EXTERNAL LINK

You might have to cut and paste the link as I don't know how to do the 'External Link' thing.

should be a annual greyhound event at his place and let them all SHIT on his lawn, lol.

That would also put his office on the back foot as they would certainly have been involved.

What was this about Bruce?

be a shame if a dog bit him though :)

EXTERNAL LINK

Contrary to other claims you might hear, the AG's major problem was that he used incorrect and inflated figures in his anti-greyhound ads. Look it up on the AG's web site.

What the AG missed - and I have reminded them - was that Baird also mis-stated by a long way the number of countries conducting racing, with or without betting. Strangely, the best place to get up to date on that is the Grey2K web site.

Of course, I dont agree with the AGs findings and with budget cost blowouts in the billions, ten of thousands of dollars on propaganda still hurts taxpayers in more ways than one.

From memory I don't think Grey2K had much influence on McHugh.

However, McHugh was very selective in who he interviewed in public and on which submissions got prominence in the report. It would not have helped that Counsel Assisting showed an extreme bias from day one.

The overlapping issue was that, whatever was put to him, he had no real way of validating the claims, or of debating them, because he had no separate or reasonably independent advice to point out errors and omissions. In a regular court, you would have had prosecutors and defence counsel arguing the toss and calling their own witnesses. Not so with McHugh.

In theory, GRNSW should have been battling in favour of the industry but, in practice, the reverse happened, sometimes due to the idiotic confidential memo from GA.

I did write extensively to McHugh - at the Commission's invitation - but apparently I did not have enough brownie points to weight the conclusions.

This is one of the real weaknesses of Commissions of all sorts - they can make up their own minds about what they look at and how they treat it.

My own quote here from Grey2K was because they have done a very effective job of surveying all the world's racing. The points I mentioned are not their own version of things but are very extensively referenced to others and can be checked.

Most of the "facts" stated by Rushton were sourced from 'anti' sites, including Grey2K. Grey2Ks website extracts that were used were incorrect. There was no validation of these 'facts'. Sloppy at best, and not good enough for such a report.

I provided my response to the inquiry and to various NSW MPs, mostly Nationals.

Gathering the facts took only a few hours, so it wasn't hard for Rushton's statements to be validated.

But still 'antis' go on with the patently incorrect drivel that Rushton put out, as if it being stated in a government report means it is correct.

The only reply was a supportive response from the NSW Nationals Office, which suggests the Nationals did support greyhound racing but the leaders just went with a solidarity position for political purposes.

The response is long, but the points made are still valid.

The misstatements by Rushton are in my opinion, inexcusable for a Special Counsel. I have countered most of his opening mis-statements in my response. (In the sections "Relevance of the Social Impact Argument" up to "Impacts".

The guts of the response follows (this one was tailored for Nationals politicians).

"It is clear that the industry regulators across Australia have been both complacent and incompetent; a situation that has been compounded by inattention by successive governments. This has led to leadership by those without industry knowledge, a lack of focus on effective compliance management, and poor governance that has been compromised by political appointments at Board level.

It seems that in NSW, as in Victoria, the failure of the regulator to effectively meet its compliance responsibilities, especially tools such as education and communication, has allowed dinosaurs to operate in the industry.

But why close the industry for the actions of a few by relying on the flawed argument that it cannot be regulated?

The problem is one created by lack of effective governance at all levels of regulation, and now the fallout from these failings is being attributed to the industry.

In short, the current government is not being accountable for its own failings (where the failings apply to successive governments by all major parties over a long period of time).

This defeatist approach is not taken in respect of other cases where non-compliant minorities breach laws eg the approach to enforcement of drugs, or towards terrorists.

Instead, there is reliance on a flawed report, which I understand you have read.

And this is where the problem lies. The report borders on shambolic.

Even simple statements that the Premier has publicly repeated can be easily refuted. These include statements sourced from animal activist websites have been presented as fact and accepted without challenge or validation.

Additionally,
There has been no balance in the input to the inquiry. Sourcing of witnesses has been stacked against the industry (both regulator and participants)
Appropriate due diligence has not been conducted on qualifications and background of those presenting evidence. Some expert witnesses do not have the qualifications appropriate to the areas in which they have provided opinions, and those opinions have been accorded credibility they do not deserve, and which have been allowed to go unchallenged.
The government has not considered viable options for continuance, nor a proper level of impact analysis.

And at a political level, as Pru Goward states "This is not what we do".

Changing the Industry
There is no doubt that the action that needs to be taken to bring the industry up to current standards has to take account of the years of neglect,

It can be done, as shown by the effectiveness of the Victorian Labor party in addressing the issues, though with somewhat of a sledgehammer approach.

It is obvious that the business model for the regulator is flawed. After all, what industry regulator also controls the purse strings of the industry it regulates? This fundamental conflict of revenue control/distribution, and compliance management arguably is at the root of the problems, and should be addressed.

