The following letter, written to the auditors of the MRC is published with the permission from the author, Mr. Jack Campbell, MBE. We have bolded what we believe are significant sections and deleted the author’s address. At the time of this posting, no response to this letter has been received! We are also informed that a meeting between Council and the MRC occurred this afternoon.
14th December 2010.
Morton Watson and Young – Chartered Accountants
51 Robinson St,
Dandenong 3175.
Dear Sirs,
Re: The Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trustees.
I write to you as auditors of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Trust drawing your attention to some apparent irregularities. As you know the Trust has, since 1858, controlled Crown Land now worth well over $1 billion for the purpose of not only a racecourse but also a public recreation ground and a public park. The Trust was criticised by The Legislative Council’s Select Committee on Public Land Development, which produced a final report in September 2008. One would presume the Trust would take cognisance of the report, which was chaired by David Davis, the Minister for Health and Ageing.
I now respectfully draw your attention to the following, and ask for your comment:
1. The Grandstand (Head) Lease to the Melbourne Racing Club (MRC) expires in September 2012. The final 3-year renewal, which could have proceeded (following due notice) in September 2009, has not been effected. It follows that there is no lease, and a monthly tenancy of this Crown Land by the MRC is not legal and its occupation should cease.
2. Notwithstanding point 1, the Grandstand (Head) Lease seems to only cover the Crown Land north of the racetrack, in which case the MRC has no right to sub-lease either the Western or the Neerim Road areas, or to use the ‘flat’ for training, car parking and other commercial ventures.
3. The sub-lease to Monash University has expired and the documentation is missing.
4. The sub-lease to Hore-Lacy of the ‘Western Stable’ complex is also missing and has probably expired.
5. A newly executed lease (23rd April 2008) for the Neerim Road Stables is also missing, and it would appear that Freedman Brothers and Mitchell have already broken their lease by vacating the leasehold. The remaining trainers are Mason and Aquanita Racing who, without the MRC having a legal head lease, may be occupying the Crown Land illegally.
6. The Deed of Maintenance and Development executed 17th February 1997 seems to have fallen behind in its reporting and the MRC’s annual development plans seem to be routinely altered at the sole whim of the MRC.
7. State Government permission is sought and granted for buildings and works to proceed despite no current valid lease between the Trustees and the MRC.
8. An anachronism of the past is that the Trustees accounting period is calendar rather than financial, and the amount of rent, and when it is due from the MRC, is vague and indeterminate. $180,000 p.a. seems to be the amount, giving a return of less than 0.02% on the real estate value. What is clear, however, is no monies are returned to the community.
9. Without consulting the community the Trustees have indicated an intention to issue a further Grandstand Lease in September 2012, and have asked the MRC for a ‘wish list’ to ensure they get whatever their ‘heart’ desires. (The previously negotiated ‘Communiqué’ between the MRC and Council is ineffective. If the MRC is to retain control of this land fresh and sincere negotiations are essential to provide a direct and positive benefit to the community.)
I am sure you are familiar with the Select Committee’s report, but for your ease of reference here are some of its recommendations:
RECOMMENDATION 5.8
That the Government investigates:
• the history, membership structure, responsibilities and current arrangement of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Board of Trustees, particularly in relation to its duty to uphold not just horse racing, but all the purposes of the reserve in the original Grant;
• the purpose to which money raised by horse racing has been used;
and
• ways in which the Government can ensure that the Board of Trustees operates in an open and transparent manner and in accordance with the terms of the Grant.
RECOMMENDATION 5.9
That the Master Plan for the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve redevelopment be the subject of wide public consultation incorporating the municipalities of Glen Eira, Stonnington, and Port Phillip.
RECOMMENDATION 5.10
That the Minister for Planning strongly consider appointing community members and/or people with park and recreation expertise as nominees of the State Government to the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve Board of Trustees to provide a balanced representation of interests and expertise.
RECOMMENDATION 5.11
That the day-to-day management of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve, by delegation from the Trustees to the Melbourne Racing Club, be reconsidered.
At the hearing it became apparent that some Trustees did not even know the boundaries between the MRC’s freehold land and the Crown Land which they control and govern.
On the 27th November last year the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment, the Hon Gavin Jennings, told Parliament … “that there might be some lingering concerns about the way in which this public reserve may be opened up to the community. In terms of my responsibilities as the Minister for Environment and Climate Change who deals with the land element, I wanted to be satisfied that the net benefit of this would derive a community benefit and that there would be the potential once and for all to make sure that the community is aware this is a public reserve and not, as it may have been perceived for decades, a private space.
“We are unswerving in our determination to ensure that there is a public benefit derived from this public reserve.” (Hansard, my emphasis.)
Finally, fundamental breaching of the Crown Grant provides that the authorities may ‘re-enter upon the said land … and to hold possess and enjoy … as if this Grant had not been made’.
Yours faithfully,
A. J. E. Campbell
Glen Eira Debates 
March 17, 2011 at 10:02 PM
It is obvious that all this needs to be cleaned up if the elderly Mr Campbell has got it right. We also need to know if Don Dunston is involved in this because if he is it must be a 500% balls up. The Trust must give the MRC a 99 year lease to protect this vital Industry.
