Inquiry into Greyhound Industry SA

Legislative Council
Wednesday 21 September 2016

MOTION GREYHOUND RACING 

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. T.A. Franks:

1. That a select committee of the Legislative Council be established to inquire into and report on greyhound racing in South Australia, and in particular—

(a) the economic viability of the greyhound racing industry in South Australia;

(b) the financial performance and conduct of the industry and of Greyhound Racing SA;

(c) the effectiveness of current industry regulation, including the level of autonomy of Greyhound Racing SA;

(d) the sale and breeding of greyhounds, including the market conditions and welfare of animals;

(e) the welfare of animals in the industry and the role of Greyhound Racing SA in establishing and enforcing standards of treatment of animals;

(f) financial incentives for reducing euthanasia and prosecutions of animal mistreatment;

(g) the adequacy and integrity of data collection in the industry, including the number of pups born, the number of dogs euthanased and injury rates; and

(h) any other relevant matters.

2. That standing order 389 be so far suspended as to enable the Chairperson of the committee to have a deliberative vote only.

3. That this council permits the select committee to authorise the disclosure or publication, as it sees fit, of any evidence or documents presented to the committee prior to such evidence being presented to the council.

4. That standing order 396 be suspended to enable strangers to be admitted when the select committee is examining witnesses, unless the committee otherwise resolves, but they shall be excluded when the committee is deliberating.

(Continued from 27 July 2016.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK ( 16:11 :45 ): I rise to make some comments in relation to this particular motion and to let anybody who is interested in this issue know at the outset that we won't be supporting the inquiry. I would now like to outline some comments as to why and also to thank members of the public, the RSPCA and the GRSA for their contact. I have had some emails from members of the public urging me to support the inquiry, I have had correspondence with the RSPCA and a meeting with the GRSA.

I would also like to indicate that my colleague the Hon. Terry Stephens will be making some comments on this bill as well, as someone who I understand is quite familiar with the greyhound racing industry. I think it is a shame in some ways that this matter is not being debated in the House of Assembly because we have a number of country MPs who have a range of facilities and meets within their areas and I am sure they would like to make a contribution on this matter.

To quickly recap on the issue of greyhound racing which has led us to this matter today that we are debating, in February 2015 I think all Australians were shocked about the exposure of live baiting issues through the Four Corners program, which obtained footage from a number of facilities in the Eastern States. I have referred to these matters before in discussing my private member's bill, including that the CEO of GRSA, Mr Matt Corby, described himself as quite shocked about those matters.

We have had two bills brought to the parliament. There was our private member's bill, which was proposing to licence bullrings. We also had a government package, which included a bill to increase penalties for animal cruelty. That also referred to new arrangements between GRSA and the RSPCA, which I will refer to a little bit later. The New South Wales government, of course, is banning the greyhound industry in that state from 1 July next year.

The continuous message we have had from the South Australian government in relation to greyhound racing in South Australia is that it is a pretty clean industry. When the Four Corners exposure took place, there was no evidence at the time that there were systemic instances of live baiting taking place. Indeed, I think the RSPCA also made the comment that they did not have any evidence of that at the time.

I would like to acknowledge people who have contacted me post that matter—indeed, it was a whistleblower who led to the drafting of our private member's bill—and other people have spoken to me since. I would have to say that it has not led to anything that has been verifiable or anything that we could take as a matter of breaking of the law, so I have kept an open mind on this matter. However, if there are issues that people say are taking place, we need to be able to take those to the relevant authorities.

I said at the time I moved the bill last year that my sympathies go to the many good and decent people who work in this industry who have unfortunately been tarred with the same brush as those who have undertaken malicious practices. Knowing a few people who are dog breeders, not in this area but in other areas, I understand that they are quite fanatical about the standard of care they apply to their dogs. I understand that there are a number of people who take great care of their dogs who would have been equally horrified about the live baiting practices that they saw on TV.

I said at the time, which was in February last year, that it is time to restore confidence in the industry for the sake of all the honest and decent people who work in it. I still believe that is true, and that is why I think this inquiry is somewhat premature. We have had legislation passed in this place. We will be, and I will personally be, very interested to watch the euthanasia rates closely. I am pleased that the GRSA has today come out with those figures. I think they should have done that earlier. I actually urged them to publish their figures because, as I said to them, the fact that there were figures floating around in the order of 13,000 to 17,000 nationally gave me no comfort at all.

