Greens Call For Positive Animal Welfare Outcomes From Inquiry
Paul Keating would probably call it “the inquiry the greyhound industry had to have”. A parliamentary inquiry into greyhound racing in New South Wales was announced on August 27th this year. Some see it as a serious avenue for improvement in the sport while others fear it could all but spell the end of the industry, the only thing we know for sure is that it is happening.
Greens MP, Dr John Kaye told the Australian Racing Greyhound that “This parliamentary inquiry was borne out of community and industry concerns over serious allegations of industry mismanagement, inappropriate distribution of TAB proceeds and widespread mistreatment of dogs.” Dr. Kaye is buoyant that the inquiry can provide positive results for the industry. “This inquiry is about shining a light onto an industry that is in trouble and seeking ways to improve outcomes for all participants and the dogs themselves.”
Dr. Kaye is particularly passionate about welfare issues and believes that it is one area that there is scope for improvement in within the industry. “Greyhound Racing NSW has made some steps towards improving animal welfare outcomes, including the introduction of re-homing initiatives. However I have been made aware of allegations that the regulatory body has been unenthusiastic about lifting the lid on some of the practices in parts of the industry that would be deemed to be socially unacceptable.”
Prizemoney and the current Intercode Agreement will also form an important part of the inquiry. It is an issue that has left many industry participants disgruntled and even led to the formation of the Greyhound Action Group (GAG).
“Despite attempts by some members of parliament to exclude the Intercode Agreement from the terms of reference of the inquiry, there will be opportunities for industry participants to raise their concerns about how TAB funds are distributed between each of the codes.” Dr. Kaye said.
“This includes not just the existing split but also the circumstances under which greyhound racing signed up to an agreement that not only lasts 99 years but also now delivers 13 percent of the TAB revenue to a code that generates more than 20 percent of wagering activity.”
“GRNSW argues the Intercode agreement has cost the racing code $125 million since 1998. This is a significant amount of money, and I anticipate that the inquiry will consider whether this is an equitable arrangement.”
When asked if he believed an increase in prizemoney would also assist the welfare issues Dr. Kaye said “It is hard to see how increasing prizemoney would deliver better animal welfare outcomes for those dogs that fail to win races. It may be the case that some individual owners would use increased prize money to improve the treatment of their dogs. However there is no guarantee that this would result in better animal welfare outcomes across the industry.”
One of the terms of reference in the inquiry refers to the adequacy and integrity of data collection in the industry, including the number of pups born, the number of dogs euthanased and injury rates. Dr. Kaye is interested in transparency when it comes to this particular point.
“I will be questioning participants in the inquiry about the regulation of breeding and the alleged over supply of pups. An important task is to break through the cloud of obscurity created by the absence of publicly available data on the number of pups born each year.” said Dr. Kaye.
“If GRNSW has the data and is refusing to release it, then there is a substantial problem of accountability. If it does not have the data, then there is a problem of competence. If the allegations of over-breeding are substantiated, it will be up to GRNSW to explain how the current regulatory model can cope with the problem and bring down the subsequent toll of animals being discarded and killed.”
When asked if the inquiry is likely to be a shot in the arm the industry needs or a possible beginning of the end for the sport Dr. Kaye was a little more circumspect, saying “At this stage it is not possible to anticipate the outcomes of the inquiry, or what information will come to light.”
Public submissions to the inquiry close on November 6th.
A good read from what looks like a new author?
Looks like he’s asked some good questions. It looks like Dr. Kaye is hell bent on pushing the welfare issue during this inquiry. His comments on prize money seem nowhere near as passionate as his welfare ones, it’s like the Greens & GAG are fighting very different battles. It’s also interesting that some factions of parliament were wanting to exclude the intercode agreement from the terms of reference. That would have angered plenty of participants.
A good read from what looks like a new author?
