The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I stand on behalf of the Greens to support the Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector Bill 2024. It has been a long time coming. Indeed, as the Hon. Jing Lee just mentioned, it is almost a year since the Premier promised that it would be coming by Easter, but here we are, almost at Christmas, and we are finally seeing the legislation to keep that particular pledge.
The Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector Bill (GIRI) flows from the Ashton inquiry into the greyhound industry in our state. It was an independent inquiry headed by Mr Graham Ashton AM APM, a former Victorian police commissioner, who was ably assisted by review director Ms Zoe Thomas. The inquiry was formally established by Premier Peter Malinauskas on 14 August 2023 in response to yet more revelations of illegal, inhumane cruelty and the sickening abuse of multiple greyhounds, including live baiting practices. The inquiry was tasked with reviewing the regulatory regime, operations, culture, governance and practices within the greyhound industry in our state of South Australia.
The Greens have long been concerned about the greyhound racing industry and its poor track record. When it comes to animal welfare and integrity, I am certainly on the record, time and time again, in raising in this place the issues around the appalling treatment of greyhounds—as far back as 2016, when I called for a select committee into the greyhound industry. Until the morning of the day of the vote, that particular select committee had the support of the Liberal opposition— support, I note, that had evaporated by lunchtime that day.
My Greens colleagues interstate, however, including the late New South Wales MLC John Kaye, have been doing so for even longer. I pay tribute to Mr Kaye for his work to expose the truth about this cruel and inhumane industry. His work continues here today.
While my intention was also to look at all aspects of the greyhound industry, this bill dwells more on its economic viability, its financial performance and the conduct of the industry, focusing on integrity and governance. The Greens, while supporting those integrity measures, do have outstanding concerns about the animal welfare aspects of this industry that the bill, in its current form, simply does not adequately address. Most members will be very well aware, I would hope, of the allegations of cruelty and corruption that have dogged this industry for so many years.
The Four Corners program, Making a Killing, in 2015 was a particularly horrifying example that was the catalyst for former New South Wales Premier Mike Baird to announce a ban on the industry—a ban that I note still continues in the ACT today—that was unfortunately overturned later after pressure from the industry in New South Wales.
More recently and closer to home, horrific visions emerged of greyhounds being beaten—footage that was physically shocking. It shocked the Premier, it shocked myself, and I would imagine it shocked most members of this place, if not all. It caused a public backlash that led to the government being forced to take the action that commissioned the Ashton inquiry.
These were reports, however, that had long since been raised in this place and could have been well aerated through a select committee back in 2016. I note that we were in fact, I believe, the only jurisdiction that did not either ban greyhound racing at the time of that Four Corners exposé or have some sort of in-depth inquiry.
Animal welfare issues within the greyhound racing industry are endemic throughout, from the sale and overbreeding of greyhounds to the welfare of animals in training and kennelling, the conditions they face on the track and how they are treated throughout all stages of their often all-toobrief lives before, during and after any racing career. Examples of poor animal welfare—including inadequate food, water, shelter and socialisation; living in filthy and sometimes squalid conditions; and not getting proper veterinary care and attention—are far from unusual occurrences. Indeed, from the case studies that were presented by Commissioner Ashton in his report, these occurrences are disturbingly common and have been committed by a significant number of industry figures, often without real and meaningful consequence.
Life on the track of course presents its own dangers, and injuries are common, with the vast majority of dogs injured at some point during their racing lives. While an unsuccessful dog will not survive in the industry for long, often literally, even successful dogs on the track face a life of uncertainty after their racing career is over, with the threat of euthanasia seemingly ever-present upon the flimsiest of pretexts.
Sadly, the number of greyhounds euthanased, a practice euphemistically referred to within the greyhound racing industry as 'wastage', is a shocking indictment of the industry that has put profits over principle, and prioritises financial returns over animal welfare. This is not surprising, given the industry is reliant upon the gambling revenue for its economic survival in its current form. You bet, they die.
This in turn leads to an inherent contradiction at the heart of this debate about the industry. Good animal welfare standards seem to be incompatible with the profit-centred motive of a gambling-focused industry. While industry participants profess to love their animals—and I do not doubt that for some this is true—the reality is that for many greyhounds, as was uncovered by Four Corners in New South Wales and more recently here in South Australia in the Ashton inquiry, the reality is often a far different story.
