Ms O’CONNOR (Hobart) – Mr President, I move –
That the Joint Standing Committee on Greyhound Racing Transition Report on its Greyhound Racing Legislation Amendments (Phasing Out Reform) Bill 2025 Inquiry be considered and noted.
While there was some suggestion that there didn’t need to be a noting debate on the inquiry report, I strongly disagreed because 148 people made submissions to our inquiry. We had industry representatives come and give evidence before the inquiry. We had animal welfare advocates. We had the Tasmanian Racing Integrity Commissioner, the department, the minister come and appear before that inquiry.
I felt for those stakeholders it was very important that we did have the opportunity to discuss the inquiry’s report. It’s also important for the overwhelming majority of Tasmanians who want to see greyhound racing phased out. The reason they want to see it phased out is because of the high rates of injury and deaths of racing greyhounds, and because we’ve moved on as a society and we have a different perspective on how animals should be treated. I’d like to think that dogs in particular, given that they’ve evolved with human beings for tens of thousands of years, have a very particular and special place in the hearts of compassionate people.
I know that some members are still making up their minds on the question of the bill itself, and I respect that. This Chamber referred the bill to the Joint Standing Committee for examination late last year, and we took the examination of the bill and the referral from the Legislative Council very seriously. There’s been some commentary about the way that the call for submissions was organised, some commentary around meeting times. I can indicate to you that the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee and a number of committee members felt it was important to get on with that inquiry before parliament’s return in February.
We had been given a task to do by the Legislative Council and we took it very seriously and because we knew it was going to be seeking submissions over the summer break, we provided seven weeks for people to give their submissions at a time when many of us have a little bit more time to spare from our busy work lives because it is summer.
I don’t expect my colleagues in here to respond to this inquiry report today in its noting. I simply wanted to bring it to Council’s attention in some measure of detail. I understand people are still considering their views and considering the views of their constituents and I hope that people who genuinely haven’t made-up their mind on this issue, are listening to the overwhelming majority of Tasmanians who are very clear with us about how they feel about this industry, or listening to the open letter that was published in yesterday’s paper to independent members of this place that was signed by people like former governor, Her Excellency Kate Warner and her husband, Dick Warner, former premier, Wil Hodgman, Liberal premier, former Labour premier, David Bartlett, former Labour treasurer, Michael Aird, former Australian Greens leaders, Bob Brown, Christine Milne, actor Marta Dusseldorf, business people like Greg Irons and Rob Pennicott. But more than that, more than 1000 people who see these dogs for the beautiful sentient animals that they are, signed onto that open letter, begging this House to do the ethical thing by those dogs.
I know there’s been some concern expressed about the Committee not hearing evidence of cruelty or welfare issues, and I dispute that. First of all, the referral to us was to further examine the bill itself, and you’ll note through the report in its structure that it is structured to mirror the bill and so to some extent we were confined by those terms of reference. But that didn’t stop industry participants from quite rightly putting their case against the policy itself. It also didn’t stop animal welfare advocates for talking about some of the welfare issues that are inherent within this industry, which means that dogs suffer and die every week.
I asked many questions relating to the welfare of animals. I refer honourable members to the Hansard transcript of 11 February this year, when I tried to ask questions of industry representatives about how certain dogs had died or why decisions were made to euthanise dogs. I was strongly discouraged from asking those questions at the table, but I said at the time, and I maintain it now, how do you understand the animal welfare dimensions of an industry if you’re not examining individual cases of harm? You simply can’t, because otherwise you’re talking about animal welfare in the abstract and only based on data.
Each of these dogs had an intrinsic right to life and a good life and as we heard from the vets this morning, to have all their needs met under the five domains of animal well-being – I’ll get to that in a minute – but it’s concern about the high deaths and injury rates in this industry, the way dogs are treated 22 hours in the day in a kennel, the dogs who turn up for rehoming, who’ve got rotten teeth because they’ve been fed, bred.
