Who do GRNSW work for, Participants or the Greens?

Im sure we have all heard the Greens three word slogan on greyhounds, pets not bets. The Greens are very open and vocal about the fact that they want to shut the industry down so it makes sense for them to have this attitude. My big issue is that our controlling body, GRNSW, seems to have the same attitude that the Greens have of pets not bets. Though there are many issues surrounding greyhounds at the moment where GRNSW is failing the industry and pampering to the Greens and others who want to see the industry shut down, I will just point out a few things from my recent experience with GRNSW that has led me to believe we are currently being controlled by people who want to see the ban come back.

In the Supreme Court case relating to the compulsory water bowl policy, an argument that GRNSW used was that the greyhound only got hurt by the water bowl if the trainer decided to race their dog. When I heard this argument in court I was in shock, as was my legal team. We could not believe a racing body was actually arguing that it was an easy and obvious choice for the trainer to simply not race their dog. Now it is important to note that the legal team would receive their instructions from GRNSW, specifically the Board. So the Board of GRNSW, on which we have industry participants, approved the idea that racing is not the main objective of a greyhound, it is just something that maybe they can do if the trainer wants them to. To me this rings of the Greens pets not bets slogan.

Now most people who know me know that even my racing greyhounds are treated as pets. When they retire they stay with me as pets. But the point is they are racing greyhounds first. That is why they were bred. That is why I spent so much money on having them reared, so that they had the best possible chance of being successful racing dogs. To have the controlling body then turn around and say, just dont race your dog as though it was the easiest and most obvious decision in the world is not only insulting but demonstrates their attitude aligns with those like the Greens who want us banned.

It is also worth noting that GRNSW had already approved of exemptions from use of the water bowl for particular greyhounds when they used this argument, however, they conveniently didnt mention that.

Another argument they used was to say that because Rule 106(1)(a) said water had to be provided at all times the water bowl policy was needed in order for trainers to meet their obligations. Without even going to how ludicrous this argument is, my concern is the focus on at all times. This comes from the five freedoms/domains that animal rights organisations go on about all the time. My understanding is that participants will soon have to pass written tests to get or retain their licence and knowledge of these five freedoms/domains will be a requirement. Yet again it seems that it is those who supported the ban who are making all the decisions.

Now I have heard people say that we need to give the current GRNSW a chance and that it was the previous administration that brought in the water bowl policy. However, it is the current administration that fought the case in the Supreme Court using the arguments I just mentioned. It is also the current GRNSW who decided to use the chambers where Michael McHugh is an associate. This is the same Michael McHugh who led the Special Commission whose appallingly biased report (that led to the ban) was easily exposed by the conservative media.

Just last week I applied to the GRNSW for an internal review of the decision by the Deputy CEO Dayle Brown to refuse my greyhound an exemption from the water bowl. The response I got was that that section of the act was not currently in force. The CEO, Tony Mestrov, then wrote As such, you have no right of internal review under the 2017 Act. Further, no right of internal review is available under the Greyhound Racing Act 2009 (NSW) or other relevant legislation. Should you continue to be dissatisfied with Mr Browns decision, I recommend that you seek independent legal advice.

This is the attitude of the current GRNSW. They do not care about the welfare of individual greyhounds but are more interested in pampering to those who want to see the industry shut down. At the moment they are simply a rogue organisation that is acting against the spirit of the new legislation with the express permission of the Supreme Court.

If the industry is to survive participants will need to band together to work against GRNSW and others who want to shut us down. I honestly believe that if we do not work together to fight against the current administration, on all of the issues that are causing participants concern, then there will no longer be any industry to fight for and the Greens slogan of pets not bets will become a reality.

Carly Absalom

The dogs are always of prime importance, but the participants have been forgotten about

They have been left to fend for themselves rather than being defended by our own body

Without participants there is no industry

Things have to change....and change quickly

Give them a chance, yeah sure, have they not had that for the last 20 or 30 years. They are government, the only way IMO is to focus on political outcome. Maybe Victoria will show the way, we here are doing everything we can to have GRV be accountable for their actions. Our election comes in November, let us see what happens.

Good on you for having a go, I have asked this a few times in posts, has anyone sat down with the shadow minister for racing and got very clear what he would do when in government. We have done here and look forward to positive change sooner rather than later.