It has been my firm view for some time that the community standards in relation to animal welfare have changed significantly. I could not give you a period over when, perhaps the last five or 10 years, but certainly people view animal welfare as a much more significant issue than they ever used to. I think people find the unnecessary deaths of animals unacceptable, and therefore I am pleased that they are working towards zero euthanasia. They cannot reach it fast enough, as far as I am concerned, but they tell us that will be by 2018.

Indeed, the unnecessary euthanasia of animals is why this parliament has passed the Dog and Cat Management Bill so that not only are puppy farms banned but also to reduce the number of unwanted animals in the community. I am distracting myself which is not a good thing. We will be watching these euthanasia rates very closely. As I said, they cannot reach zero soon enough as far as I am concerned, and I would urge them to continue all efforts in that regard.

As an aside in relation to the government's legislation which passed last year, I remember saying at the time—and I am pretty sure that the minister agreed with me—that one of the things which was critical in the package of reforms that the government came up with in light of the shocking practices of live baiting that were exposed is that the relationship between the GRSA and the RSPCA is absolutely critical to ensure that, if there are any practices of live baiting, or any other instances of animal cruelty occurring, there be protocols in place and that they be working effectively.

I think one of the disappointing things—and I am not going to point fingers at either of the organisations. I hope that they can sort out their differences because I think in the interests of animal welfare it would be most useful if they could work cooperatively to ensure that any animal welfare breaches are brought to court and that those people be removed from the industry and the relevant penalties, and gaol terms if that is what is required, are brought to bear. While we have this stand-off between the two it is not assisting confidence, and these matters will continue to be brought to parliament's attention for sorting out.

I urge both organisations to do what they need to do. They both claim to support good animal welfare practices, and I understand that they both do, so I therefore urge them to try to do what they can to mend their relationship so that we can all have confidence that the best practices are being undertaken in South Australia. With those comments, I indicate once again that the Liberal Party will not be supporting the referral to a select committee.

The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA ( 16:20 :42 ): I too rise to speak opposing the motion. The South Australian racing industry was corporatised in 2000, and Greyhound Racing SA Limited is the controlling authority for greyhound racing in South Australia. Since corporatisation of the racing industry and repeal of the Racing Act 1976, the state government has not sought to intervene in the management and decision-making of Greyhound Racing SA.

The regulation and management of the greyhound racing industry is the responsibility of the controlling authority, Greyhound Racing SA. As part of its role to regulate and manage the industry, Greyhound Racing SA is responsible for animal welfare in the industry as set forth in the code of conduct and animal welfare policy. Greyhound Racing SA has been unwavering in the commitment given to the state government to address animal welfare issues and support the many hard-working participants who are committed and passionate about racing and the animals in their care.

On 16 February 2015 the ABC aired an episode of Four Corners titled 'Making a Killing', which exposed the horrific practice of live baiting in the greyhound racing industry. The footage depicted greyhound-racing participants in other jurisdictions using live bait to lure greyhounds around trial tracks. The government of the other jurisdictions for which evidence of poor treatment of animals was identified launched separate inquiries into their state greyhound racing industry.

One of these jurisdictions was the New South Wales Special Commission of Inquiry, undertaken by the Hon. Michael McHugh QC. Among other recommendations to change the industry in New South Wales was the recommendation that the industry be closed down. Premier Baird made a captain's call, and chose to close down the greyhound racing industry in New South Wales. This decision will affect many businesses and cost people's jobs, not just those in the greyhound industry but those who work in associated industries such as pet food suppliers or hospitality, to name a couple.

Whilst I do not agree that the decision to close the industry in New South Wales was the only avenue available to the government, it is obvious through both the original Four Corners program on live baiting and the formal inquiry into the New South Wales jurisdiction that the industry there has many problems.

Each state's racing industry is run independent to other states. The South Australian racing industry is by far the best run in Australia, and while evidence of criminal abuse of animals has been identified in the Eastern States there is no evidence of it occurring here. South Australians had their awareness raised of potential mistreatment to greyhounds in the past 18 months, and I have no doubt that should evidence of greyhound cruelty be discovered in South Australia it would immediately be identified and reported to police or the RSPCA by a member of the public.

