Dear Stakeholders,

We are taking the final opportunity to remind all stakeholders that it is important to send correspondence to the Minister for Racing, the Honorable Paul Toole and your local MP by COB tomorrow, Friday, March 3, with regards to the Reform Panel's recommendations.

The Alliance makes this recommendation to all stakeholders, so that there is more voices relaying the need for our fair share of funding to achieve the reforms prescribed in the Panel's final report.This is an opportunity for individuals to respond to the 122 recommendations outlined in the Greyhound Racing Industry Reform Panels report. It is important to remember that with open consultation that parties opposed to Greyhound Racing or elements of the recommendations, are likely to also make submission. We must therefore ensure our voice is heard. If you have not yet reviewed the Reform Panel's report, we encourage you to do so. A link to the report is available here.

Over the past 2 weeks The Alliance has received feedback on stakeholders submitting correspondence. We provide the following dot points in response to some of the feedback received:

Modest Bond:
Recommendations 84 & 85 are:
84. Owners should be required to pay a modest upfront bond to the integrity commission, no later than four months after whelping, that is transferable with ownership. This should be paid by the breeder if they still own the greyhound at four months. This should be supplemented with annual payments, made by the person responsible for the greyhound, while the greyhound is registered with the integrity commission. Industry may develop a scheme to fund these payments.
85. The bond and annual payments should be recoverable by the last person who has the care and control of the greyhound before it suitably retired, rehomed, died from natural causes or euthanised in a manner consistent with requirements.

Importantly, recommendation 84 outlines that the Industry may develop a scheme to fund these payments.Therefore, should the industry receive it's fair share of funding then the Bond proposed may be able to be covered in other ways.
A bond can be better explained as a greyhound's own superannuation fund, contributed to by the owner, to ensure that there are sufficient funds for retirement.

Funding: The The report outlines that the discrepancy in the share of TAB distribution costs our industry $23.3 Million annually. These funds are critical to achieving improvements the industry has long called for.
The Alliance will make a submission also, that calls for the industry's fair share of funding in order to achieve the best possible industry.

Pages 55-58 of the Panel's final report cover the current funding arrangements and proposed methods of ensuring fair funding of our sport. The table below outlines the contribution to wagering turnover of the three codes and the share of funds distributed under the Inter-Code Deed and tax harmonisation arrangements:

Relative contribution to TAB wagering turnover (2015/16)
Share of TAB distribution
Share of Tax Harmonisation
Thoroughbreds:67.3% (Market share) 70% (tab distribution) 77.3% (tax harmonisation)
Greyhounds: 21.7% (Market share) 13% (tab distribution) 10% (tax harmonisation)
Harness: 11.0%(Market share) 17% (tab distribution) 12.7% (tax harmonisation)

The report outlines in real dollar terms that the discrepancy in the share of TAB distribution costs our industry $23.3 Million annually.

The panel recommended in this regard that:
- The commercial entity should consider structural and other reforms to improve the efficiency of the industrys commercial operations and better support improved animal welfare outcomes.
- Government should consider intervening to increase revenue to support the greyhound industry meet the additional welfare, integrity costs and operational costs of the integrity commission and industry by:
legislating to amend the Inter-Code Deed so distributions better reflect contribution to TAB turnover (should the industry be unable to agree on a revised arrangement) OR revisiting the distribution of the tax harmonisation revenues.

We therefore again encourage all stakeholders to take the time to write to their local MP and Racing Minister. We make this recommendation so:
- Participants have the opportunity to a say in our future
- That Members of Parliament are provided with feedback on what is important to our industry,
- So that when new legislation is drafted and presented to Parliament that as many Members of Parliament are across the issues and needs for reform to be achieved.

It is imperative, that should the Greyhound Racing Industry in NSW be able to prosper well into the future then the above recommendations must be tackled by the current government. As a broad outline, the Alliance believes correspondence should include:
- Feedback you might have with the recommendations
- Feedback to the industry's commitment to further improve regulation and welfare standards to ensure we are world leaders in our field, thus seeking to protect our long term future
- The critical need for a fair wagering funding model to ensure industry sustainability and welfare improvements
- Most importantly, provide personal examples of how fair funding, including prizemoney returns, will ensure the welfare of your greyhounds is improved.
We see this last point as critical, given a misconception that prizemoney is purely for the benefit of the owner or trainer. The Alliance in advocating since July 2016 has been strong in demonstrating to Members of Parliament that prizemoney is regularly spent in improving facilities, transportation, post racing careers and other components of a greyhounds overall welfare. Your reinforcement of this point is therefore important.

Correspondence or submissions to the Racing Minister should be forwarded to the following by no later than Friday, March 3, 2017:

Minister for Racing
The Honorable Paul Toole
GPO Box 5341, Sydney, NSW 2001
[email protected]
Yours sincerely,

Communication Team
NSW Greyhound Racing Industry Alliance

And you can bet that if it goes wrong, we'll be told it's OUR fault.

In my opinion, The Alliance is quick to seek and take credit; but rather adept at ducking blame for the numerous things that are going WRONG (overregulation clearly the main one!)

They've undoubtedly CONTRIBUTED TO the reversal of the ban that's supposedly " still on its way" through Parliament; but there's PLENTY ELSE they could and should be doing... For starters, CONSULTING more WITHIN the industry; & get out there among stakeholders (that'd be better than continuing to TELL US HOW IT IS, or IS GOING TO BE). I ask this question for the umpteenth time: EXACTLY WHO is formulating "policy" from within The Alliance? WHAT does their decision-making process comprise of? And what STATUTORY rights do they have? (In fact, WHO "gave them" those "rights"?).

Somehow I am not confident we'll get ANY answers to those - and other - sensible and meaningful/telling questions. It hasn't been any different for months now.

Yet I constantly see The Alliance referred to as the " industry's spokespeople ". Really? According to WHO again?

THEY have put themselves out front, and on a pedestal. Now let's see what THEY can conjure up.

My tip is that you're NOT going to like much of what "they" are seemingly more than happy to go along with.

I have been receiving regular emails from the Alliance outlining/advising what participants can do to have their say on the Iemma Report.

I have sent emails to Brenton Scott & got detailed responses on each occassion.

I think you need to ring them up & ask them to put you on the email list to keep you in the loop OR email Brenton direct so you know where their position is.

At this point in time I think it's better to have a single mouthpiece instead of 1000 different views flooding politicians. One of the things the Premier said to me was feedback from participants did not mirror that of Brenton Scott, she also had a very big rap for Brenton so I suggest he's the right guy to represent us.

All we can do is have faith, don't forget he was there all the way when we were getting banned, & in politicians eyes he's a shining light so let's run with it.

Just my opinion of course.

PS: for the record I don't agree with alot of the changes either but I don't know if we're in a position to be saying we aren't gonna change.

He is a puppet and shares a vison that differs greatly from participants.

I'll support that Mick.

Everyone has been invited to put in a submission outlining what they want or feel is important. If you read the first post on this thread you'll find what Alliance thinks is the important message.

Submissions far more effective & far reaching than a meeting that may or may not be attended & usually ends in a shouting match.

It's my opinion most of the terms have been signed off, but the funding especially Intercode has not been decided , hence the original message on this thread