Just on your internal review, this is crap. There should be an independent complaints body totally separate from GRNSW otherwise all that they do is fob you off just like the CEO has done.

Cheers

You had no hope in hell of beating them in the courts. Your money wouldve run out before theirs did. Your money did run out before theirs did. Another classic example is Cessnock and they won their first court case ! You see, as you rightly mentioned (without suggesting anything) some of these people are in the same social circle and/or fraternity.

Quite right that pollies just want votes, and prefer that no hard questions arise.

However, we had 70 years of "our own" running racing and they failed miserably to keep up with the times, to keep up with the competition, to maintain decent tracks and improve them, to watch carefully over abuses and to chase new customers. On top of that, "our own" approved the intercode agreement which has tied us up in knots ever since.

Anyway, in practical terms it was not the Libs as such that tried to ban the dogs, it was Baird and Grant personally, who then whipped the mob into line (or most of them). That's how British/Australian cabinet solidarity works (with any party).

Equally, Labor has done nothing over the last 30 years to push the
industry ahead, even though it has been in power for longer than the Libs. Foley's current effort can be trusted only as far as the next election. Frying pan and fire!

The only solution is to remove government from any control over racing (betting aside). It doesn't do that for any other industry so why should it for racing?

To replace GRNSW you need an independent corporation responsible to and elected by stakeholders, with pre-agreed objectives. License holders would be ineligible for membership of that organisation for a number of reasons, including conflict of interest. Running an industry is a vastly different proposition to running a kennel or a raceclub.

The Mc Hugh report was not demolished in a Court of Law, it should have been, as a result it has been used as a reference by those who want to destroy the N.S.W. Greyhound industry, another monumental mistake by Mr Scott and his GBOTA.

Sandro,
Is it true that Mr Scott has been selected to be on the Integrity Board ?

Miranda's friend, Mr. Hadley would also enjoy.

Tally ho.

With the balance of power Borsack will push,possibly hold the government to ransom,for these types of changes.

Our job as participants is to show some SOLIDARITY and get behind the SFF with membership numbers and show the government we are a larger group of voters than they think.

Changing the Industry
There is no doubt that the action that needs to be taken to bring the industry up to current standards has to take account of the years of neglect,

It can be done, as shown by the effectiveness of the Victorian Labor party in addressing the issues, though with somewhat of a sledgehammer approach.

It is obvious that the business model for the regulator is flawed. After all, what industry regulator also controls the purse strings of the industry it regulates? This fundamental conflict of revenue control/distribution, and compliance management arguably is at the root of the problems, and should be addressed.

Funding of any initiative for change should not be an issue. Greyhound racing does not receive a share of wagering income that is proportionate to its market share, particularly in NSW.

Consideration of the Inquiry
But given the statement by the NSW Premier that reconsideration requires the McHugh inquiry to be shown to be defective, it seems that this must be done without funding.

I contend that your reading is coloured by the opening comments and the sensationalist actions of a few.

I read it with the insight of someone with a compliance management background who understands the industry environment, and who has attempted to escalate the indolence of government and the regulator in Victoria long before the live baiting issue emerged.

In respect of the McHugh inquiry, my initial view is that the "quality" is so bad it would take an enormous amount of work to discredit. It defies belief how $15 million could be justified on it.

Almost every aspect of the inquiry has fatal flaws, but for brevity I will provide one fundamental example.

Relevance of the Social Licence Argument
Social licence seems to be at the heart of the decision so, for an example, I will address that aspect.

I started with a quote from the opening remarks of Stephen Rushton concerning social licence (in blue italic text), and add my responses (highlighted). It did not take much time to establish facts and background (though there are areas where there are no definitive figures).

The speed and ease by which I was able to get facts makes it obvious that Rushton did nothing to validate facts that support his social licence argument. But Rushton blundered on regardless.

"Internationally there are a number of jurisdictions where greyhound racing has been banned."
Contentious
The number is low, if any, yet several anti-greyhound racing groups have made this statement, without stating any country. This statement is a take from one such site.

"Australia is one of only eight countries worldwide where commercial dog racing is still permitted. "
Incorrect
It seems that most countries don't even have rules covering greyhound racing; they either just don't operate at a commercial level, don't have an interest, or the climate doesn't suit. (Using the flawed logic of the statement, one could similarly state that there are only 10 countries where commercial cricket is permitted).

