2016-04-12
Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) — The bill that we have before us, the Racing and Other Acts Amendment (Greyhound Racing and Welfare Reform) Bill 2015, makes amendments following the reports that were tabled by Mr Sal Perna, the racing integrity commissioner, and the chief veterinary officer, Mr Charles Milne. They followed from the appalling revelations of the widespread use of live baiting in the greyhound racing industry that was exposed by Animals Australia, the RSPCA and Four Corners as occurring in at least three states on the eastern seaboard of Australia. It was so widespread that it could not be seen as isolated incidents, but rather as a systemic and ongoing use of a particular practice, where we know small animals — possums, piglets and rabbits — that were still alive were used as bait for greyhounds and suffered of course appalling deaths.
This had been going on for some time and, it has to be said, under the noses of the Greyhound Racing Victoria board and Greyhound Racing Victoria itself, and in fact under the noses of the racing integrity commissioner and the chief veterinary officer. They were asked to look into it and to investigate, and they came up with reports, which I have read. They basically confirmed what was going on and came up with some recommendations, some of which were introduced last November in changes to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act 1986, and quite a number of which will be introduced by the bill that is before us now.
However, while the changes this bill makes head in the right direction, they are not going far enough. While we will not be opposing the bill, one of the problems with the key provisions in this bill is that they continue the conflation of conflicting roles of the board. The board of Greyhound Racing Victoria will still have the role of promoting the industry and promoting gambling in the industry. At the same time, with some of the provisions introduced there will be a statutory requirement to improve animal welfare in the industry, but that is really a conflict. The bill also introduces investigatory powers for the board, so the board will be investigating the industry that it promotes. There is an inherent tension between those functions, and we should be aware of that fact.
What the Greens have called for ever since these particular appalling events were revealed, and in other cases where animal welfare issues are at stake, is the need for independence in the regulatory functions with regard to animal welfare. That is not going to be introduced by this bill, even though there are some improvements to the current situation and the situation we had prior to the live baiting events, where the industry basically is self-regulating and has been focused on racing and gambling with very little focus, if any, on animal welfare — notwithstanding, as Mr Drum said in his speech, that there are certain greyhound owners of course who care about their animals. I do not dispute that, but in terms of the suffering of greyhounds involved in greyhound racing across Australia and in Victoria, for the vast majority of them their welfare is not well looked after, and I will return to that point after I speak briefly about the provisions of the bill.
The bill makes changes to the Racing Act 1958, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 and to the Domestic Animals Act 1994 following some of the recommendations made in the reports by the chief veterinary officer and the racing integrity commissioner. The bill amends the Racing Act 1958 to further provide for the functions and rules of Greyhound Racing Victoria; to make changes to its constitution, its appeals and disciplinary board; to set out additional functions for the racing integrity commissioner regarding animal welfare; to further provide for offences relating to greyhound races that involve the use of animals as lures; to make a range of changes to animal welfare arrangements in the greyhound racing sector; and to make other miscellaneous amendments.
It amends the functions of the board to make it clear that it will now have a statutory responsibility to promote and improve animal welfare, including greyhound welfare within the industry, and that it has the power to make rules in relation to the welfare of greyhounds. Under clause 5 it ensures that one member of the board has experience in animal welfare or ethics, and under clause 11 it ensures that one member of the Greyhound Racing Appeals and Disciplinary Board must have animal welfare or veterinary expertise.
These are welcome, slight improvements to the functions of the board. It is a pity that a similar amendment that I moved last year with regard to Harness Racing Victoria was not supported in terms of adding a person with animal welfare expertise to that particular board. The bill extends the audit function of the racing integrity commissioner and the hours in which audits can occur — that is, 1 hour before sunrise and 1 hour after sunset or in exceptional circumstances. Where the racing integrity commissioner has a reasonable suspicion that compliance with animal welfare standards is not being met or other offences might be being committed, the commissioner will be able to enter premises at any time under those conditions.
The bill provides for appointment of an administrator in place of the board if the board ceases to function or if it is in the public interest to do so. It provides for offences relating to greyhound races that involve the use of animals as lures and references the relevant offences under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 into the Racing Act 1958. The bill also clarifies the classes of persons who could be guilty of an offence and liable to a penalty involving live baiting. In terms of amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 the bill amends the act to extend the time limit for prosecutions relating to baiting and luring from 12 months to 3 years to allow for more thorough investigations to take place. Under the Racing Act 1958 it also requires broader experience of board members. At present board members tend to be just people from greyhound racing with little if any other experience or expertise represented on the board, so that is a welcome provision as well.