These concerns are the genesis of this bill, but it really began in many ways many years ago with the Joint Standing Committee that we established in 2015 and 2016, and it began before that, of course, with the Four Corners program making a killing where Australians saw for the first time the really dark and desperately sad dimension of racing dogs.
It’s not just the conditions that these dogs live in, it’s the industry itself. The industry, the injuries and also the sort of disposability of these dogs who are regarded as assets or not, it’s just the business model. In the last three weeks, since we last sat during our last sitting, Wales passed legislation to end greyhound racing, as did Scotland. Scotland didn’t have any properly functional tracks, but they voted to end greyhound racing as well and the New Zealand Parliament has passed by overwhelming majority in New Zealand legislation to end that industry there in the middle of this year.
I’ll simply just remind honourable members that when Winston Peters, the highly conservative Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand, announced this end to greyhound racing in New Zealand, he said it is because of the unacceptably high rates of injury and death. He gave the New Zealand greyhound racing industry 1.5 years to come to terms with the reality of the government’s policy change.
What the report is examining is a bill that would give the industry three and a half years an opportunity for dignified exit compensation funds for rehoming; ultimately the opportunity for a whole lot of Tasmanians to hopefully adopt a greyhound. As long as I’ve been in this parliament, nearly 20 years, I’ve been a voice for these animals, as have the Greens always. The profound welfare of the proud welfare issues of this industry simply cannot be glossed over or ignored. It’s the nature of greyhound racing. It’s the physics of it.
You have large fine-boned dogs racing around tracks at up to 70 kilometres an hour. There was some talk in the briefing this morning about why we don’t put them on straight tracks for the starters. We don’t have the money. The budget for the North West track, which was abandoned by government, which was a single turn track last time I checked, was about $38 million. We simply don’t have the money to build straight tracks here, even if the industry wanted them, and I don’t think they do.
Overall, that time of advocating for animals, I’ve seen public opinion on greyhound racing changed dramatically, and I know the Four Corners story was a part of that, but it has changed because there’s now much greater understanding of the suffering of these dogs. A good example of opinion changing is former premier David Bartlett, who has publicly declared his deep regret in being part of a syndicate that owned a greyhound and I remember we asked him some questions about this in parliament all those years ago, that greyhound was called too long terror.
He was rescued by animal champion Emma Haswell after he was discarded from the track at that time in 2010. The premier of the day said:
… while I had great fun co-owning Toolong Terror, and particularly enjoyed the social side of going to the races, the Little Ricky syndicate has since sold the dog and not replaced him.
I pause for a moment here to remind members what we heard from the vets this morning. That 50 per cent of the greyhounds registered to race in Tasmania, plus-or-minus 50 per cent, are owned by syndicates, so they don’t actually have an owner. Of course, there are some people who are hobbyists, with a small number of dogs, a deep connection to their dogs, and, in some ways, a much greater capacity to care for them, than someone like Anthony Bullock who has 90 dogs on his property, in kennels 22 hours a day.
Yesterday, in response to the open letter, the Premier joined us for a media call out in the lawns of parliament, and he talked about his deep shame about his time owning a racing greyhound and he talked about it being a time for kindness and conscience. We’ve heard so many stories over the past 25 years. In 2016, after I negotiated with the then minister for Primary Industries, Jeremy Rockliff, after seeing the Four Corners story, the Greens successfully moved for a parliamentary inquiry into the industry. I was a member of it alongside my predecessor in this place, Mr Valentine, the honourable Leader for Government and the honourable member for Mersey. The stories that we heard, particularly the evidence in camera, has stayed with, and motivated, me, for the last decade. If anyone wants to see my dissenting report, it is attached to that.
I know there’s a belief among some members that there’s no documented evidence of welfare issues in the industry, and we had the totally disingenuous claim from Mr Winter in his dissenting report that the government had presented no evidence of cruelty. Well, many welfare issues were raised during the course of the inquiring. I will say Mr Winter didn’t ask any questions relating to animal welfare. It doesn’t take much looking, however, if you want to understand the animal welfare foundations of the bill, that the inquiry report examines.