"In the United States, 39 states have banned commercial dog racing because it is financially unsustainable and because of serious welfare concerns. "
Incorrect
This is a straight take from an anti-greyhound racing group website, and was never validated by the inquiry, nor could it have been, because it is incorrect.

What is the real number - 9? (Being Maine, Virginia, Vermont, Idaho, Washington, Nevada, North Carolina, Massachusetts & Colorado)

Not only is the numbers of states imposing bans incorrect, there have been no bans due to financial unsustainability, and only 2 for welfare reasons (Idaho and Vermont, which each operated only one track).

The true position is that most bans derive from wagering. For example, Maine, Virginia & Washington never had organised greyhound racing, and decided to prevent its establishment due to potentially adverse wagering impacts.

There are several examples where track closures have been due to takeover by casino groups or due to changing consumer tastes, but these do not represent bans due to financial unsustainability.

"The first bans came into place in 1993, some 22 years ago. "
Incorrect
It was North Carolina in the 1950s.

"Commercial dog racing has also ceased in four other states, although they have not yet made dog racing illegal in any statute. "
Misrepresentation
There have been several track closures which have nothing to do with legality; these mainly have arisen from economic circumstances; mainly being the incursion of casinos.

"As I speak, there are only seven states where commercial dog racing continues but it is about to become six. On 1 January 2016 the Gulf Greyhound Park in La Marque will be closed. It is the last track in Texas. Greyhound racing in Texas will come to an end."
Incorrect
There are at least 11 US states in which there is commercial greyhound racing, though it is contended that commercial greyhound racing is legal in 16 ie Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Greyhound racing continues to operate in Texas. There was a temporary layoff while new agreements between track owners and breeders were negotiated, and fairer wagering arrangements were revised due to competition from casinos. This was purely an issue relating to commercial terms (as seems to be the case with US sports), and nothing to do with social licence.

This information seems to be a direct take from an anti-greyhound website that has little regard for truth, without any check as to the veracity of the content.

"The point I am seeking to make, Commissioner, is that in the states I have identified stakeholders in the industry withdrew the industry's social licence to operate and the industry came to an end. Industries that use and might abuse animals require a social licence to operate."

To summarise:
The contention that there were precedents of withdrawal of social licence for other closures of the industry is unsupportable.

The basis of the social licence argument is fatally flawed through falsehoods, unvalidated statements, and dishonest reasoning.

I could go on with many other examples, but my resources as an individual are limited.

The Integrity Auditor existed under the 2009 Act. It is not in the 2017 Act. It is unclear what sections of the 2009 Act apply and what don't. I have been trying to make sense of the legislation but it requires reading through numerous regulations as well as the Acts.

It is not a loss though as the Integrity Auditor was proven to not be independent. It had to get its funding from GRNSW to conduct an investigation. A former Integrity Auditor, David Landa, publicly resigned stating the lack of independence as a reason. No changes were made to how the position was to function they simply appointed a new person, Mr Gorrie.

I understand that a complaint regarding the implementation of the Hydration Policy and breaches of the Code of Conduct by GRNSW employees relating to this policy was made and the Integrity Auditor dismissed it out of hand.

I am also aware of other complaints being dealt with by him during his time and most people viewed him as just another apologist for GRNSW.

I am looking to explore other options so I am grateful for any advice that people have.

Theoretically it can deal with conduct that is unreasonable, unjust or oppressive, improperly discriminatory, based on improper or irrelevant grounds, based on a mistake of law or fact, or otherwise wrong.

From the website -
"If after investigating the matter, we find your complaint is justified, the findings are reported to the agency concerned and the relevant minister. We also tell you about our findings.

In a report, we may recommend that:

- the agency should reconsider or change their action or decision
- a law, rule or procedure should be changed
- the agency should take appropriate action such as pay compensation for financial loss or, in serious cases, initiate criminal proceedings.

We cannot force an agency to comply with our recommendations, but most agencies do."

Perhaps you could contend that
1. in respect of this welfare rule all other states & territories forbid water in racing kennels, yet NSW make it mandatory.

2. and to make matters worse, others have been granted exemptions, yet you were not.