To be very kind and very polite, the McHugh Report was not very good. 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.
|