"In the end it may make little difference whether they are legally bound or not but it would be nice to know we at least had a chance to stop things such as the puppy bond simply by educating GWIC as to the reality of the current circumstances".

It will make no difference whether it is in the law, the recommendations or anywhere else. If they want to make a rule, they just do it. They have that power. However, they can also be challenged.

Roadshows have a similar flavour. They are part of any government-appointed instrumentality's brief like OHS etc. Consultations are the name of the game. Whether the authority does anything about the outcome of those consultations is entirely up to it.

A modern company would consult with its workers and its customers because they know that's how they can achieve happy people and better profits. A "government" authority does it because it has to.

Similarly, government have been getting away with it because (a) it put an industry representative on the Reform Panel and (b) participants have said little or nothing since in any formal sense.

Normally, industry groups would take issue with stuff that disadvantaged their members. Yet NSW has only one such group - GBOTA - and it was represented on the Panel. Very circular. Too circular.

But here is just one example on which I can comment. Any restriction on breeding numbers is argumentative and based on spurious and unproven grounds that it will lower euthanasia rates. In effect, that says that other means of reducing euthanasia are inadequate. However, even that is arguable as euthanasia is a legal practice in this state, provided it is done properly.

But there's more. Those restrictions are a restraint of trade, not just in racing terms but because for some people breeding is their sole or major activity - a longstanding and legal activity. To put it another way, it is like telling a gadget manufacturer that his supply of steel will be limited or reduced. You can't do that.

Finally, there is the discrimination. Such restrictions do not apply to horses or other animals which operate in much the same way as the greyhound industry. That is immediate ground for challenge.

The government's whole effort is based on two things; first, Baird/Grant personal dislike of the greyhound industry (so indicated in their language in the media and elsewhere) and, second, an implied claim that industry abuses are so cancerous as to justify extreme action in the interests of the community at large.

Some of all of these points should have been covered as the Alliance and its legal team wound down post-ban. Then and now, they should be challenged. At a minimum, the Administrative Tribunal should be brought into it.

Separately, the GBOTA needs to take a good hard look in the mirror. It cannot speak up for the industry if it is bound by confidentiality clauses in other roles. In any event, it represents only a modest portion of the industry and I doubt it has any good answers - in fact, I am not sure it understands the questions.

I ask myself this question: Is Judith Lind, Alan Brown, John Keniry, Clare Petre taking on these contracts as Greyhound Commissioners because they Love Greyhounds? because they have an Affinity & background in the Industry? have a true belief they can make significant changes to improve not only the Welfare of the Animal but also for all PARTICIPANTS. (No participants= No dogs)
What was in their Brief ? Suspicious you bettcha.

damage done to baby..

They reveal the boy's skull was broken into three pieces due to blunt force trauma, which also caused a bleed on the brain.
Two spinal discs at the top of the toddler's neck were dislodged and he suffered two "distinctive bite marks" on the right upper should, as well as significant bruising to his face.

About 15 Million has been spent on this campaign when it couldve been directed elsewhere. The same with the stadia exercise. Only a few thousand spectators at Alliance watching Sydney FC v Adelaide last weekend. What wastes of monies.

forgot to add, they'll also supply an injecting room for her..!!

I have had a quick look at the Act again and cannot see that mentioned. (May have missed it, it was a quick look so if anyone knows where it is please let me know). Obviously many of the recommendations were incorporated into the Act itself so they are legally enforceable but I am not sure about the others.

Carly,
The roadshow did not state its legal obligations re the reform package, only that a bond would alleviate overbreeding. You may be able to confirm if reform item 30 was incorporated into the Act -"the minister of racing should have the ability to issue directions to the commission on its operations, in the public interest. "
Vague in its wording,but gives latitude to the minister to make directions.
The only avenue we possibly have to lobby the minister on our issues is through MLC Borsack and the SFF,especially if they achieve their goal of holding the balance of power.
Borsack has consistently stated that the industry should not be bankrupted into demise,so any financial issue, such as an unwanted bond might be a cause he would champion for us.
Another reason to support him.Mark Donahue might be able to help with details on how to get relevant information to the SFF Greyhound branch

I've copied your post and will send it off to Mr Borsak.

3-5 made redundant.

Yes Mark...

looks like the employees who have knowledge of greyhound racing have been let go, possibly up to 5....

Yes it is in the Act

Greyhound Racing Act 2017 No 13
Part 2 Division 1 Section 8
8 Ministerial directions
(1) The Minister may give the Commission a written direction with respect to the functions of the Commission if the Minister is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in the public interest.
(2) The Commission must ensure that the direction is complied with.
(3) A direction under this section cannot be made in relation to the following matters:
(a) the content of any advice, report or recommendation by the Commission,
(b) any decision relating to the registration of a particular greyhound, person or greyhound trial track,
(c) any decision to institute criminal proceedings for offences under this Act or the regulations or to take disciplinary action under Division 1 of Part 6,
(d) any decision relating to the exercise of powers under Part 7.
(4) The Minister is required to cause a notice to be published in the Gazette setting out the reasons why a direction was given under this section and why it is in the public interest that the direction was given. Any such notice is to be published in the Gazette within 1 month after the direction is given.

The problem we have at the moment is that the Minister can issue directions to the Commission but GRNSW has control over "12 (a) to control, supervise and regulate (subject to this Act) greyhound racing in the State," at the moment so it is unclear whether he can issue directions yet.

If you read through the recommendations on the bond the purpose was to alleviate over breeding and deter euthanasia. At the moment there is no over breeding and the Euthanasia Policy already provides the disincentive to euthanise the greyhound so the bond really has become redundant. The recommendations also said 'should' have a bond for these reasons not 'must'.

1. Preferably ones that sip lattes,
2. are 2nd generational tree huggers,
3. graze on lettuce leaves,
4. & are head nodders.