March 17, 2011 at 10:22 PM
If anyone needed further evidence of either the incompetence of the Trustees, or their total disregard for the law, then this is it. And our wonderful Mr. Tang believes he owes this group of top cats his loyalty and allegiance over and above his loyalty, and fiduciary duty to residents.
I also wish to take ‘Anonymous’ to task. The reference to Mr. Campbell as ‘elderly’ is unnecessary and irrelevant. Are you trying to imply that because he might be ‘elderly’ that Mr. Campbell migh perhaps not be the full two bob? As for your attack on Mr. Dunstan that is also uncalled for and potentially libelous. It would be much better if you concentrated on the facts and the issues instead of your blind belief in the god given right of the MRC to ride roughshod over everything and everyone – including the law.
March 17, 2011 at 11:45 PM
You can put whatever spin you want on the word elderly but you cannot deny the fact that it describes the Gentleman. As to the reference to D Dunston, the truth is a defence in libel. Further you take what is stated as fact when it is more than likely rubbish. Where’s the evidence? Also the Auditors have No Duty to the elderly Gentleman and I bet will not waste thier time and their Clients Money answering you. Anyone with any sence would have sent the Letter to the State Government.
March 18, 2011 at 8:41 AM
Reckon Mr Campbell knows exactly what he’s talking about and that it’s far from “rubbish”. There’s far too much detail in the letter for this to be a figment of someone’s imagination. Auditors do have a duty to investigate allegations as serious as this and just plain ‘ol common courtesy demands a response. Anon, face it will you – the MRC and trustees have really stepped over the line this time and been caught with their pants down. If our council reps knew about any of this, then they are equally culpable just like on any board of directors. Wouldn’t this be good for Tang’s fledgling legal career? Turning a blind eye when he should have had both peepers wide, wide open. Ah, the swings and turns of politics, ambition, and sheer arrogance.
March 18, 2011 at 8:52 AM
Aleck, you’re assuming he was there. Our little tyro is such a busy, busy man that he fails to show up to Trustee meetings. He’s had a terrific teacher such as Lipshutz who only shows up around half the time to council audit meetings and then is often late! They’re both fantastic representatives of the people!
March 18, 2011 at 10:25 PM
Just because Jock hasn’t got the leases in front of him, it doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Last time he got his answers after commencing an FOI request – the Trust should just confirm that they are in place (or otherwise!) and stop this nonsense.
March 17, 2011 at 11:49 PM
Mr. Campbell’s letter and allegations are incredibly serious. They need to be fully investigated by the Ombudsman and probably the Auditor General. We’ve recently had an ombudsman’s report into the St.Kilda triangle and the Kew shelters which revealed much impropriety by government, councils and individuals. There may be many similarities in this case as well and hence deserves full investigation.
It also has implications for the upcoming negotiations between council and the MRC. Given these issues is the MRC even in a position to ‘negotiate’? And what does this reveal about the Trustees and their risk management procedures? I’d also like to know whether any of these issues came up at Trustee meetings and what our councillors on the Trustees did about it. If they kept quiet and said nothing and simply rubber stamped whatever was put forward, then their integrity, or at least intelligence, must be questioned as well. Did they raise the alarm, ask questions, seek evidence?
The whole issue is a quagmire of deceit, duplicity, and conniving. There simply must be a full inquiry into the operations of both this council and the MRC. Until everything is brought out into the open, then suspicion will be rife and well founded and the upcoming negotiations will also be tainted – if they already aren’t.
If Council has already met with the MRC, then they would be wise to halt all negotiations until this issue is sorted out. I’d urge all councillors of good faith to resolve that this must be done at next council meeting and that all the current Trustees resign forthwith.
March 18, 2011 at 10:23 AM
Evans just assumes the information collected is correct. Where is the evidence?If the leases between the Trust and the MRC were in question then that is a matter between them .What has this got to do with questioning Auditors. Surely if Mr Cammbell wants a comment from the Auditor then he should put his hand in his own deep pocket and pay himself.Where is the evidence? Did Mr Dunstan collect the evidence and is any Councillor in regular contact with Don involved in this matter.If they are, and we all know the answer then we know who lacks integrity and it is not the Council members of the MRC.
March 18, 2011 at 11:21 AM
You appear to have absolutely no understanding of the legal implications of the issues, nor the responsibilities of a trustee. In the vain attempt no doubt, to enlighten you I’ll explain. A trustee has a fiduciary duty to oversee the day to day management of property or monies owned by that trust or granted to them as managers. An analogy might be Glen Eira continuing to collect money on crown land leases to sporting clubs for example, when no such lease exists or is rendered invalid. There is a legal responsibility to ensure that everything is above board. This may not be the case here – hence any arrangement between Council and the MRC also becomes suspect since the very question of which land and which leases are to be negotiated remains in legal limbo. If you can’t understand this, then I simply offer you my condolences!!!!!