There was Tah Bernard, a dog that was trained and mistreated by the infamous Anthony Bullock. Tah Bernard, died in 2021 at 18 months of age. He was not long out of puppyhood. He’d suffered a broken leg during a trial at the Launceston Greyhound Racing Club. At that time there wasn’t a vet required at the trials, so Mr Bullock took that dog to the local vet. Mr Bullock didn’t leave Tah Bernard at the vet. A number of witnesses claimed he threw this broken dog, yelping into a trailer. Distressed vet clients and animal advocates raised it with the Greens, and it prompted an official Office of Racing Integrity investigation.
Then there’s the story of Zipping Princess. On 10 September 2023, greyhound advocates arranged to collect a young dog being given away by syndicate owners on Gumtree. She was born in 2020 in New South Wales and passed through 5 trainers in 4 separate states. Not remaining with a trainer longer than a few months. When they collected her, Zipping Princess’s body condition was poor. Her coat was full of fleas and dried skin, she had a bloodied ear from scratching, she had bald patches and old scars were recorded all over her body. Her tail had been broken previously, she was lethargic and she had no appetite. She was emotionally withdrawn and anxious. Three days after being rescued, Zipping Princess was rushed to the vet for emergency surgery. Adhesions had rapidly formed after her desexing, and they were strangling her bowel. Blood vessels were twisted and the tissue was dying. Zipping Princess never had an owner; never had someone to care for her as an individual, sentient dog. Her surgery was successful, but her body crashed, and she had to be humanely put to sleep the following morning. She was 3 years old. Three years of neglect and disinterest; of being traded between trainers and states; and, of course, of pain and suffering.
There’s the death of Raider’s Guide, which led us, in part, to the bill that we’ll be considering in this place tomorrow. Raider’s Guide held a Tasmanian record of $664,975 in prize money from 79 starts. On 28 July last year, four-year-old Raider’s Guide bumped into another greyhound on the first turn of the race at Launceston, forcing it to tumble and the race to be abandoned. According to the stewards’ report, Raider’s Guide was taken to a veterinary clinic and a post race examination revealed it had suffered cervical spine injuries leading to being euthanised.
8 January this year, Memphis Rains, fractured right hock at Elwick. The syndicate that owns her applied to have that dog transferred to Victoria on 9 January, Tasracing gave approval. The dog didn’t fly until 12 January – I’d love to know whether it was given any pain relief. It saw a vet on 12 January and it was euthanised on 13 January, for an injury that our own chief vet said in answers to questions on notice to the committee was eminently treatable. It was an injury that’s known as a fractured right hock. The dog equivalent of an ankle had been fractured, and you’ll see in the Excel spreadsheet that I sent around to members a short time ago, hock injuries are not unusual. This dog had a fractured ankle. An application was made to send it back to Victoria, to Melbourne and there it was euthanised for a fractured ankle.
The dog Hellyer Dougie came barrelling down the straight and fractured both its legs on the track and was euthanised on track. There are just so many stories, members might not be comfortable with me personalising it in this way, but it is important that we understand. Each of these creatures has an intrinsic right to a good life; they are sentient, they do feel, they have a rich array of emotions.
Just yesterday the honourable member for Elwick and I went out to the Dogs’ Home of Tasmania and we met Dexter. A beautiful, fine, quite small black greyhound who has only one ear. I think the ear that is missing is the ear that had its tattoo on it. Dexter has one ear and a wound on his neck, so the tattoo is missing. The Dogs’ Home of Tasmania really doesn’t know very much about this dog, but boy, it was so desperate for pats when we got there.
I know everyone’s very busy. It was very regrettable that the Dogs’ Home of Tasmania extended this invitation to members to visit the Dogs’ Home, to see how they operate and talk to them about dog welfare and greyhounds. It was only the honourable member for Elwick and I who accepted that invitation. If you have a concern about lack of information on animal welfare in this industry, it would have been a good thing to go and talk to Mark Wild at the Dogs’ Home.
Ms Forrest – It’s okay when you live in Hobart.
Ms O’CONNOR – What’s that?