Looks like he’s asked some good questions. It looks like Dr. Kaye is hell bent on pushing the welfare issue during this inquiry. His comments on prize money seem nowhere near as passionate as his welfare ones, it’s like the Greens & GAG are fighting very different battles. It’s also interesting that some factions of parliament were wanting to exclude the intercode agreement from the terms of reference. That would have angered plenty of participants.
crack pots and green men …… more waste of tax payer’s dosh the greens all smoke and mirror’s this inquiry will get railroaded based on lie’s and someone’s own agenda
crack pots and green men …… more waste of tax payer’s dosh the greens all smoke and mirror’s this inquiry will get railroaded based on lie’s and someone’s own agenda
This is a chance to secure the future done the right way which I doubt very much will happen
This is a chance to secure the future done the right way which I doubt very much will happen
I like the way this is put together, lots of quotes that tell me that Kaye’s interest in the inquiry differs greatly to that of GAG’s. are those two parties allies? Or is one using the other? Thanks for the insight Rob.
I like the way this is put together, lots of quotes that tell me that Kaye’s interest in the inquiry differs greatly to that of GAG’s. are those two parties allies? Or is one using the other? Thanks for the insight Rob.
Thank all the f$@kwits who vote labor in bed with the greens
Thank all the fkwits who vote labor in bed with the greens
If the owners, trainers, breeders actually “love” their dogs, then an inquiry should be welcomed by them…..unless of course they have something to hide
If the owners, trainers, breeders actually “love” their dogs, then an inquiry should be welcomed by them…..unless of course they have something to hide
Sam Collins
The Government members in the upper house and the opposition members both supported the inter code agreement and rejected the recommendations of the cameron report in regard to five of its recommendation including intervention into the inter code contract on percentages to be paid to each code which subject to a set formula rather than a competitive one.
The Greens interests initially were from welfare and integrity reports expressed in the herald and they attempted to have an internal type of inquiry which was self referring called a standing committee special purpose committee no 3. The problem for the Greens is that they needed three members of the standing committee which are always made up of 3 Government 4 Others to formulate the request and they then needed a majority of the seven to form the reference. This action was not possible at the time so their notice of motion just kept coming up on the notice paper and eventually an event would have come up in animal welfare where the standing committee would get the majority vote.
The GAG was able to lobby the minor parties (The shooters) to agree to a reference and the consortium was able to get qualified support from the Labor Party making their vote four out of a cpmmittee of seven. This meant that the majority group of four actually represented the majority vote in the upper house and they were then able to update the enquiry to Select Committee which is not self regulating and requires the majority support of the parliament and is a parliament full enquiry. To gain permission to have the inquiry formed without debate a motion has to appear on the notice board and the whole of the parliament must agree to the motion being accepted without debate. The first attempt to get the motion on the notice paper failed because the shadow minister for racing objected to the wording of the reference containing explicit terms in the Cameron report. The motion was postponed then re presented and this time it was voted down by a single vote by the Government which then deferred the motion again. The whole of the opposition and minor parties got together with the GAG who insisted that the viability clause needed to be prominent to give them comfort that distribution matters would be in the forefront. There were frantic negotiations upfront took place and an a universal position was reached with the GAG owing a large share of the inquiry reference. (The industry reference was the one adopted with minor amendments.
The Shooters , Greens and Labor alliance now had the numbers to have the committee formed on the open floor if the motion to have the select committee was objected to by the parliament who had the power to let the committee be formed by motion without debate.
The motion went onto the Tuesday business paper as the late item but was brought forward to the parliament at the beginning of the session. Word got around the parliament that GRNSW stated that they would attend the enquiry even before the vote was taken which was a gesture of good faith.
The motion was put up with both Dennis and Tony attending the chamber to hear the motion being put. The parliament granted the motion without objection which meant that the formation of the committee did not have to go to the parliament later for a full debate where the opposition and the minot parties had the numbers now to form the select committee and reference. I was in the Mitchell Library at the earlier time and was invited to lunch with the GAG group and the local member for Cessnock. There was a real buzz around the dining room and members of all persuasions were coming up and greeting our group. I was invited to attend the upper house sitting but declined. It was the greyhound participants inquiry not mine and in any case I wanted to get home and see that the GAG release beat the GRNSW release to the press. I was a previous member of GRNSW and knew what they were like. I listened to the debate on the computer and got the button with the press release going as soon as the approval had been given. There was only a nanosecond between the GAG and GRNSW release. The competition n
now became the race to get in the first submission to the enquiry.
