Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

There are two provisions. First, the Racing Regulatory Body is solely and independently responsible for establishing the rules of racing. In the context of establishing the rules of racing, my understanding is that it consults with various bodies anyway, because that is a sensible thing to do in any process. That does not mean it is bound by those bodies. There is a specific provision in the general scheme that when it is amending the rules of racing the RRB should consult with HRI. HRI has directives across a range of its own functions. They exist anyway; that is the reality. The directives are circumscribed in the general scheme to the functions of HRI. The directives should not impinge on the rules of racing, and if there is consultation one way when the rules of racing are being amended, it would not be impossible to provide for some sort of a consultative procedure the other way if directives are being amended. I point to the checks and balances that are inherent in the HRI structure. We have the Turf Club, ministerial nominees, and a broad range of representative organisations on the HRI board. When we talk about HRI doing something, we are talking about the board doing something. It is the board that has authority to do these things. The board is structured to allow for a balance of representation, and the checks and balances are in there.