"Turning now to industry development, I am pleased to announce that as part of our approach to contained breeding, litter numbers are now on the rise again with 542 litters whelped over the past 12 months."

EXTERNAL LINK
So in Victoria they are pleased that litter numbers are on the rise but in NSW they want to introduce a puppy bond which will reduce litters bred.

How is it that one state (VIC) can see the current problem is lack of breeding but the other state (NSW) still thinks overbreeding is the problem?

EXTERNAL LINK

That's why all the track in Victoria have been reconstructed in recent time.
That's why Prizemoney levels are second to none In Vic.
What why Boo Baird tried to close down the industry in NSW & also claim all the CROWNLAND those tracks occupied.
That's why the greyhound clubs in Queensland such as Toowoomba, Lawnton, Beenleigh, Mackay, Ayr, Parklands have been stolen one-by-one...& promises in that State made 10 years ago are not worth the paper they were written on.
That's why anybody with a passion to train greyhounds are closing up shop & moving in droves to Victoria......BECAUSE THEY CAN'T SEE A FUTURE ANYWHERE ELSE.

That's my take on it.

Yes and it was Scott's idea for the Puppy quota of 2000 pups bred per year for racing in NSW.

imagine the difference if peter vlandys was the one. he would given them a gobful and told them the gloves are now off and our fight has just begun.

I good theory. If you look at it from a political point of view, from Queensland down to Victoria, the lack of support from current political parties is as follows: ALP, LIB/NAT, GREENS, ALP. Even prior to the last party in office and the usual parties appear. However, you won't find the SFF Party mentioned as being against the greyhound industry.

I suggested it before, the SFF Party should run a couple of candidates in S/E Queensland where most greyhound people are and where most people are discontent with the major parties.

Exactly the way I see it as well.

Not to divert from the puppy tax issue but it would not be productive to pursue the conspiracy theory about a BIG PLAN. The theme has some validity in NSW but not elsewhere.

You mention five Qld tracks. Four of those shut down for financial reasons and/or lack of support in general. Parklands was resumed by government for hospital expansion but the failure to identify a replacement and use up the guaranteed $10m is disgraceful.

(PS: The loss of Parklands in principle was terrible but you can also take the view that the track was overdue for re-building - main turn and home turn - and that it faced the wrong way (sun) and had no grandstand).

I suppose the NSW government could lower the boom on occupied land but it would be a momentous job - politically and in practice - because many are (a) serving non-racing purposes as well, (b) are subject to other environmental and Council controls and (c) are often on land which is not amenable to development. Even Wenty has multi-purpose occupants. Others like Dapto or Gardens are club or industry owned.

The Victoria has spent big on tracks due to its favourable commission sharing agreements and repeated government grants. Still, it is nice to be able to enjoy that but it is a little artificial.

The most appropriate answer is from Simon (below) who correctly assessed that a gobful from a "V'Landys" was the missing element in NSW negotiations. Expensive bonds for pups is just another example of over-reach - a belts and braces approach to regulation which got through on a false premise - ie alleged overbreeding once again.

Currently, the banks are getting hammered for charging for services which did not exist, etc etc.

Go back a short time and the Reserve Bank and ASIC were into them for overcharging for an administrative service - ie moving your money from one spot to another (bank or whatever). The true cost was a fraction of a cent but your account would be debited for a percentage or a significant dollar fee. The banks then changed tack under pressure.

The puppy bond is an administrative charge emerging from a brainwave which wanted to achieve some mythical target - but what target? Not sure. A bond implies it will be repaid at some stage. But when? If you are a good boy? How is that determined? As a threat against those who keep the whelping secret? No, that's not relevant - other rules address that and you can't double up. Against those who fail to dispose of the pup correctly. No, another rule covers that, too. Is it to deter breeding? Well, it could be but that is not something that should be covered by an open-ended administrative charge. It is also a very indirect and inefficient way of skinning the cat. And it is a restraint of trade.

The point is an administrative charge - in common practice - should be related to a specific service and assessed in a logical, supportable way. The puppy bond is not. In fact, if you go back through its ancestry, it all starts with alleged overbreeding and euthanasia numbers - the former being poorly studied and the latter being incorrect due to McHugh mistakes. There is no logic, it is all emotion.

By comparison, a licensing fee is related to office costs, which is OK. Fines are related to specific offences (and contestable anyway) but must be reasonable. And so on. But a puppy bond relates to nothing much. At best, it is an insurance fee against some unknown future event. That is not reasonable. It should be challenged in its entirety. It needs a "gobful".

Should GRNSW then persist with the charge it must be painted as a destroyer of NSW breeding and racing, which is the exact opposite of what its charter says it should be. It would be breaching its own code. Injunctions could be considered.