Sam Collins
The Government members in the upper house and the opposition members both supported the inter code agreement and rejected the recommendations of the cameron report in regard to five of its recommendation including intervention into the inter code contract on percentages to be paid to each code which subject to a set formula rather than a competitive one.
The Greens interests initially were from welfare and integrity reports expressed in the herald and they attempted to have an internal type of inquiry which was self referring called a standing committee special purpose committee no 3. The problem for the Greens is that they needed three members of the standing committee which are always made up of 3 Government 4 Others to formulate the request and they then needed a majority of the seven to form the reference. This action was not possible at the time so their notice of motion just kept coming up on the notice paper and eventually an event would have come up in animal welfare where the standing committee would get the majority vote.
The GAG was able to lobby the minor parties (The shooters) to agree to a reference and the consortium was able to get qualified support from the Labor Party making their vote four out of a cpmmittee of seven. This meant that the majority group of four actually represented the majority vote in the upper house and they were then able to update the enquiry to Select Committee which is not self regulating and requires the majority support of the parliament and is a parliament full enquiry. To gain permission to have the inquiry formed without debate a motion has to appear on the notice board and the whole of the parliament must agree to the motion being accepted without debate. The first attempt to get the motion on the notice paper failed because the shadow minister for racing objected to the wording of the reference containing explicit terms in the Cameron report. The motion was postponed then re presented and this time it was voted down by a single vote by the Government which then deferred the motion again. The whole of the opposition and minor parties got together with the GAG who insisted that the viability clause needed to be prominent to give them comfort that distribution matters would be in the forefront. There were frantic negotiations upfront took place and an a universal position was reached with the GAG owing a large share of the inquiry reference. (The industry reference was the one adopted with minor amendments.
The Shooters , Greens and Labor alliance now had the numbers to have the committee formed on the open floor if the motion to have the select committee was objected to by the parliament who had the power to let the committee be formed by motion without debate.
The motion went onto the Tuesday business paper as the late item but was brought forward to the parliament at the beginning of the session. Word got around the parliament that GRNSW stated that they would attend the enquiry even before the vote was taken which was a gesture of good faith.
The motion was put up with both Dennis and Tony attending the chamber to hear the motion being put. The parliament granted the motion without objection which meant that the formation of the committee did not have to go to the parliament later for a full debate where the opposition and the minot parties had the numbers now to form the select committee and reference. I was in the Mitchell Library at the earlier time and was invited to lunch with the GAG group and the local member for Cessnock. There was a real buzz around the dining room and members of all persuasions were coming up and greeting our group. I was invited to attend the upper house sitting but declined. It was the greyhound participants inquiry not mine and in any case I wanted to get home and see that the GAG release beat the GRNSW release to the press. I was a previous member of GRNSW and knew what they were like. I listened to the debate on the computer and got the button with the press release going as soon as the approval had been given. There was only a nanosecond between the GAG and GRNSW release. The competition n
now became the race to get in the first submission to the enquiry.
Martin Ebb
I have made an explanation to Sam on this thread but would like to go further. The Greens are one of seven members of the select committee and have a corresponding voice. In the hurly burley of the formation of the references they joined in discussions on all points of the reference but their main interest was integrity on the Shooters who were the lobby group to the greyhound interests, to obtain the Chairman’s position which is the most prominent position inside the enquiry.
I see the viability of Greyhound Racing as the fair share of the capital works ; private and public partnerships. a fair share of tax relief now offered to the horses on the regional events projects and the need for specialised funding votes on wagering taxation being distributed in ways other than the NSW system of consolidated revenue . Also I see tax concessions afforded to the poler machine clubs should be extended to racing.