March 18, 2011 at 12:49 PM
What are you talking about. Glen Eira is not a party to leasing arrangements between the Trust and the MRC. Glen Eira is a bit player in all this. Evans if you and your merry men want what’s not yours why not make an offer.Many of us in Glen Eira want the MRC and all the considerable benifits it brings.
March 18, 2011 at 8:27 PM
Blah blah blah. You are so full of it you are boring me and most on this board. Please list the benefits to the community of the MRC being the custodians of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve as I cannot think of any.
March 18, 2011 at 9:46 PM
We’ve learnt that Mr. Campbell took the time and trouble to physically present a Public Question (prior to the deadline) at Council’s Reception Desk. He was provided with a receipt for his clearly marked ‘public question’. His question however, was not read out at Council Meeting. The ‘excuse’ – it got lost!!! This is not the first time such ‘losses’ occur and its not the first time that Mr. Campbell has been the unfortunate ‘victim’ of such incidents. Perhaps Council could simply provide a box in its foyer where residents could place their public questions and/or submissions? Or is there a more sinister reason behind these disappearances rather than poor admininistrative practices?
March 18, 2011 at 9:58 PM
anon is right that council has a tiny stake in this whole affair of head-lease legality issue. council’s part is the issue of ownership of the triangle, which mrc wants to build a 20 storey hotel complex. for that bitthey are prepared to give a smaller lot on kambrook rd. that exchange assumes that vatc/mrc are legally entitled to the racecourse lease. clearly, if that is not the case then the proposed exchange is not worth doing it. who is fooling who in here.
March 18, 2011 at 10:57 PM
John C are you aware that hundreds of Victorians and many Locals are directly employed by the MRC at Caulfield. Thousands of mainly Locals weekly attend the Glasshouse Complex and tens of thousands attend events at the Racecourse.
March 19, 2011 at 4:42 AM
And if training was moved to another facility such as Sandown, they would still be employed. Net effect, nil. So the only benefit to the community by the MRC using Caulfield Racecourse Reserve is a Pokies venue. Give me a break. That area has the highest concentration of Pokies per person in Australia! Zagames, the Racecourse Hotel, the Rosstown and the Glasshouse all within close proximity and destroying peoples lives. So give us another one anon if you can.
March 19, 2011 at 9:54 AM
There are other tracks ideal to open up for training, as well as many private facilities. Cranbourne, Pakenham, Mornington and public racetracks all well situated where the main Melbourne population base is located. As for the poker machine debate, that could be a whole new thread.
March 18, 2011 at 10:59 PM
Glen Eira show us the evidence.
March 18, 2011 at 11:06 PM
Dear Anon,
we report events that may be of interest to local residents. We do this in the public interest. We suggest that if you doubt the legitimacy of Mr. Campbell’s examples then perhaps you should direct your queries to the MRC. They will either confirm or deny the substance of Mr. Campbell’s letter. We simply report ‘the news’ – a kind of GlenEira Leaks, if you like! Who knows – one day we may even rival Mr. Assange:-)
March 19, 2011 at 12:16 AM
Well more grass has “gone under” recently in “our park”, the carpark in Kambrook Road is now a paved and bituminised area apart from a few ill looking trees which have trimmed up so high these days so as caravans can fit under them. It is bad luck for the residents as the view of the stand from afar is now not a green laced one. Also the lights blare out all night turning night into day… who knows why? Another large part in that area is devoted to the grates of the water catchment system with the water given to the Melbourne Racing Club catchment by guess who – Glen Eira City while our ovals were closed and dried out. No reciprical arrrangement seems to have been made for the provision of ideal whole road surface catchments for the racing track. There is a new wooden deck in the birdcage aea so as more drinks can be consumed and more empty bottles, they may be green, stored on the Station Street footpath as well as the rubbish!! Also more drunk and disorderly, primed in the racecourse, can be evicted from their premises onto the streets. Gone as well is another large area which is part of the centre and guess what yet another track for training has reared it’s sandy head. One asks if it will be the synthetic track the MRC maybe looking out for funding for??
March 19, 2011 at 1:10 AM
disillusioned green, you must be the only so-called green who has a problem with stormwater catchment systems.
So it’s water “given” to the MRC by Glen Eira Council?? Would that be the same water that falls from the sky and would otherwise end up in the bay?
I’ve never read so much nonsense.
March 21, 2011 at 3:08 AM
Yes Anonymous it may seem like nonsense to you but you missed the point I perhaps made poorly.
The hard surfaces of the local road and drainage network provide a very beneficial assistance to water collection. Hundreds of thousands of litres are collected even in times of minor rains.
These arrangements regading the “gift” of the stormwater were made and the MRC had rights to the exclusive use of this water while trees in parks died because our caring council failed to negoiate that the parks and gardens department could also use this water! I failed to see one Glen Eira Water truck on a collection from the MRC catchment over the ten years of drought… our ovals were closed and left to die off while the water cart spread millions of litres of water on the track and other wasted area for the 23 race meetings per year. Also to satisfy the ravid needs of trees in the park council, unfortunately, thought pumping underground water was a good idea but it was found to only make the problem worse as the water table only lowers as water is extracted. The MRC also has a wonderfully cheap purchase arrangement for pumping bore water for the precious track.