I get the feeling that consultation just means that she will listen to us and then do what she was planning on doing anyways.

They are still talking about minimum standards, which makes me believe they are talking about the Five Freedoms. The Five Freedoms gave us the water bowl policy disaster. If they do follow this model what other negative welfare outcomes will there be?

I have to say I am also sick of hearing the second chance nonsense and that we need to re-build community confidence. Perhaps if Mike Baird had not decided to ban the industry on the basis of a flawed report and then spend over a million on ads containing false information slamming us we would not need to re-build community confidence. Why should participants and our greyhounds have to suffer because of these lies?

The second chance propaganda started nearly two years ago so one would think theyd use something else to erode us away. They havent changed their plan and the Alliance and McHugh Report gave them working documents as starting points.

Btw, participants have two hours to listen to the CEO, Commissioner and two Dep Comms and have consultation.

Generally, that's all true.

What I don't understand is why the industry went along tacitly with the biased membership of the Reform Panel, why the Reform Panel set of recommendations got thru without further comment by the industry representative and why there has been no subsequent complaint by the industry about their effect.

I commented strongly about the first of those three items but I am not technically qualified to address the other two.

On "I have to say I am also sick of hearing the second chance nonsense and that we need to re-build community confidence", I agree with the thought behind the first half of the sentence but not the second half.

The fact is, whether participants are aware of it or not, that we have never had sufficient community confidence in the first place - numerically speaking. We have never bothered to put our best foot forward. Or any foot. We have done nothing except sit back and wait for the dollars to tinkle out of the machine. Consequently, Baird, Grant and McHugh were able to drive a truck through the gaps in the industry's performance.

In my view, the ban got overturned, not because of greyhound lovers' claims, but because too many thinking observers objected to the concept of a government eliminating an entire industry without proper justification. I offer the example of a Qld Law Professor, a Buddhist, opposed to any killing and not a racing supporter, tearing strips off the Baird decision on basic equity grounds in an article published in The Australian.

The task is not to re-build community confidence, but to create it in the first place and then add to it.

In theory, that is the job of GRNSW, supported by the clubs and the participants. So far, neither Newson or Clayton in Victoria A(or their predecessors) have done that. Rather, both have bowed to political pressure in various ways.

Newson handed over the nonsensical GA confidential memo to McHugh without further comment about its inaccuracies. He then supported Grant's flawed decision to give us only 10% of the tax parity spoils when there was an obvious case for that figure to be either 13% or 21%. Clayton has stopped pushing for more realistic changes to housekeeping regulations and instead told participants to do the job themselves (by writing in). A cop out. He is now under fire from volunteer re-homing organisations for GRV's overly bureaucratic approach to GAP.

As I said elsewhere, it's the Boston Tea Party re-visited. Taxation without representation. Still, the Yanks found a way to overcome that. Costly, but successful.

The present system does not work. Change it.

The Commissioner I believe was on Ray Hadley Show today about 10.15am. .

"The Commissioner I believe was on Ray Hadley Show today about 10.15am. . "

We're buggered in every sense of the word...!!!

looks like I'll have to save and buy myself a trotter..

After listening to Ray Hadley I was more concerned with what Ray was saying than Alan Brown. Ray brought up the minimum standards, the second chance nonsense and the puppy bond.

I was actually a little relieved that Alan Brown didnt say anything worse given the openings he was given by Mr Hadley.

It seems to me that at the moment GWIC may, like GRNSW, really be working towards shutting the industry down. So far the signs point that way. Their website was the first indication. Now the puppy bond, the second chance and the minimum standards have just added to it.

However, it may simply be that they are getting their information from groups like GRNSW, The Department of Justice, and animal rights groups. It may be that they actually believe overbreeding is still an issue because that is what they are being told and they have not bothered to do their own research. This roadshow might be an opportunity for us to educate them on what is really happening in the industry or at the very least educate them that the information they are getting is not accurate.

And apparently we are not going to be financially burdened with all these new policies. All this plus more after Mr Mestrov freely stated that 55% of dogs that raced last year earnt less than $1000 in prisemoney

For item 84 it is very easy to change current fee structure or rename current fees in order to meet that requirement without actually making us pay more money.

Of course the better thing to do would be for them to go back to the government and say that the situation has changed, this is the current data, a bond at this point in time is not necessary or appropriate.

His comments today did nothing show he supports the industry

Trevor did GWIC say that at the roadshow, that they are legally bound to to implement the reform package recommendations?

I have had a quick look at the Act again and cannot see that mentioned. (May have missed it, it was a quick look so if anyone knows where it is please let me know). Obviously many of the recommendations were incorporated into the Act itself so they are legally enforceable but I am not sure about the others.

I have said from Day 1 that B.Scotts submission of 2000 pups bred per year for racing in N.S.W. was never taken off the Table, it was to be revisited and in my view this is where the Industry in NSW is heading, yes 2000 pups per year.

From Judith Lind

We have a reform agenda we have to implement. The last thing we want to do is impose important changes on the industry without consultation. The roadshow gives the industry a chance to be part of this process and to have a real say, early on.

They keep saying they want our feedback and input. Let see be honest we don't have a say.

The roadshows lack details and it's plain and simply a PR exercise. The roadshows is a policy decision to cover their backs.

If the industry fails miserly or closes they can't be blamed in any way as they had a information roadshow where participants had input.

A certain amount of blame can also be pointed to the industry participants for not complying etc

This essentially we the participants closed ourselves

I can't see that they are legally enforceable within themselves. I also can't see where GRNSW or GWIC are legally bound to implement those that are not incorporated into the Act.

I can see that they probably want to implement them and that there will be pressure applied from the government and groups like the RSPCA who were on the panel but that is not the same as being legally bound.

If it is mentioned at the roadshow can people tell me what they say on the recommendations?

In the end it may make little difference whether they are legally bound or not but it would be nice to know we at least had a chance to stop things such as the puppy bond simply by educating GWIC as to the reality of the current circumstances.

I am worried that if GWIC and GRNSW think that we all believe that the recommendations are 'set in stone' then they will put them into the policies and rules and codes because they can always say 'not our fault, the recommendations said we had to do it'. Once they are put into the policies, rules and codes they then will be legally enforceable and it will be almost impossible at that point.

I learnt the hard way that trying to change things legally is virtually impossible. The prejudice against us by some in the legal system means that we are always at a disadvantage. For example in my case the Judge, out of nowhere, started talking about live baiting being a training method used by participants. No way I was getting a fair hearing.

We need to try to stop things before they get to that point.

You probably had good grounds to appeal.

In relation to Recommendations of the Reform Panel, youre right GWIC/ GRNSW are going to make them binding because the Govt has accepted them and told the two bodies to do so. In the past, Govts have ignored recommendations such as Upper House Enquiry ones and the main one of the Cameron Report. After all, they dont want us to be thriving as we should be with proper management. Its been three years and policies n procedures have been put in place, yet they are still amending the structure at massive cost to the industry.