The recent spotlight on greyhound racing will have come out of the blue for many people, but not to those familiar with the sport in NSW.
For a long time people had been wondering where, exactly, the sport was headed, who was benefiting, and whether there was a better way.
In late 2012, a large group of greyhound trainers basically went on strike for two weeks. Meetings were cancelled, Group races were decimated and Wentworth Park was reduced to 280m races and uncompetitive events.
But what did they want and why did they take such drastic action?
What did they want?
The stated demands were for an Upper House Inquiry into the sustainability of greyhound racing in NSW. Post-privatisation the fixed distribution of TAB-generated revenue was leaving greyhound racing short.
A distribution model based on turnover would have resulted in an estimated $10 to $15 million annually returned to the sport. The NSW Government doesn’t miss out either, taking a considerably higher return than in Victoria.
But the regulatory model was also being questioned by many, both inside and outside the sport. The commercial and regulatory functions of the sport had been merged into one body, GRNSW. Although commonly referred to as ‘self regulating’, the board was independent of greyhound racing and appointed by the government.
Apart from themselves, some participants thought that it wasn’t really clear on whose behalf GRNSW were making decisions, and were inherently contradicted, leaving them unable to deal effectively with the integrity and welfare aspects of the sport while also promoting it.
The Upper House in NSW required either the vote of the Shooters and Fishers and the Christian Democratic Party to support the Government, or all of Labor, the Greens, Shooters and Fishers and the CDP if the Government didn’t.
The Shooters and Fishers negotiated with the Greens for an inquiry, and the pressure applied by the greyhound racing participants eventually prevailed, with broad terms of reference that included the financial sustainability of the sport, integrity and animal welfare.
What happened at the inquiry?
Members of the public were able to make submissions to the inquiry under parliamentary privilege. Certain people, usually representing interested parties, were questioned by the committee while members of the public could apply to have five minutes to say their piece.
The inquiry created an enormous amount of interest, over 1000 people or interest groups made submissions. While most people give little thought to greyhounds, there was clearly a significant amount of people in the community who feel strongly about them.
The evidence was compelling. Greyhound racing had been increasing in popularity with the punters, surpassing harness racing in turnover. The intercode agreement meant that people within the sport did not share in this success and were leaving the sport in numbers. The intercode agreement was reviewed after 15 years, but too much faith was placed in the review translating into meaningful change.
Meanwhile, GRNSW had dropped far behind Victoria in taking greyhounds from the track to the couch. The regulation of greyhound racing by GRNSW, the same body that promoted the sport, was placed under sustained criticism by participants and welfare groups alike.
What did the inquiry recommend?
The committee members were split, with Labor, Liberal and the Shooters and Fishers making one set of recommendations, and the Greens another. Again, these have been made public and I urge those interested to search for themselves.
Ultimately, the greyhound racing participants didn’t achieve their goal of renegotiating the intercode agreement, while GRNSW was spared the axe and major structural reform, albeit temporarily.
Nevertheless many people were given the opportunity to air their views and few held back their thoughts. When the Four Corners episode aired the response of the NSW Government was swift, sacking the entire board and CEO of GRNSW, at least in part vindicating their many and varied critics.
The lack of vision
The underlying problems with GRNSW really came down to a lack of purpose and vision. It seemed as though a lot of people, and greyhounds, were subservient to the desires of the Government, TAB and feeding the beast of wall-to-wall racing.
Articulating a better way seemed beyond the governing body, and there were no mechanisms in place to change that.
Surely there is a better way, and I’m optimistic that the inevitable focus on greyhounds over the next six months will initiate that.
Gary Smith
Roar Rookie
The Parliamentary inquiry was a joke and how it was gained by a minority should be answered by the current special commission. This minority were sure they were right and the rest of the industry was wrong, they did not represent the majority of the industry. Many more questions in my opinion should be asked about peoples involvement and how the inquiry was gained, abuse, threats and intimidation of participants happened and hopefully now with the special commission taking place the real truth will come out and people who have been involved and done wrong should be held accountable
John Tracey
Guest
Hi Des, Hogan gave the figure of dogs destroyed as his best estimate not a physical count of dogs as you suggest, His guess has been disputed up and down but the truth is that nobody knows. The same applies to all domestic dogs as well. With the domestic dogs registered in NSW aa a 31% approximate of the 3.7 million registered dogs in Australia , estimates as to how many additional unregistered dogs exist as pets is anyones guess and then there are a number of wild and feral dogs as well. The records on greyhounds born is accurate and known and they all carry identification. There are 38 pet burial grounds including crematorium for all animals and most dogs suffering from natural causes are disposed at the vet level. None of the various dog associations can reasonably calculate rates of dog destruction and burial. If the greyhounds can progress further with statical evidence in keeping record of the above then the greyhounds will add greatly to the welfare benefits as the other domestic dogs will have to follow suit . My advice to people wanting to invest money is to put it into pet cemetaries which are the next big thing to adoption companies. Th blooding of dogs is not excusable. The welfare people who favour normalising animals by returning them to wild should reflect on the fact that 15 million feral cats exist in Australia and when they are examined they carry up to thirty species in their stomachs. Cheers.
Jonesy
Guest
Well said. Cheers
Dez
Guest
Apologies, I was angry and paraphrasing (second hand story) I used to go to Wenty and have a punt until we accidentally adopted an ex-racer. My attitudes changed. I am a realist and want the scum bags out of the sport and the dog to be celebrated like it used to be throughout history.
Jonesy
Guest
Des, its difficult to tell which of your comments are truth and which are false and which are just made up. You said in a comment the other day, I quote: "The new state of the art morgue is ready to chill any dog unlucky enough to do a hock on the night of nights" referring to Wentworth Park. Now a dog called Hostile broke its hock the other week there. It was not put down, nor taken to this fantasy morgue you speak of. People like you have something to offer, and can ensure the code is policed properly and integrity remains high. But when you make up stories, you shoot yourself in the foot (why make up stories when we all saw the live baiting???) and make it difficult for readers like me to understand your facts from your fiction.
Dez
Guest
I've been going through the inquiry. The final recommendation was about welfare and it seemed like an afterthought. The Industry reps (Brent Hogan) came to the table to talk money. He tried to side step every question regarding welfare. He admitted that 3000 dogs were "reported" euthanased in 2012 and that they were trying to address welfare. The Greyhounds as Pets (GAP) program is seriously token by comparison to the non-funded groups that Industry participants demonize at every turn. The non-funded and no-kills re-home nearly twice as many. I know because I have two of them. These people deal with industry participants on a daily basis. Some of them call the volunteers suckers, some of them tell them that they want them to have their dogs because GAP is a joke and not no-kill. Some don't want them to end up the uni's for dissection. These are the few good apples. Most dogs are brought in from pounds, vets and the public after being dumped. They are in a terrible state. If you want this sport to continue, they need to make it very expensive to put a dog down, the likes of the Bale dogs need to be curtailed and they need to get into bed with the no-kill re homing groups and financially support them. And, if a dog breaks its leg in a race, it gets fixed and re-homed. If a dog returns a positive swab, the owner/trainer is banned for life and all dogs in their kennels seized and re homed at their expense. Make this sport expensive to participate in. Too many hacks who see this sport as easy money are bringing you all down.