It was an area of enormous concern for stakeholders and the key issue that underpinned the proposed sale of Rosehill Racecourse: how decisions are made, how reserves are used, and whether the industry’s investment strategy is aligned with long-term sustainability rather than short-term gain.
That omission has now led directly to the formation of the Racing Reform Group NSW, a new group with a lobbying focus created to keep pressure on government to ensure that financial transparency becomes part of the broader reform conversation – even if it sits outside Hazzard’s formal terms of reference.
Their steering group is comprised of respected industry participants – Brian Nutt, Arthur Mitchell, Helen Sinclair, Julia Ritchie, Jason Abrahams, Will Johnson and David Walter – who was a close third in the ATC member election. Their media release calls for a “best practice” governance model for the future of NSW racing.
In their launch, Nutt described the moment bluntly:
“We really are in a crucial period for racing in NSW and it is important that those who care passionately about our industry have their voices heard.”
The group’s first objective is to petition Parliament to widen the scope of the Hazzard Review so it can examine two critical issues currently excluded, the funding model and the structural relationship between Racing NSW and the NSW Government.
Click Here to sign the Petition
“The feedback I hear again and again,” Nutt said, “is that we must have these issues included.”
The Group is also urging every stakeholder – trainers, breeders, owners, farm staff, participants across the state – to make a submission before Monday’s deadline. As Abrahams put it:
“If you want to see improvements in how racing is administered then it’s important to make your voice heard… we need some really strong recommendations.”
Reform in NSW racing will only come when the industry has forces daylight into rooms where decisions are made without visibility. Hazzard has opened the door wide – but whether anything changes now depends on how people step through it.
Article from TTR by Vicky Leonard
https://www.ttrausnz.com.au/edition/2025-11-21/in-hazzard-we-trust-but-will-the-chilling-effect-undermine-the-racing-act-review