GRNSW is responsible for three funds. There is a concentration so far on the distribution fund to clubs nd the resultant prize money. In essence who you pay prize money to will effect the viability of the group receiving it and jiggling it around will change the make up of the group. The other funds are more vital to viability these are the Capital Works fund and the creative industry assistance fund which can also offer a stability by reserve funds.
Essentially my submission will be along the above lines, others will pick from the various items.
Just a hint.
The viability first reference is the overarching reference and all the other reference items also relate to a break up of viabilities themselves.
If you are submitting solely to the viability first clause of the reference a handy frame to use is the SWOT quadrant.
Break up the submission into
Listing Strengths, Weaknesses , Opportunities and Threats and then make an overall assessment. This is real text book stuff but always gets a good reception at inquiries.
Submissions can also contain a single idea and a brief suggestion. In these cases you know that the submission will be well read.
I got a special note of appreciation from one enquiry for a submission of less than a quarter of a page.
The thing to remember is to separate on various pages the items of the reference you are referring to if you are making remarks on more than one item. This allows a full copy of each of your items to be copied and distributed to all members of the committee.
John Tracey information project for GAG.
Martin Ebb
I have made an explanation to Sam on this thread but would like to go further. The Greens are one of seven members of the select committee and have a corresponding voice. In the hurly burley of the formation of the references they joined in discussions on all points of the reference but their main interest was integrity on the Shooters who were the lobby group to the greyhound interests, to obtain the Chairman’s position which is the most prominent position inside the enquiry.
I see the viability of Greyhound Racing as the fair share of the capital works ; private and public partnerships. a fair share of tax relief now offered to the horses on the regional events projects and the need for specialised funding votes on wagering taxation being distributed in ways other than the NSW system of consolidated revenue . Also I see tax concessions afforded to the poler machine clubs should be extended to racing.
GRNSW is responsible for three funds. There is a concentration so far on the distribution fund to clubs nd the resultant prize money. In essence who you pay prize money to will effect the viability of the group receiving it and jiggling it around will change the make up of the group. The other funds are more vital to viability these are the Capital Works fund and the creative industry assistance fund which can also offer a stability by reserve funds.
Essentially my submission will be along the above lines, others will pick from the various items.
Just a hint.
The viability first reference is the overarching reference and all the other reference items also relate to a break up of viabilities themselves.
If you are submitting solely to the viability first clause of the reference a handy frame to use is the SWOT quadrant.
Break up the submission into
Listing Strengths, Weaknesses , Opportunities and Threats and then make an overall assessment. This is real text book stuff but always gets a good reception at inquiries.
Submissions can also contain a single idea and a brief suggestion. In these cases you know that the submission will be well read.
I got a special note of appreciation from one enquiry for a submission of less than a quarter of a page.
The thing to remember is to separate on various pages the items of the reference you are referring to if you are making remarks on more than one item. This allows a full copy of each of your items to be copied and distributed to all members of the committee.
John Tracey information project for GAG.
Martin Ebb
Sorry things keep dropping out on me and I have difficulties with edits.
The Greens main interest are on integrity at the Human and Welfare side of things and the Shooters who were lobbied by the greyhound interests holds the position as Chairman of the enquiry.
Martin Ebb
Sorry things keep dropping out on me and I have difficulties with edits.
The Greens main interest are on integrity at the Human and Welfare side of things and the Shooters who were lobbied by the greyhound interests holds the position as Chairman of the enquiry.
do what they did in victoria
do what they did in victoria
Are the greens going to worry about the tab agreement at all? Or just welfare? Good interview whoever done this, it reveals the Greens agenda.
Are the greens going to worry about the tab agreement at all? Or just welfare? Good interview whoever done this, it reveals the Greens agenda.