The board of Greyhound Racing SA has operated differently to those in other jurisdictions. Largely independent, the board has been proactive in animal welfare and integrity matters. There has been no evidence of live baiting in South Australia, and the government has made it very clear to the greyhound racing industry that live baiting will not be tolerated.

Greyhound Racing SA and the RSPCA both strongly condemn this practice and rightly consider that it has no place in the sport. Since introduction of the amendments to the Animal Welfare Act 1985 concerning live baiting, there have been no prosecutions of breaches of this legislation in relation to live baiting.

Greyhound Racing SA has no tolerance for the mistreatment of greyhounds. It is leading the country in the rehoming of greyhounds post-racing and is a strong advocate for the reforms that the industry needs on a national basis. Greyhound Racing SA has stated their current aim is to reach zero unnecessary euthanasia by 2018-19. This has been brought forward from 2020-21.

If this target is achieved, South Australia will be the first state to achieve full rehoming of locally-bred greyhounds. The greyhound industry is subject to the Greyhound Rules of Racing, both at a national and local level. The number of greyhounds bred to race, euthanased, rehomed post‑racing or injured, are not held by the state government. In South Australia, there is no requirement to report on euthanasia statistics by other groups involved with the euthanasia of dogs.

Today, Greyhound Racing SA voluntarily and publicly announced the details of how many greyhounds are rehomed and euthanased in South Australia. We welcome Greyhound Racing SA's announcement of the actual and projected industry numbers. We have learned in 2015-16, through the Greyhound Adoption Program and other rehoming programs in South Australia, that 418 dogs were bred, 639 greyhounds were rehomed, and 482 euthanased.

There is a clear reduction in the projected number of euthanased dogs. The projections for the following two years indicate the number of greyhounds which will be rehomed increases from 639 dogs, to 775 in 2016-17, and will rise the year after by another 75 dogs, making the total projected number of rehomed dogs to be 850 in 2017-18. When it comes to animals and pets in particular, it is always regretful whenever an unnecessary death occurs, or when an animal is euthanased.

We know this as, despite every effort to rehome each animal under its care, even charities, whose primary goal is to save animals, can be unsuccessful in rehoming every animal due to illness, behavioural issues, and other factors. A 2013 study commissioned by the racing industry, shows greyhound racing in South Australia generates direct expenditure of $34.43 million, with value-added expenditure raising this amount to $45.41 million. It also sustains the employment of 404 full-time equivalent positions.

There is no evidence that Greyhound Racing SA has failed to perform its duty in any way as the controlling authority for the greyhound racing industry in South Australia. They have put considerable effort into areas such as rehoming, and the South Australian Greyhound Adoption Program is one of the most successful in Australia.

The Greyhound Adoption Program will receive $1 million in annual funding and is a great example of Greyhound Racing SA's vigilance in driving animal welfare initiatives and investing in its most important participant, the greyhound. In 2013, Greyhound Racing SA established the Prison Pet Partnership Program in the Adelaide Women's Prison. Greyhound Racing SA is about to establish a second program within the Mobilong Prison near Murray Bridge.

Greyhound Racing SA has invested in their You.Me.6weeks program, a foster program designed to ready greyhounds for life after racing with advertising on television, radio, billboards and buses around Adelaide. Despite there being no evidence of live baiting in South Australia to date, Greyhound Racing SA has continued to direct funding to integrity and animal welfare. They have not been complacent.

They still continue to look for ways to improve animal welfare outcomes. Greyhound Racing SA has demonstrated it has the controls in place to ensure the integrity of the industry in South Australia. It leads the nation and is an example to every other jurisdiction in the country of good animal welfare management. South Australian participants in the greyhound racing industry and the controlling body, Greyhound Racing SA, make every possible effort to ensure South Australia has animal welfare at its forefront and we wish them well for the future. The government opposes the motion.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS ( 16:29 :03 ): I rise today to speak against the motion moved by the Hon. Ms Franks to establish a select committee to investigate the greyhound racing industry in our state. Sport and recreation are central to the lives of many South Australians and participating in them is an expression of the freedoms which we treasure. Many depend on them for their income, whilst others marvel in awe at the physical feats of its participants, whilst in the company of friends and family.

Behind the scenes, many volunteers and workers operate tirelessly for their communities through various sporting organisations to ensure that people are able to socialise and the community can be strengthened. Sport is very dear to my heart. Not only do my parliamentary secretary responsibilities cover recreation, sport and racing but I am also an active and proud supporter of these integral industries.