Amendments under the Domestic Animals Act 1994 will be to ensure that all Greyhound Racing Victoria greyhounds are covered and kept in accordance with the new mandatory greyhound code of practice, and non-compliance will be an offence and will attract a penalty. The bill makes other technical and consequential amendments to the bill but also introduces a small levy of $3.50 on the registration of all Greyhound Racing Victoria greyhounds. It must be mentioned that this is the same as the levy paid by ordinary Victorians when they register their own domestic pets. So in terms of a Greyhound Racing Victoria greyhound which is owned and raced by people in order to make money, the amount of levy that is going to be charged under this bill is exactly the same as an ordinary person pays to register their family pet. I think that registration could be a lot higher than it is. This will be used to support amendments to the Domestic Animals Act 1994 in terms of the implementation and compliance with the code.
The establishment of an independent integrity body is not included in the bill. One of the recommendations of the racing integrity commissioner was to establish an independent statutory body with accountability for racing integrity across the three codes, removing such responsibility from the controlling bodies, conferring all powers, privileges and authorities of stewards, integrity and welfare staff, including powers over non-licensed persons, and transfering current integrity staff, stewards, welfare officers and existing integrity bodies to the newly-formed body. This is not what is happening with this bill. As I mentioned, the bill in fact further conflates the conflicting roles of integrity, animal welfare and the promotion of racing and gambling in the same board, and that is a problem.
The government has said that it supports this in principle, and last year it commissioned Mr Paul Bittar to make recommendations on a new model for integrity in the Victorian racing industry. The report from him was due late last month, and as far as I know it has not been released. Important stakeholders such as the Australian Veterinary Association and the RSPCA are generally supportive of the bill and regarded these provisions as positive moves in terms of ensuring that the industry can be held to account for some of its animal welfare conduct and outcomes.
Concerns have been raised by these stakeholders about simultaneously investing in single organisations, and individuals within them, the responsibility for enforcement, criminal investigation, racing oversight and commercial considerations. Concerns have also been raised about investing in Greyhound Racing Victoria officers the same investigative enforcement powers that, for example, the RSPCA, local councils and other authorised officers have under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. This creates an inherent conflict of interest. I would be very interested to see what comes out of the report from Mr Bittar and whether the government is going to move where it should move, which is to create an independent regulatory agency for the racing industry in particular.
As I said, while there are some improvements under this bill, I am not sure that they are necessarily going to create any more public confidence in the industry. While the bill is focusing the board of Greyhound Racing Victoria more on the issue of animal welfare, which hitherto one would have to infer it has not been very focused on, it is still nowhere near where we should be in terms of the independence and integrity of animal welfare in these industries.
There were some claims made about the racing industry and its contribution to economics. I preface my comments by saying that while we are talking about the economics we should be thinking about what is behind the economics. What is behind the economics is the use of animals for human entertainment and human gain, with the animals having no say in that whatsoever. In terms of claims made, the minister has made some in her second-reading speech about the economic impact that greyhound racing provides for Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. If you look at the Animals Australia website, which has done a lot of research into the greyhound industry, it cites a PricewaterhouseCoopers report on the New South Wales industry in 2014, which concluded that the racing industry is a 'consumptive sector' that does not 'generate any significant productivity benefits to the rest of the community'. The Productivity Commission's review estimated the social cost of problem gambling to be at least $4.7 billion a year.
There are a lot of problems with greyhound racing. Every year in Australia around 20 000 greyhound pups are bred in the hope of finding a fast dog. But not every greyhound is suited to racing. Most dogs that do not make the grade in terms of being a fast dog or a good racing dog or a dog that wins prize money are discarded. It is estimated that 18 000 healthy dogs are killed in the greyhound racing industry each year. This includes 8000 pups and young dogs that never make it to the track and another 10 000 that are retired from racing because they are simply regarded as being too slow. Four out of five dogs that are retired from racing are killed. Five dogs every week are killed on the racetrack. Those that are not killed on the racetrack are still at risk of significant injuries such as broken hocks and legs, and head trauma during racing and in training. Up to 200 dogs are reported injured during official races every week. Some are even reported to have died from cardiac arrest due to the extreme physical intensity of racing. On many occasions such injuries are 'uneconomical' — in quotation marks — to treat, and the owner will instead have the dog put down. An average of five dogs, as I said, are killed at races every week.