@Samantha Collins
The Greens article is helpful to the inquiry and to the proportionate distribution of wagering. Dr Kaye refers to the increased prize money not in itself being a great welfare benefit and he has a point. There are three funds administered by the control body and they all depend on the proportion of wagering money received by the greyhounds. The funds that can a do assist animal welfare are the capital development fund and the industry assistance fund. By explanation when the raw receipts from the TAB are received a percentage of that money goes as a charge to the capital development fund but also any monies received over and above the rate of inflation from the TAB goes into a creative fund called the Industry Assistance Fund.
The AIF for example assisted the Mudgee Promotion which raised funds equally for a hot line unit housed by volunteers under Mission Australia for the prevention of Youth Suicide and also raided funds at the same time for the Mudgee branch of the RSPCA. The day included the local girls school singing group a raft of donations receipted directly to the charity and performances from exotic dogs. The Club and associated sponsors received appreciation awards from both Mission Australia and the RSPCA Branch. These events involved the authority giving a modest spend and activity with the CEO at the time Mr Bawtree and his wife officiating at the meeting. The modest funding was from the creative fund the IAF which unfortunately depleted.
I cant remember the full details of where the capital development fund was used to assist animal welfare specifically except for some funding where slipping tracks associated with clubs had a general use during different times for greyhounds and for domestic dogs. One of these schemes could have been Wagga who created this community service but it might have been another club involvement. There were proposals for vet service rooms on tracks and these were to be used also for domestic dogs. I think that this main proposal came from Cowra but once again my memory needs jogging.
The biggest spend by the control board out of funds granted to the IAF was the history project including the exhibition of greyhound history at Wagga sports museum, Gosford and the most successful exhibition at the Arts Centre at Gunnedah. The IAF also funded the scoping and drawing up of the Gunnedah memorial gardens, memorial walls and grave sites and museum proposal which was classic text book animal welfare projects straight out of the pages of the RSPCA textbook. “Honour the animal by memorial lifts its status and protects its welfare” or words to this effect. The town project to have a its famous sculpture in bronze of Chief Havoc is a classic memorial to the welfare of the animal and fits in with the horse head for example celebrating the horses contributions to earlier wars. (display at Canberra??)
Dr Kaye’s observations on the benefit of welfare to proportion works but he is with great respect looking at the wrong fund, anyway this is my point, unless you have an open enquiry these things never become light of day but there is more. The greyhound spend on charity including animal welfare, it is tome to throw in the 65 Red Roses scheme is funded by the control body on behalf of participants and the community gets the full benefit of the spend. This is unlike wefare spends in the registered poker machine clubs who get a dollar for dollar refund of gaming duty (distribution Tax) refunded to them for the spend (some limits apply) and these refunds can be as simple as assessing a free room value given to NFP from time to time. What a great position GRNSW would be in if say for example the crib promotion at Temora for the local hospital promotion for children born prematurely could have received a credit and how about the auction which raised $14K at Wagga for charity.Also what could GRNSW do further with their promotion on Cystic fibrosis and more to the point what could greyhound racing do further for animal welfare.
There is some incentive for greyhound racing to embrace the welfare section of the enquiry but it is only one of several items that the parliament have given the privilege for the first enquiry into greyhound racing which has a large participant ownership.
@Samantha Collins
The Greens article is helpful to the inquiry and to the proportionate distribution of wagering. Dr Kaye refers to the increased prize money not in itself being a great welfare benefit and he has a point. There are three funds administered by the control body and they all depend on the proportion of wagering money received by the greyhounds. The funds that can a do assist animal welfare are the capital development fund and the industry assistance fund. By explanation when the raw receipts from the TAB are received a percentage of that money goes as a charge to the capital development fund but also any monies received over and above the rate of inflation from the TAB goes into a creative fund called the Industry Assistance Fund.