Funding of any initiative should not be an issue. Greyhound racing does not receive a share of wagering income that is proportionate to its market share, particularly in NSW.

Consideration of the Inquiry
But given the statement that reconsideration requires the inquiry to be shown to be defective, it seems that this must be done without funding.

I contend that your reading is coloured by the opening comments and the sensationalist actions of a few.

I read it with the insight of someone with a compliance management background who understands the industry environment, and who has attempted to escalate the indolence of government and the regulator in Victoria long before the live baiting issue emerged.

In respect of the inquiry, my initial view is that the "quality" is so bad it would take an enormous amount of work to discredit. It defies belief how $15 million could be justified on it.

Almost every aspect of the inquiry has fatal flaws, but for brevity I will provide one fundamental example.

Relevance of the Social Licence Argument
Social licence seems to be at the heart of the decision so, for an example, I will address that aspect.

I started with a quote from the opening remarks of Stephen Rushton concerning social licence (in inverted commas), and add my responses. It did not take much time to establish facts and background (though there are areas where there are no definitive figures).

The speed and ease by which I was able to get facts makes it obvious that Rushton did nothing to validate facts that support his social licence argument. But Rushton blundered on regardless.

"Internationally there are a number of jurisdictions where greyhound racing has been banned."

Reply
What is the number - 9? (Being Maine, Virginia, Vermont, Idaho, Washington, Nevada, North Carolina, Massachusetts & Colorado ie US states, not countries)

"Australia is one of only eight countries worldwide where commercial dog racing is still permitted. "

Reply
Incorrect. It seems that most countries don't even have rules covering greyhound racing; they either just don't operate at a commercial level or don't have an interest. (Using the flawed logic of the statement, one could similarly state that there are only 10 countries where commercial cricket is permitted).

The implication of using the word still implies that some countries have banned it, which is not the case.

"In the United States, 39 states have banned commercial dog racing because it is financially unsustainable and because of serious welfare concerns. "

Reply
Incorrect. This is a straight take from anti-greyhound racing group websites, and was never validated by the inquiry.

Not only are the numbers of bans questionable, there have been no bans due to financial unsustainability, and only 2 for welfare reasons (Idaho and Vermont, which each operated only one track).

The true position is that most bans derive from wagering. For example, Maine, Virginia & Washington never had organised greyhound racing, and decided to prevent its establishment due to potentially adverse wagering impacts.

There are several examples where track closures have been due to takeover by casino groups or due to changing consumer tastes, but these do not represent bans due to financial unsustainability.
(There is no definitive information available on the alleged 39 legislative bans).

"The first bans came into place in 1993, some 22 years ago. "

Reply
Incorrect, It was North Carolina in the 1950s.

"Commercial dog racing has also ceased in four other states, although they have not yet made dog racing illegal in any statute.

Reply
There have been several track closures which have nothing to do with legality; these mainly have arisen from economic circumstances; mainly being the incursion of casinos.

"As I speak, there are only seven states where commercial dog racing continues but it is about to become six. On 1 January 2016 the Gulf Greyhound Park in La Marque will be closed. It is the last track in Texas. Greyhound racing in Texas will come to an end."

Reply
Incorrect. There are at least 11 US states in which there is commercial greyhound racing, though it is contended that commercial greyhound racing is legal in 16 ie Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Greyhound racing continues to operate in Texas. There was a temporary layoff while new agreements between track owners and breeders were negotiated, and fairer wagering arrangements were revised due to competition from casinos. This was purely an issue relating to commercial terms (as seems to be the case with US sports), and nothing to do with social licence.

"The point I am seeking to make, Commissioner, is that in the states I have identified stakeholders in the industry withdrew the industry's social licence to operate and the industry came to an end. Industries that use and might abuse animals require a social licence to operate."

Reply
To summarise:
The contention that there were precedents of withdrawal of social licence for other closures of the industry is unsupportable.

The basis of the social licence argument is fatally flawed through falsehoods, unvalidated statements, and dishonest reasoning.

I could go on with many other examples, but my resources as an individual are limited.

Impacts
So far, there has also been a failure to properly consider the full impacts of the decision, which also includes other states, and which covers economic, social, community, and political fallout.

It would seem that with no future, clubs will have a warchest of funds that can be used to support resurrection of the industry under Labor by targeting parties and members who support closure. My understanding is that this could be up to $50 million.

I have little doubt that this will produce a coalition loss at the next election. With 35 of the 36 tracks located in regional NSW, the Nationals are very exposed.

My view is that greyhound racing is the only racing code can operate to accepted community standards and in a sustainable manner ie the number of greyhounds exiting racing equates with adoption demand.

I recognize that this does require a more holistic approach, such as addressing archaic muzzling laws, eliminating puppy farms and reform of industry practices

My hope is that objectivity prevails, and that the decision is revisited.

To that end, I would be interested to learn of the means by which the inquiry can be challenged, as Premier Baird has indicated that the decision would be reconsidered if the fault could be found with the inquiry.

