There is much in what you say but I make one exception.

In concept, there no difference between the gallops and the dogs in law. Both have similar Acts. Both have similar objectives. Both boards are appointed by government.

It is therefore not only possible for greyhound boards to speak out - it is compulsory in order to satisfy their fiduciary duties and responsibilities. Seldom do they do that (Fair Share was one exception, albeit no-one has yet found a legal avenue to a repeal of the ICT).

To cut to the chase, greyhound racing will always find it hard to speak out strongly while it is a pawn of government - ie no more than a vehicle to generate taxes. This is an accident of history, developed in the 1930s when private enterprise demonstrated it was not trustworthy in doing that job. (Similarly in Victoria in the 1950s).

In 2018, the only campaign worth pursuing is one to cut the apron strings and make greyhound racing an independent operation, answerable only to normal rules of the road and to its shareholders. Then it can speak out in any reasonable fashion - just as Star casino does, for example.

Fanciful perhaps, but meanwhile a board can still sound off in the interests of the code. All it risks is getting the sack but so what? It's not life and death for the individuals, particularly not for Iemma and his ex-Premier's pension. But it is their duty.

Bruce

It's not fanciful.

And it is their duty as selected member of the Board to further the interests of Greyhound Racing

Otherwise, why the hell did they bother in the first place.

As you say, whats the worse thing that can happen?....they will get voted off...boo hoo...its not the end of the world

It's better to accept a position like that and give it all you have and if there are bigger powers at work against you....what you will achieve is to expose them

No

No

The Racing Act equally applies to all racing codes, but there is a significant difference in law, and applicable governance, between gallops and greyhounds; at least in Victoria. This explains in part why greyhounds and trots will always be compromised.

Racing Victoria is a public company limited by guarantee, with membership (from memory) comprising the city clubs, country racing vic, breeders owners trainers & jockeys associations, several unions and a media association. This means it is governed by a Constitution, which is effectively a contract between the company and its members as to how the company is managed. Both the company and Directors come under the jurisdiction of Corporations Act.

On the other hand, both trots and greyhounds are public authorities, with no governing Constitution, but come under the Public Administration Act.

This makes for differences in governance - for example the Board appointment processes.

In the gallops, the Constitution requires the Board to follow an independent process where an advisory panel makes appointments. The Minister only gets one representative on a panel of five.

In greyhounds and trots, each Board member is appointed by the Minister. No process is defined in a Constitution, and appointees have an additional requirement over and above normal good governance principles - that they must follow ministerial directions.

The difference is illustrated by the situation with the Country Fire Authority in Victoria, where the Board seemed to find incompatibility between good governance and ministerial direction, with a result that the Board was replaced by more acquiescent members.

But we are in violent agreement that an independent body would be better for greyhound racing.

Thanks for that.

I note that of the eight Australian greyhound administrations, each is different to the others except for NSW and Victoria, which are essentially the same. No doubt that is one reason why GA has not voted itself any real power, and does not even address commercial matters. Everyone has to go home and see if their local board agrees with the GA "decision".

It also illustrates that political whims end up being the guiding light, and why at one time (in NSW) board membership used to change with the colour of government of the day.

Note that GRSA is owned by the member clubs, but the Minister still approves appointments. Generally, this would appear to be the best of the bunch. It is certainly the nearest to "independence".

Either way, NSW boards are still responsible for "promotion and development" so it leaves the way clear to challenge a decision which does not harmonise with that aim. Take your pick.

Which is a practical example of why a change in structure should be good for the future of the industry.

There is more.

1. South Australia has been able to maintain a lively industry despite the class of runners being markedly below that of NSW and Victoria, and prize money much lower.
2. SA has been able to maintain or improve its relative share of wagering commissions - obviously helped by the absence of 99 year agreements.
3. The monthly Kennel Capers publication is far and away the most informative industry communication in the country. It tells not only what but also why. And it lists email and other addresses of individual managers - which is rare indeed. And they actually reply to you, which is even rarer.
4. It's worth adding that an independent consultant recommended to the Minister that GRSA was good enough to take over the running of the disrupted harness code. (Never happened, but the thought was there).

On the other side of the coin, its jagged introduction of the wide, hooped lure was and is flawed - it tried to be all things to all people, utilising a poorly structured survey of trainers alone. It got over that by using Crows colours on the new lures.

Nobody's perfect, but they are pretty good. (If only they could fix the water. Relying on wine is not sufficient).

When you are getting millions of Dollars from the greyhounds share you can afford to do this.

EXTERNAL LINK

Michael,

Very worthwhile comments. One addition, though. I suspect the overall action by officialdom in three states was more influenced by the series of legal and illegal/stupid cases of euthanasia. Live baiting just raised the red flag.

The problem then became that the various bits of common sense you raise did not form part of the analysis and reasoning behind the official decision-making - including during the "reviews" process.

Why so? If you commit murder the law requires that you get a lawyer provided for you if you can't afford one. That did not happen here, as is common with a lot of official cases, especially ICAC-type inquiries where the reviewer can get away with almost anything. That is, the normal rules and courtesies of a court room are not in play.

More importantly, the reviewer can consider or dismiss any subject area he desires or weight so-called evidence in any way he likes. Then, to rub salt into the wound, the reviewer does not have to be knowledgeable in the field, or in commerce, or even obtain advice from those who are. It is plain that such gaps existed in the conclusions drawn in all three states - twice by lawyers and once by a senior public servant.

The trick is that governments never launch inquiries unless they make clear what they want them to conclude. They will not be fussed about the means used to get there.

In NSW, the Minister even specifically asked McHugh to see if closing the industry down was a good idea. In a real court, the judge would advise the jury to ignore such a pre-conceived approach.

This is a long-winded way of pointing out that the accused party (here, that means the majority of the industry) must have legal and PR expertise available from the start. They must be briefed by technical experts in each area. They must challenge offensive, unbalanced or incorrect statements every inch of the way.

And, if they can't succeed that way, they must scream from the rooftops in the media.

Otherwise, you will end up with a McSporran clause that is complete rubbish and a proposed regulation which mirrors its content. Victoria got kennel and yard design orders from a non-racing department which looks after household pets. NSW got flawed figures from McHugh which were used by Premier Baird to ban the industry. Greyhounds are now subject to constraints which are not applied to horses.

You could drive a truck through some of these arguments - providing you have a truck driver.