The South Australian greyhound industry has a proud and extensive history. From the many trainers right across the state who dedicate themselves to their dogs, the magnificent meetings where crowds gather in celebration and support of the sport, greyhound racing is truly a welcome part of our social fabric. It is of the utmost importance that recreation be conducted in a way that dignifies both humans and animals. What occurred in regard to live baiting and animal welfare in New South Wales was horrendous and action needed to be taken to ensure that best practice was pursued; however, what has subsequently been inflicted on the entire industry is nothing short of disappointing.

Governments should support sporting associations in their efforts of cracking down on those individuals who wish to bring their sport into disrepute through negative behaviour and practices. The role of government should not simply be to cast aside an entire industry for the actions of the few who do not act with the best interests of the sport in mind. Greyhound Racing South Australia is a responsible member of the South Australian sporting community and has proven itself more than capable of ensuring that it runs a safe, competitive and lawful sport within our state, and it should be further encouraged and supported in this endeavour.

This focus and commitment was redoubled after the Four Corners revelations of last year and is ongoing. Of particular note is that GRSA has invested heavily into the Greyhound Adoption Program so that dogs are well cared for. It is wonderful to know that many dogs are going through this process and are finding new homes with loving owners. GRSA has also undertaken to limit the breeding of greyhounds for racing. Whilst New South Wales has thousands of dogs being put down every year because they are unsuitable for racing, limitations in breeding have meant that the industry in South Australia does not find itself following a similar practice.

Additionally, GRSA has also appropriated half a million dollars annually towards integrity and welfare initiatives, furthering its ambition to promote and exercise best practice. These and many other initiatives mean that the South Australian industry has been able to insulate itself from the negative aspects of the industry in New South Wales. The industry should be given the time and space it requires to continue to be sustainable in a way that maintains community confidence and support. On past performance, I have every confidence that they will more than succeed in this endeavour.

All this motion seeks to do is to ban greyhound racing outright; it does not endeavour to properly improve the sport through a calm and considered process of reform. A select committee would be an inappropriate way of treating an industry that is constantly striving to improve itself. Instead, it will demonise and attack the very people who have dedicated their lives to following best practice in both raising and racing greyhounds. The New South Wales government's decision to ban greyhound racing in that state from 1 July next year will cause a great disruption for many who rely on the industry to support them financially as well as affecting those who look forward to the many social opportunities which greyhound racing provides for them, their families and their communities.

The decision to ban has left many trainers shocked about the very sad reality that they will lose their livelihoods. There is also the problem of 19,000 greyhounds in New South Wales now looking for homes. I welcome minister Bignell's support for the greyhound industry and indication that the state government has no plans to follow the lead of the New South Wales government and ban the sport. It is a sport that brings in $50 million a year in activity to our economy and there are hundreds of people employed by it.

It is simply not right to close down a sound industry in a time when South Australia has an unacceptably high unemployment level and many people are crying out to be gainfully employed in a rewarding job. Apart from the monetary value, greyhound racing is a form of racing that is accessible to all and brings an immense of amount of joy to many South Australians. That pleasure should not be taken away because some irresponsible participants of the sport interstate have acted in an appalling way.

I will leave my contribution here, but to summarise, I am extremely disappointed by the decision by the New South Wales government to ban greyhound racing and call on all members of the South Australian Parliament to avoid acting in a similar manner by emphatically rejecting the call for a select committee on the greyhound industry in this state.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT ( 16:34 :05 ): Just very briefly, Dignity for Disability will be supporting the establishment of this committee and we do so not only because we have received many letters and emails asking us to do so, but also because we believe it is the job of this parliament to be informed and transparent, and to explore those issues that those members of our community think are important enough for us to explore as a parliament.

So, we welcome this opportunity to bring these issues into the light and, if there is nothing to be hidden or ashamed of, I very much look forward to that being proven as being true. For the time being, I would like this parliament to get on with its job and investigate, with transparency and in a thorough manner, an issue that is obviously very important to many out there in the community.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS ( 16:35 :05 ): I thank those speakers who have made a contribution to this motion calling for a select committee inquiry into the greyhound industry in this state. The Hon. Michelle Lensink: I must acknowledge her particular work on this issue, and certainly she was on the front foot taking on the issue of live baiting after that awful revelation made through Four Corners in the program 'Making a killing'. I acknowledge her work, but I disagree that this inquiry is somewhat premature.