Quite so (in part). The thing with "Commissions" (including ICAC) is that they can use whatever they like and get away with it. Conventions used in a normal court do not apply. Views are hard to challenge in real time, if at all. (In the case of ICAC, to achieve justice they had to resort to special Parliamentary hearings and to the High Court).

Consequently your submissions, mine and many others will be sitting there but were not be used in framing conclusions or recommendations if they did not suit the Commission's theme.

The real killer is that governments never set up Commissions or Inquiries unless they know what is going to come out of them. In this case, Grant specifically asked McHugh to find out whether the industry should be shut down. Amazingly, he did. Yet that is a "leading question" which would get short thrift in a normal court.

Equally, a senior public servant in Victoria conducted its inquiry. A QC with heavy government history but no racing experience did it in Queensland. As you might expect.

McHugh (and his family) at least had racing exposure. Rushton did not - in fact his CV has significant greenish content. Yet it would be Rushton and helpers who framed most of the report, not the elderly McHugh in what would almost certainly be his swansong.

Ross, I do not see a formal method of challenging the report, as such. It is only a recommendation and a list of options. This was a political process so you have to challenge politically.

That does not prevent anyone publishing a list of errors and omissions (which I have long since done myself). But that is water under the bridge in respect to the now-overturned ban.

Whereupon Baird/Grant cooked up a sneaky backdoor anti-greyhound approach via the Reform Panel etc, the later appointment of a Racing Minister who spoke and voted in favour of the ban, and the mysterious appointment of a former Labor Premier to the chair of GRNSW. IE, you're back to politics. Facts have been kicked out into the backyard, to be buried by the family pooch and preferably never dug up again.

The essence of the argument is twofold:

1. Governments control racing and the people who manage it. That's wrong.
2. Governments are unbeatable unless sufficient numbers of the public object.

The Alliance march down Macquarie St and the Orange by-election satisfied (2) above, but that is over and done with. To properly advance the industry will require (a) removing all specific or discriminatory government controls (except over betting/taxes) and (b) providing the public with a comprehensive picture of the greyhound industry, as prepared by a reasonably authoritative body.

By their actions, GRNSW, GWIC and GBOTA have disqualified themselves from the above role - or, in some cases, have agreed with the punitive action taken. A fresh, independent body is needed.

Finally, the impetus for much of the "nasty" action originated in an idiotic "confidential" memo from GA. That alone warrants the sacking of the writer and a total rethink of the structure and operation of Greyhounds Australasia.

NB: Your last six paras are wildly optimistic and conjectural, not to say incorrect. Even the bookies say 50/50. All the Lib/NP objections to the ban came from regional areas. Follow the money.

Just by way of illustration, below is two years old but just one of several I have written on the crook data subject. (Courtesy Australian Racing Greyhound).

Greyhound overbreeding myth exposed

Wednesday 1st June 2016 3:32 pm.Bruce Teague

Now that Greyhounds Australasia has published the final stats for Australian greyhound racing in 2015 we are in a position to confirm a point made by a couple of readers recently.

Over the 12 years from 2003 the number of litters whelped in Australia fell by 6.3% to 3,006 (all these figures exclude New Zealand where conditions are often different). The numbers are quite erratic from year to year, for unknown reasons, so the drop would have looked even greater had you started in the busier years of 2004, 2005 or 2006.

By far the heaviest losses were in the major states where NSW numbers fell by 6.7% to 1,232 and Victoria by 16.5% to 1,029. The Victorian result contrasts sharply with the heavy attention given to local breeding incentives, especially by the previous state government.

Fairly naturally, the number of dogs officially named lagged a little but still fell by 2.6% over the 12 years. That clearly shows more pups from each litter are being utilised.

However, there was one major anomaly. In Queensland, the third largest state, litters whelped increased by 12.5% to 426 yet at the same time Dogs Named fell by 16.5%. The litters figure for 2014 was also very high. These and other figures may well need careful auditing.

All told, there is no doubt about the broad pattern breeding is dropping off and a higher proportion of pups is hitting the racetracks, thereby lowering average field quality. Talk of overbreeding is basically rubbish. The 2016 results can be expected to accentuate that trend following the full impact of new rules which restrict breeding from older females.

Conversely, measures to artificially control breeding numbers as prompted by Greyhounds Australasia and its study by KPMG are largely pointless. Nature and the market are doing the job for them.

The changes are not without cost, though. Over the 12 years the average number of starters per race has fallen from 7.72 to 7.57 and therefore has reduced exotic betting opportunities.

as THE INQUIRY REPORT STATES that the dealings for the museum site were being made with MIRVAC, AND we all know What MIRVAC DO ,

They build houses and units, So what do you think and who do you think would have been the purchaser of the W.P. land,..Jail would be to good for these people.

Of the topic regarding the OP, nevertheless, in a different country I know but this is the verdict handed down by a neutral judge in a court case in Florida...

EXTERNAL LINK