Ms Forrest – I will say it’s okay when you live in Hobart. It’s a bit of a –
Ms Thomas – You don’t need to explain yourself.
Ms Forrest – Yeah, it’s a bit of an unfortunate reflection on those of us who don’t live close to these facilities. We can’t drop everything and get there.
Mr PRESIDENT – Yes.
Ms O’CONNOR – Yes, I understand that. Thank you. But, there are other Dogs’ Home facilities that could have been visited and I know that a number of members accepted the industry’s invitation to go to the dog races. Even for balance’s sake I think it would have been a positive thing to do.
There is a question mark over the data and the inquiry report found that Tasracing’s data is unreliable. Answers to questions on notice that were provided to us by Tasracing contained straight up misrepresentations. For example, I asked for information about on track deaths and injuries and at the point that I asked that question there had been more than 30 on track injuries that we tracked through the stewards’ reports and Tasracing came back with a question on notice to a parliamentary committee and said there’d been zero on track injuries. I wrote to Mr Jenkins and said, ‘Look, I think there’s been a mistake, our stewards’ reports tracking is very clear that there’s been a significantly higher number of injuries than zero’, and Mr Jenkins had to correct the record; but the inquiry did make a finding that Tasracing’s data is flawed.
We also had issues with the data surrounding breeding. The initial Greyhounds Australasia assessment of breeding mothers – and in fact, I accept this explanation for why the data was incorrect the first time it was presented to us and had to be corrected – initially we were told by Greyhounds Tasmania’s Luke Gatehouse that there’d only been two services of dogs in January. Greyhounds Australasia, though, in its information it provided to the committee on 31 January 2026, in terms of the number of services, said that there had been one service in January, and the total number of dogs born between June 2025 and January 2026, according to Greyhound Australasia, was 60 new dogs born into exploitation and suffering.
Then we have the updated data which showed that the total of services in the January months was four, so significantly more than the initial estimate, and that the total number of pups born from June last year to January this year was 84 and, as I understand it, the original data Greyhounds Australasia gave us was subject to a reporting time lag, which I accept as quite reasonable; but tomorrow in our briefing we will hear from the Racing Integrity Commissioner, and it is my understanding that there has been a spike in breeding following the announcement of the planned phase out of greyhound racing. As the inquiry of the report makes clear, according to the Racing Integrity Commissioner’s last audit of the industry, there are 1053 dogs registered to race in Tasmania at this day, and when that audit was undertaken, there were 22 puppies that hadn’t been registered or counted. There’s still a question in my mind about what happens to the puppies that come out of this industry, that are born into it, and never named for racing.
Tasracing’s own figures show that this year, and this is in the data that I sent around to honourable members a short time ago, 10 racing greyhounds have died. A number of them, at least Memphis Rains and Hellyer Dougie, died as a result of on track injuries. A number of them died as a result of kennel cough, and then in recent times there’s been a number of dogs who’ve died from gut and bowel complications; but the steward’s reports show in the data that’s been compiled very, very carefully, not deviating from any of the facts, that there have been, according to the Excel spreadsheet, 58 on track injuries since the 1 January this year.
The Excel spreadsheet that I’ve sent honourable members has the detail of their injuries, and a number of dogs are stood down for 90 days by the stewards. Memphis Rains was stood down for 90 days, but her owners decided to have her euthanased instead. You can see there that some of these injuries are quite serious: fracture to left ulnar radius, fracture left hind toe, so you have a broken toe. The vet, Dr Katrina Ward, explained to us this morning how that could be right hind central tarsal fracture, sprained wrist, right shoulder muscle tear. If members want to check this information for themselves, I encourage a visit to Tasracing’s website and have a look at the stewards’ reports, and on any night of racing there are numerous injuries. It’s undeniable, and the reason that there are is because of the physics of racing these dogs in the way that they’re raced.
That data of 10 deaths and 58 injuries includes a month off due to kennel cough. The reality is that whatever we believe about the conditions that these dogs are kept in, are fed, socialised or walked, it is a fact that every single trial and race places them at risk of injury and too often, death, and we heard that from the experienced vets who came to give evidence to us this morning.