This inquiry is happening a year and a half after many other states and territories initiated similar processes, but South Australia failed to act. I acknowledge the contribution of government member, the Hon. John Gazzola, who, if I can make a summary of his argument, seems to say that, because the industry has been corporatised, it is somehow not within the realm of the minister or the government to do anything about it.

While the government and the minister seem to not want to do anything about this particular industry, they do not want the parliament to do anything either, where the parliament clearly does have the ability and a remit to inquire into this industry, should it so choose. The Weatherill government, yet again, has chosen to sit on its hands and say that there are good people in this industry, they do not deserve to be punished and that there is no proof of any wrongdoing. Yet, we are one of only a few states and territories in this nation that has not had an inquiry into this industry.

In those other states and territories, not only have we seen the exposure of live baiting, which has been illegal for many, many years, yet had persisted, we have actually seen a royal commission no less—not a parliamentary inquiry, but a royal commission—in New South Wales find that this industry in that state was untenable. That was, of course, under Premier Baird, and Premier Baird has accepted that particular recommendation and, as we all know, will phase out this industry in New South Wales in 2017. The ACT government, where there is a Labor Party in place, has followed the lead and has also announced that they will pursue a ban on greyhound racing in that state.

The government spokesperson argued that this was about jobs, and the jobs of those in the industry that will be lost in New South Wales and the ACT. I ask the government how it feels about the jobs of those vet nurses, for example, who have talked about the trauma of having to put down so many healthy greyhounds each year. How do they talk that about those workers and about putting them in that situation in jobs across the nation?

We were also told that there was no inquiry needed because there is no evidence. That is the most spurious bit of logic I have heard in a long while. Of course there is no evidence, because there has been no inquiry in this state: we have had no inquiry, we have had no action. The minister has refused to act, that is why we have no evidence. We were also told and assured by the government that at a 6 per cent rehoming rate, Greyhound Racing SA is the most successful rehomer in the country—6 per cent, people. That is 94 per cent of dogs not rehomed.

I note that much is made of the commitment made by Greyhound Racing SA to rehome animals and their 6 per cent figure, which is apparently the best in the country (although of course we cannot compare apples with apples in this particular case), but that $1 million pales into insignificance when you compare it to $6.5 million that has just been announced for a new race track for greyhound racing in Murray Bridge.

I understand that Greyhound Racing SA, in its development application, claimed that the impact, in terms of development for the council to consider, would be minimal because the track would not be used that often, it would not employ that many people—a few people in the bar staff—and the car park would not actually create any undue noise or nuisance to the community because there would not be that many cars in the car park as a result of this new $6.5 million track in Murray Bridge. I note, as I say, that $1 million is often trumpeted by Greyhound Racing SA as what they commit to rehoming, yet they can find $6.5 million for a track and that the car park will not cause undue nuisance to the community because it will not be that full.

The Hon. Terry Stephens is oft on record as being a passionate advocate of both horse and greyhound racing. He claims that Greyhound Racing SA has proven itself and that it will be able to insulate itself from the bad practices in New South Wales. I am not sure whether the Hon. Terry Stephens has a plan to put some sort of security force up at the border, but the last I saw people can bring their animals and move to South Australia if they are going to pack up shop in New South Wales. We have to believe that those in the New South Wales industry will be looking across the borders, whether that is Victoria, Queensland or South Australia, but some of them will be coming here. How will we insulate ourselves against that?

It would be timely to have an inquiry to cope with what I believe will be an influx of those people from New South Wales who, as has been attested to, even those with the strong support of the greyhound racing industry in South Australia, are apparently the bad apples that we do not have in our state, but we are going to be opening our borders to them to welcome them in.

I thank the Hon. Kelly Vincent for her, as always, sage words. Why would we not have an inquiry? Why would we not be asking these questions? Certainly, that is the role of a parliament, to have inquiries, to ask questions, particularly when a minister for racing does not ask the question and does not demand the answers. Greyhound Racing SA has not been terribly forthcoming with answers. Just this very day they have finally released a three-page document which reveals the number of animals that they breed and race and rehome and what they have called euthanase.

