GRV states that "While noting that the code provides minimum standards (as opposed to best practice)"....

This could well be taken to mean that if GRV aren't happy with any issues in the code that it may simply over ride it with new local rules or perhaps even policy.

GRV actively encouraged participants to make submissions regarding the code and as I understand it, made a submission of its own.

It now appears that since things didn't go its way changes may be considered to re adjust the level of control of the industry back to GRV even before the new code comes into effect

It begs the questions

Why did the industry go through the trauma of the code?

Why is there a public consultation process on any issue when GRV have implied that if it does not like the out come, it will attempt to change that outcome?

The underlying premise for all of this is "best practice"
Is this premise real and measurable and who has the ruler?

To some "best practice" means an end to greyhound racing

Actually heard some scuttlebutt the other day : Someone called GRV for assistance in assessing a property for building new kennels. After going thru the code it was mentioned that this would cost a fortune and he would be better off buying something established, the person agreed. Gee I can see lots of people dropping out of the industry then, the response......we are not concerned about that we have Chinese investors with about 18 million to invest. Now I say this is scuttlebutt, however where there is smoke there is fire and if you think of the investment they have already made in our stud dogs and the money they put into horse racing, its not beyond the realms of possibility.

its great to see welfare closing in on the shit holes they used to call greyhound properties. welfare are doing a great job , but

FEme there is still some shit holes out there that need wiping out

Michael Barry wrote:

things have never been better in VIC breeding numbers just increase month after month

Yes breeding has slightly increased (in Vic only) since the demise of the industry in 2015, but it's still breeding nowhere near the days when life was like a box of chocolates.

What's good
about foreign investment?
Really why don't the politicians just sell the whole of Australia and be done with it.

muchas gracias,
that's what we will be doing!

Money talks I suppose.
Future looks great, abs, gas, ports, real estate and so on.
No hope for the commoner if the super rich start investing in the dogs to make it something out of this world.
I suppose that's where you rely on governments to safeguard assets, some poorer countries, get lent money they can't pay back, and they lose ownership of unnecessarily overbuilt structures, that are in key strategic positions.
Oh well, that is the way the world is.
I can't help but link the 18mil investment comment with other stuff that I see and hear.
Greed takes over and we lose our freedom as we know it.
Time will tell, but the world is pretty fruked anyway, so just make the most of it, while it's there.

When I read some stuff here about 2 codes, it get's a little confusing.
I thought it was quite straight forward, it was to give the greyhounds a better and safer housing situation.
It was to show the public that they are leaving no stone unturned in regards to welfare and the sport being clean.
I thought it was clear what the specifications had to be but it sounds like the expectations have been raised somehow to the point
where people are starting to find it impossible to conform to.

p.s. Just a distant thought just hope the end game is not, to let the situation get to the point where we have to be rescued by the government with a foreign investor as their saviour, and the government can look like some hero. Oh yeah and maybe make more money some how.

n.b. When you look at the situation with the code from a newbie point of view it could be overwhelming, because it sounds like to me that no one is saying - it's ok we can work through this.
I don't know - where's the positive stories of approval.
I have known the GRV to be of the message, that we are here to work with you - transition wise - if need be.

yes i see the issues scott. the new permit process is far more onerous than the code

"Hence we will be reviewing the code Charles"

For nearly 2 years the Shadow Minister has been getting feedback from many in the industry. I can say he is listening, watching and learning.

Labor and GRV's mishandling of Tooradin and government's need for the Greens has brought us to this place.

The Greyhound code of practice relates to greyhound welfare.

There are some overlaps.

The Rules potentially apply also.

The most onerous requirements lie in the planning requirements. However, it should be remembered that if these are complied with, no objection can be made.

So although the planning requirements include 'approved measures' that define the optimum situation; there is provision for 'objectives' to be met in other ways than through strict compliance with these measures.

An agricultural consultant who reviewed the planning requirements, but not the welfare code, suggested to allow for a minimum $50,000 for a 24m x 12m steel kennel building (inc. concrete slab).

Given that the planning requirements have applied for over a year, one would have expected a few examples.