The AIF for example assisted the Mudgee Promotion which raised funds equally for a hot line unit housed by volunteers under Mission Australia for the prevention of Youth Suicide and also raided funds at the same time for the Mudgee branch of the RSPCA. The day included the local girls school singing group a raft of donations receipted directly to the charity and performances from exotic dogs. The Club and associated sponsors received appreciation awards from both Mission Australia and the RSPCA Branch. These events involved the authority giving a modest spend and activity with the CEO at the time Mr Bawtree and his wife officiating at the meeting. The modest funding was from the creative fund the IAF which unfortunately depleted.
I cant remember the full details of where the capital development fund was used to assist animal welfare specifically except for some funding where slipping tracks associated with clubs had a general use during different times for greyhounds and for domestic dogs. One of these schemes could have been Wagga who created this community service but it might have been another club involvement. There were proposals for vet service rooms on tracks and these were to be used also for domestic dogs. I think that this main proposal came from Cowra but once again my memory needs jogging.
The biggest spend by the control board out of funds granted to the IAF was the history project including the exhibition of greyhound history at Wagga sports museum, Gosford and the most successful exhibition at the Arts Centre at Gunnedah. The IAF also funded the scoping and drawing up of the Gunnedah memorial gardens, memorial walls and grave sites and museum proposal which was classic text book animal welfare projects straight out of the pages of the RSPCA textbook. “Honour the animal by memorial lifts its status and protects its welfare” or words to this effect. The town project to have a its famous sculpture in bronze of Chief Havoc is a classic memorial to the welfare of the animal and fits in with the horse head for example celebrating the horses contributions to earlier wars. (display at Canberra??)
Dr Kaye’s observations on the benefit of welfare to proportion works but he is with great respect looking at the wrong fund, anyway this is my point, unless you have an open enquiry these things never become light of day but there is more. The greyhound spend on charity including animal welfare, it is tome to throw in the 65 Red Roses scheme is funded by the control body on behalf of participants and the community gets the full benefit of the spend. This is unlike wefare spends in the registered poker machine clubs who get a dollar for dollar refund of gaming duty (distribution Tax) refunded to them for the spend (some limits apply) and these refunds can be as simple as assessing a free room value given to NFP from time to time. What a great position GRNSW would be in if say for example the crib promotion at Temora for the local hospital promotion for children born prematurely could have received a credit and how about the auction which raised K at Wagga for charity.Also what could GRNSW do further with their promotion on Cystic fibrosis and more to the point what could greyhound racing do further for animal welfare.
There is some incentive for greyhound racing to embrace the welfare section of the enquiry but it is only one of several items that the parliament have given the privilege for the first enquiry into greyhound racing which has a large participant ownership.
The end is nigh. Woop woop!
The end is nigh. Woop woop!
@Samantha Collins Sounds like a commitment to animal welfare is something that bothers you. Care to explain?
@Samantha Collins Sounds like a commitment to animal welfare is something that bothers you. Care to explain?
John Tracey Martin Ebb
Does that mean then that the Shooters party can in any way undermine the animal welfare concerns, in your view John? It seems that the Shooters party is primarily interested in furthering industry business interests, and that as a result of the investigation, the Greens will in contrast, have little choice but to question the industries legitimacy. With the Shooters chairing the committee, it looks as though the dogs will lose, regardless, and the animal welfare issues which concern probably more people than the gambling side of things, will play second fiddle.
Wouldn’t everyone in the industry have animal welfare as their first and foremost priority? With the lack of available data on breeding and euthanasia, I don’t think anyone can say “I know there’s not an issue here” Because the information is simply not available.
John Tracey Martin Ebb
Does that mean then that the Shooters party can in any way undermine the animal welfare concerns, in your view John? It seems that the Shooters party is primarily interested in furthering industry business interests, and that as a result of the investigation, the Greens will in contrast, have little choice but to question the industries legitimacy. With the Shooters chairing the committee, it looks as though the dogs will lose, regardless, and the animal welfare issues which concern probably more people than the gambling side of things, will play second fiddle.
Wouldn’t everyone in the industry have animal welfare as their first and foremost priority? With the lack of available data on breeding and euthanasia, I don’t think anyone can say “I know there’s not an issue here” Because the information is simply not available.