Of course 'euthanase' is a tautology in this case. Euthanase is an animal that is unhealthy or unable to be socialised. It is not the term that one uses for a healthy dog that is put down because it is too slow or unprofitable. 'Wastage' is a term that I had never heard until I came into this place and got to know that the term wastage is used in the racing industry, an industry that profits from animals that it races, of course. It is a euphemism to talk about animals that are healthy, that could have long and productive lives, but have those lives cut short because they are put to death.

It is not making a living to make a killing. Those who seek a social licence to have an industry, which the Hon. Terry Stephens is more than happy to support and no doubt take a punt on, that is indeed profitable and creates jobs, surely they are the very people who can afford to ensure that their business model is one that does not see dogs put to death unnecessarily.

The South Australian public wrote to us in their tens of thousands in terms of the Care2 petition that was put online, and I draw to the attention of the members of this council that there are 33 pages at the beginning of that petition that are specifically South Australians, and to the 307 open letters that have been individually signed by residents of South Australia, addressed to Premier Weatherill, against the Murray Bridge greyhound track. I seek leave to table both of those documents: the 307 letters individually signed by residents of South Australia, addressed to Premier Weatherill and others, against the Murray Bridge greyhound racing track, and the Care2 petition South Australian signatures, some 33 pages.

Leave granted.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I draw to the attention of members, who think that these people are somehow removed from the greyhound racing industry, one particular statement on the Care2 petition from Lyn of Murray Bridge in South Australia (I think as close as you could possibly get to this issue of the Murray Bridge $6.5 million racetrack), who states:

I own a retired greyhound and I have seen him in some of his behaviour that he still thinks he is at a greyhound track waiting to race. He is learning very slowly to try and live a normal dog life. He was dumped when he stopped earning money. Just another piece of meat and not a dog who deserves a normal life of a dog. I despise the greed of man to damage such beautiful dogs.

Thank you, Lyn, for those words. It is a shame that today the parliament of this state has not listened to those words, but it has been people power that has actually seen Greyhound Racing SA finally respond to the public pressures. Certainly, I had asked questions in this place, I had put in a freedom of information requests to try to get to the truth of the matter of how many dogs are killed because of the greyhound racing industry each year—healthy dogs that could live healthy, long lives.

It is only today that we finally received a document that has one year of what we are asked to believe are actual figures. I note that this is not an independently verified document, as we have called for, and it is not a document that outlines five previous years of practice. It is a document that has one year, that we were asked to take on face value and to trust, and then it has two years of projections, so it is the wish list of Greyhound Racing SA.

I have to say, I agree with their wish list. I think we all want to see us getting to zero or lower death rates of these dogs, but how can we trust them when it took the people power of tens of thousands of signatures on petitions and, indeed, the threat of a parliamentary inquiry to release this particular one year and their projected wish list. They need to do better. They need to do more. The people who have worked and contacted members of this place in past months will not be silenced by the loss of a vote today.

I certainly will be bringing back a piece of legislation to ensure that Greyhound Racing SA keeps to its word and continues to publish the figures that they have finally released today. It has taken a long while and they have taken a baby step today, but I hope they will be taking steps in the right direction in the future. I hope they will continue to work with those who criticise them. Of course, it is those who criticise them, those from the RSPCA and the animal welfare groups, who are the very people who step up and help rehome these dogs. That is because they care about these dogs, and I hope that is something we can all agree on.

I would like to commend the work of: the RSPCA; Melanie Easton, who is a filmmaker and a local who put together the Care2 petition regarding Murray Bridge; the Animal Justice Party, which organised an event outside the front of this place today; and all those other greyhound support groups and individuals I have met. They are passionate people and they are people who are willing to work with this industry.

This industry also needs to look at its breeding numbers because, even in their wish list and even in their projections, they are not looking at the fact that they are overbreeding. We will have the New South Wales breeders and trainers coming across our borders. We need to be vigilant on this issue. I hope that members who have argued that it is too early or somewhat premature to have an inquiry, or that there is no evidence so therefore we do not heed to have an inquiry, will go away and have a think about the logic of those statements.

When I put up pieces of legislation to ensure that Greyhound Racing SA continues to be transparent, as they have done this morning, I hope they support those pieces of legislation. With those few words, I commend the motion to the council.

Motion negatived.

Stay Connected

Sign Up to news and updates from Tammy.