Off the track their lives may not be much better, oftentimes kept in tiny kennels for the majority of their lives and only released to train or race. Many rescued racing greyhounds have been underfed, possibly because they are kept on a restricted diet to keep them at a lean weight for racing. Once a racing greyhound is not fast enough to win races, his or her career soon comes to an end. While a greyhound's natural life span would be 12 to 14 years, very few of these dogs live to that age. The vast majority will be killed once they have served their racing purpose. Nine out of 10 dogs born into the greyhound racing industry never get to live out a full life — as I said, this amounts to around 18 000 dogs per year. It is true that some ex-racing dogs go into breeding programs, but even then they will likely be killed at the age of five or six years.
In terms of greyhound adoption, the industry's Greyhound Adoption Program (GAP) operates in most states but re-homes only a relatively small number of ex-racing dogs. Mr Drum mentioned what a good program it is, but it homes somewhere around 10 per cent of the dogs born into the racing industry every year, so 90 per cent of the dogs born into the industry every year are not adopted. There is a very, very long way to go before we have a situation where all dogs in the greyhound racing industry end up in the Greyhound Adoption Program — or any other adoption program, because there are a couple of others apart from the official Greyhound Adoption Program. It is a good program as far as it goes, which is not very far — it is only 10 per cent of the industry.
So we come to the problem, which is that it is very difficult to see how this industry will ever be able to come to a situation where all the dogs are either adopted post-racing or adopted because they are not going to make the grade, so to speak, as racing dogs. That is why, while the Greens have always had a very strong position on greyhound racing, we have now adopted the position similar to that of Animals Australia, which is that greyhound racing should be phased out in Australia and that this should happen sooner rather than later because we do have in fact an industry that can never be safe for all greyhounds born into it.
It is not an industry where greyhounds that are racing in races — Mr Drum says 1000 meetings per year; that is a lot of dogs that are injured — live out their full lives. There are not going to be enough homes to adopt the number of greyhounds that we lose every year. I have been following the Greyhound Adoption Program for many years. Several times I have raised in this Parliament by way of a question on notice, for example, how the program is going. It really has not altered much over the years. There has been a bit of an increase in the last year or two, but it still, as I said, leaves the vast majority of greyhounds not being adopted into domestic homes. We have a problem where we cannot really fix the industry. Horses are injured, horses are killed, horses are not adopted.
Ms Shing — Horses?
Ms PENNICUIK — Sorry, greyhounds. I correct myself. Greyhounds are injured, and greyhounds are not adopted at anywhere near the level they need to be. That is why this industry really is inherently not sustainable. I go back to my fundamental premise that I think as a community and society we really need to question whether we continue with this type of activity, such as greyhound racing, which is basically an activity using animals, using greyhounds — and up until recently using other animals in the most appalling way — so that people can bet on them. Basically it is so people can gamble on the outcome of a race involving animals that have no say in whether or not they are in that race. They are in fact completely in the hands of their owners and the racing industry as to what happens to them from the beginning to the end of their lives.
I think as a community and a society we should question whether that is a sustainable and humane activity. I personally do not think it is. I am fully behind the idea that the greyhound racing industry should be phased out. I understand people are employed in that industry, so there should be some way of them transitioning out of it.
I would say the same for jumps racing, another industry that puts animals at risk and sees them breaking their legs and their necks for no other reason than for humans to gamble on the outcome of a race involving those animals. We know that the toll on horses in jumps racing is not acceptable. It is an activity that should have been banned a long time ago. It was nearly banned in 2009, but sadly was not, so more horses have gone on to be catastrophically injured on the track or never seen again because of an injury they have sustained and have later been put down away from the eyes of the public.
There are some positive changes with regard to the focus of the board, the representation of the board and the ability of the racing integrity commissioner to be more active in terms of investigating non-compliance with animal welfare standards. I have not even gone into what those animal welfare standards are, because they are animal welfare standards within a framework of an industry that does not have animal welfare at its heart and never can have, because inherently greyhounds in greyhound racing will be injured and will be killed. Very few will be adopted out into good homes, even though we know they make wonderful pets and are beautiful dogs. We should not kid ourselves that this particular bill is going to fix the problem that is inherent in greyhound racing, which is something that should be phased out in Australia.
Australia is one of only eight countries in the world with a commercial greyhound racing industry, and it is the biggest. Internationally it is an industry in decline. For example, in the USA greyhound racing is now illegal in 39 states, 28 of the 49 tracks have closed since 2001, and that number is reducing year after year.
I did have someone say to me, 'It's not greyhound racing that is illegal in the USA; it is betting on greyhound races'. If you cannot bet on the greyhound race, what is the point of the greyhound race? That is the problem. The point of the greyhound race is to race the greyhounds so human beings can bet on them, and I think that is a fundamental premise which we should not be supporting anymore in the interests of animal welfare.
While the Greens will not oppose this bill and see the provisions in it as some improvement, we are still left with the problem of the industry itself.