We also heard from Andrea Dawkins, the head of the RSPCA, and the evidence that she gave to the committee that many of these dogs are highly traumatised when they come into the RSPCA Many have a strong fear of men. Most have significant dental issues and when we had a look at Dexter’s teeth yesterday, they are pretty bad. Dexter has a lot of rotten teeth and it will be the Dogs Homes that funds that dental work, because while industry participants are able to access a subsidy for veterinary work, the Dogs Homes of Tasmania and the RSPCA are not able to, and it will be private donations that fund Dexter’s dental work and hopefully that lovely dog will have a home soon.
I have to confess I have a new man in my life: he weighs 36.3 kilograms. He is very dark. I went to the Greyhound as Pets Program, greyhound adoption program, on my birthday, 1 April, after many years of hassling my partner, and brought home Maxi. This beautiful animal, he’s so gentle. A dog of that size is intimidating. I have lived with dogs all my life. I love dogs and I understand them quite well. A dog of that size, though, is quite a frightening prospect; but this guy, all he wants is pats and love and I can almost see on his face his disbelief at how much his fortunes have changed. He has a very good life now. He has lots of pats. He doesn’t have to be in a kennel, but he’s a fearful dog. He too has trauma. There’s something very stoic and sad about Maxi, and there are at least 1053 of these dogs in the industry.
I did say I wasn’t going to talk for too long, and I’m not, but a number of concerns in the hearings process from the industry’s perspective most primarily related to the fact that the industry doesn’t want to be shut down, and I get that. I do get that, but the world is moving on, and this industry is ending nearly everywhere in the world. There was some concern expressed by industry participants that there would be a welfare void once you took these dogs out of the highly regulated Tasracing process, remembering that the RSPCA has no jurisdiction over greyhounds, so they can’t enter and inspect any trainer or owner’s property; but as Ms Andrea Dawkins said – well, first of all I’ll go to the evidence from Deidre Wilson, a deputy secretary at NRE.
She explains that the framework within this bill is to amend other pieces of legislation. So it’s really important to note that we’re amending the Animal Welfare Act 1993, as well as the Dog Control Act 2000. Those acts already have frameworks that deal with animal welfare, particularly Animal Welfare Act 1993, so all those provisions will apply to the care and control of greyhounds. There’s also currently a process in play to review the Animal Welfare (Dogs) Regulations 2016, which have specific provisions currently pertaining to greyhounds, and that process is continuing. There was an issues paper released, and then there’ll be an outcome from that.
[tbc] To say that because an industry is not in play that has rules around the industry, which are then removed, means that there’s a gap in terms of animal welfare is – and, of course I can’t help myself, Mr President, I interrupted. ‘Ms O’Connor: It’s untrue, isn’t it? They’ll be treated, won’t they? Protected in the same way as every other dog under the Animal Welfare Act 1993?’ She said:
It is a misunderstanding of how the framework will work, post the changes. There are more than adequate controls under the Animal Welfare Act 1993, and under the Dog Control Act 2000, to ensure that the pet greyhounds are appropriately managed. If there are incidents of mismanagement of those dogs, there’s capacity for criminal offences.[TBC]
Then when asked about it and, you know, there was an emphasis on animal welfare in this report. The chair of the committee, the member for Clark, Ms Johnston said,
Do you see that there’d be a vacuum created in terms of animal welfare for greyhounds in particular? Is that a concern that they’d then be treated, as you say, like any other dog?
She said:
Absolutely not. The reason that there are more strict regulations and rules around racing greyhounds is because it’s such a high risk activity. Of course, there needs to be extra eyes on dogs in the racing industry, apart from the millions of dollars that flow through the government coffers, through taxpayers, to the industry. Those animals are in such high risk activities that there needs to be stronger legislation.
So, it’s not true to suggest there’d be any animal welfare void, should greyhound racing be phased out. There’d certainly be a lot less death and injury of sentient creatures should greyhound racing be phased out.
Now, mostly in closing, I want to take members, and I hope you’ve had a look at this, to the committee’s findings – so this is about the Racing Integrity Commissioner. The committee finds the commissioner’s view that the passage of the bill is necessary to design, implement, and enforce a transition plan for the phasing out of greyhound racing in Tasmania. The commissioner’s view that if the bill does not pass and the government persists with its policy, it would leave participants, animals, and the broader community exposed to unmanaged risks. Remembering that it is government policy to phase out greyhound racing one way or the other.
The government’s response to questions at 1 January 2026 commencement date could be amended to a date in the future, or could be dealt with by regulation. The greyhound racing industry is opposed to the bill overall, and has ongoing concerns about the bill. Including the haste of its development, lack of consultation, and commencement provisions. Animal welfare organisations are concerned that delaying the commencement of the bill will undermine their ability to deliver humane rehoming outcomes for racing dogs and potentially lead to poor animal welfare outcomes. Of course, an overriding concern here, well it should be a concern to all of us, is that the longer there is a delay on dealing with the welfare issues of this industry, the more suffering of sentient creatures there will be.
Breeding data provided in evidence has been inconsistent, and difficult to verify, and hopefully we have some clarity on that from the Racing Integrity Commissioner tomorrow. Breeding data, this is our finding, collected by Tasracing, cannot be relied upon. We further note the Commissioner for Racing has undertaken to work with Tasracing on an audit of dogs currently in the industry. That’ll be another audit. The government expects to have a report and advice, in relation to the new racing deed by May 2026. A finding that penalties for offences under the act are not aligned with offences created under the Animal Welfare Act 1993, and the Dog Control Act 2000. I note government amendments that have been circulated to deal with that concern.
Clause 4 of the bill is drafted adequately to prohibit the export of greyhounds bred in Tasmania for racing interstate or overseas. Lure coursing involving greyhounds would be illegal under clause 4. I do note the information that we were given in the briefing this morning by Dogs Tasmania and hope that the Deputy Leader for Government will clarify the government’s response to those concerns during debate on the bill.
We found that there’s no legislative welfare void for greyhounds that will be created by the passage of this bill. They’ll be protected like any other dog under existing animal laws and regulations. We found that current breed specific welfare laws and regulations for greyhounds only exist because they participate or have participated in the high risk activity of racing.
Industry certainty is required over the legal status and potential use of genetic material and arrangements for breeding dogs during and following the industry transition. The Greyhound Racing Transition Working Group, the closure plan and regulations must address these issues.
The continued muzzling of greyhounds as domestic pets beyond 1 July 2029 cannot be justified if greyhound racing has ended. Clarity about desexing requirements for ex racing greyhounds and the implications for breeding for domestic purposes should be addressed in the transition plan.
The closure date of 1 July 2029 provides 3 years for transition, which the commissioner and rehoming organisation advises is adequate time for properly consulted transitional arrangements to be put in place for the welfare of animals and participants. Strong powers provided in the bill in relation to compliance, inspection and audit are required to ensure the welfare of dogs during the transition period. These are of similar scope to powers that already exist under the rules of racing and animal welfare legislation.
Clause 10 of the bill, Schedule 8 inserted, three[TBC] could specify a non exhaustive list of matters that must be included in the closure plan and a requirement that consultation is undertaken in its development. The closure plan can be amended to deal with issues or needs that emerged during the transition period.
The matters outlined by the Racing Integrity Commissioner for current consideration in a draft closure plan are extensive and cover the breadth of matters raised with the committee in submissions on the bill. Parliamentary oversight of the transition will continue, including through the work of this committee. Parliamentary oversight could be enhanced by tabling the closure plan in both Houses of parliament.
Deficient data and records keeping by Tasracing puts animal welfare and industry participant outcomes at risk during the transition period. Ongoing auditing by the Racing Integrity Commissioner is required to ensure that data is accurate for the welfare of animals and industry participants.
The transition period will require greater ongoing resources for the Office of the Racing Integrity Commissioner, to ensure statutory responsibilities are met. Current penalties relating to the unlawful destruction of greyhounds are insufficient as a deterrent and I note the government’s amendments in this regard and the government’s amendments in relation to tabling the draft closure plan with a non exhaustive list of matters to be considered in that plan.
Another finding, is that there is a strong case for a just and equitable compensation package for industry participants, which is work that the Racing Integrity Commissioner would undertake to understand the extent of investment and compensation requirements. As I understand it, the announcement that was made by the Premier in relation to compensation funds over the weekend was the beginning of the conversation, and that is a dollar figure that will be in the budget.
We found that greater clarity and certainty is required on the matter of compensation for industry participants through the closure plan and the operation of the working group. Tasracing is conducting a feasibility study on the impacts of the greyhound racing transition. Consideration of compensation must be included in any transition closure plan. Compensation may be required and funded at different stages of the transition.
We found that more than 1000 ex-racing greyhounds will need to be rehomed during and following the transition period. The rehoming of ex-racing greyhounds will be a substantial, complex and costly endeavour, both during and following the transition period. Local rehoming organisations have expressed a willingness and capacity to undertake the task of rehoming ex racing greyhounds but will require extra sustained resourcing. Currently, non industry rehoming organisations are not funded to rehome greyhounds exiting the industry and they’ve relied on community funding to do this important work to date.
Our final finding is that rehoming organisations will need to be adequately funded by government to assist with the humane transition of dogs out of greyhound racing, both during the transition period and at closure until all dogs are rehomed. Of course, our primary recommendation was that the Greyhound Racing Legislation Amendments (Phasing Out Reform) Bill 2025 be passed with amendments.
I reject criticism of the way the Committee conducted itself and the work it undertook. I believe we were very respectful of everyone who presented. We gave people who had an interest in this matter extensive period of time in which to make submissions and we have put together a carefully considered report.
I’ll leave honourable members with a quote, and this is from Charles Darwin:
There is no fundamental difference between man and animals in our ability to feel pleasure and pain, happiness, and misery.
I focused today on the animal welfare issues inherent in dog racing for profit, for very good reason, because I have heard some conversations around the place that there’s no proof of animal welfare concerns relating to this industry. I ask honourable Members to ask themselves this question, the New Zealand Government made a decision to end greyhound racing because of ‘the unacceptably high rates of injury and death’.
The Welsh and Scottish Parliaments passed legislation to end greyhound racing because of the extent of the injury and suffering of dogs. We’ve just had a report released by the NSW Parliamentary Library which shows that 10 years after NSW proposed ban to be instituted by former premier Mike Baird, 10 years after that ban fell over, the outcomes for the dogs are worse, and so, I ask honourable members to look beyond the industry’s claims.
We have to, as legislator, listen to more than one group and I would be very confused if it was only the voices of industry participants who were being heard here, because we have heard from our Statutory Officer, the Racing Integrity Commissioner, we’ve heard from the entity that does the rehoming and has a statutory inspectorate role, the RSPCA, about what happens to these dogs when they race and the condition that most of them are in when they come in to the RSPCA.
We have heard from vets, like we heard this morning from vets, about the physiology of these dogs which makes injury inevitable. We will hear tomorrow from the former chief vet of NSW, Dr Alex Britton, who had an epiphany – he has seen what happens to these dogs. So, the question for honourable members to ask themselves is this: what makes it any sort of possibility that the dog racing industry here is significantly different from the dog racing industry in Victoria, NSW, Queensland, New Zealand and anywhere else in the very small handful of countries that it’s still allowed?
Yes, there’s been reform here in significant part because of change in community opinion and the work of the 2016 inquiry, but the deaths continue, the high injury rates continue, and that’s because of the immovable truth that these are fine-boned dogs sent barrelling in clumps around tracks at up to 70 kilometres an hour.
There’s very little difference here between our industry and any other greyhound racing industry. The dogs here still spend 22 hours or more of a day in their kennel. They still come into rehoming organisations highly traumatised with bad teeth and gut problems. The injury rates are still sky high with plenty of evidence of animal welfare issues with this industry. All you have to do, Mr President, is look.
I commend the motion. Note the report.