I acknowledge that in recent years the industry has made some attempts to improve the situation and promotes its Greyhounds As Pets (GAP) program, although there are systemic issues within that program as well, due to the number of dogs requiring rehoming far exceeding the available numbers of potential homes and many other revelations that have come through not just the Ashton inquiry but were brought to the attention of this council by myself.
I note also the whistleblowers from the GAP program, and I thank them for their courage to both spark and participate in the Ashton review. Whilst some people have found a much-loved canine companion through this rehoming program, it should not provide a licence for or an excuse to continue the excessive breeding or the ongoing abuses the industry seems incapable or unwilling to stop.
Live baiting is but one example, and there have been a number of high profile cases in South Australia that have horrified the broader community and animal lovers in particular. Some estimates in New South Wales suggested that between 10 to 20 per cent of trainers engaged in this barbaric, illegal and cruel practice, but the true figure may be much greater.
While euthanasia of uncompetitive, unwanted or surplus dogs is a major concern, concerns on the track are often lethal too. Injury rates for individual dogs are staggering. In the most recent figures cited by the Ashton inquiry, referring to the 2021-22 year, they show an injury rate of 83.2 per cent of all dogs were injured, and that is 937 out of 1,125 dogs.
This information was extracted here in our state from the Dog and Cat Management Board by the Coalition for the Protection of Greyhounds, whose analysis contrasts with the GRSA's own figures, which I guess conveniently for them are based on a published injury rate based on the number of starters, rather than the number of individual dogs. Consequently their figures show only a published injury rate of 3 per cent, based on 31,354 starters
Either way, the vast majority of dogs in the industry are injured, but GRSA's data is unable to differentiate whether these were minor injuries or catastrophic life-ending injuries. Time and again Greyhound Racing South Australia has resisted calls for transparency and openness, and refused on numerous occasions to reply to inquiries I have sent—and I imagine other entities have too— either in writing or via freedom of information, regarding the exact number of dogs killed.
However, Commissioner Ashton identified that 31 dogs had died or been euthanased as a result of on-track injuries in South Australia in the 2022-23 year alone. In New South Wales, where they have a much better traceability of dogs, as far back as 2016 it was clear that out of nearly 100,000 greyhounds bred, between 48,891 and 68,448 dogs were killed because they were deemed uncompetitive. In other words, between half to two-thirds of these dogs bred were killed because they were too slow and could not make a profit for their owners.
With South Australia seen as the end of the line for dogs considered too slow to race in the more lucrative interstate races, rates here potentially could be even worse. The lack of comprehensive data was identified by Commissioner Ashton as yet another example of how Greyhound Racing SA's processes are not up to standard, especially when compared with the New South Wales Greyhound Welfare Integrity Commission (GWIC), which publish detailed injury analysis on a quarterly basis. Indeed, Mr Ashton noted, 'there is a transparency and injury reduction need for GRSA to publish the same injury data and analysis as GWIC'.
Furthermore, there is a clear need for them to act on that by establishing an injury reduction panel to review data and introduce safeguards in response. GRSA's processes were exposed woefully through the Ashton inquiry, highlighted through detailed case studies with GRSA abjectly failing to oversee and regulate its own members appropriately time and time again, often over quite a lengthy period.
One particularly egregious case spanned 28 separate inspections over a 12-year period of repeated noncompliance. Despite receiving numerous warnings and directions for multiple, repeated breaches, including poor hygiene and cleanliness standards, pests, flies and other vermin, dirty, sodden bedding, inadequate shelter, lack of water, dangerous fencing, noncompliance with record keeping for veterinary treatments, a lack of development approval for the facility, and non-registration of the dogs with the local council, the trainer ultimately received no sanction other than a four-week suspension, which itself was then fully suspended, in fact, so that trainer did not receive a penalty at all.
Disturbingly, the commissioner noted that this was an erstwhile successful trainer whose wins had previously been promoted by the GRSA. All the case studies detailed repeated transgressions of this industry's own animal welfare policies with repeated inspections and visits resulting in only yet more warnings without there seemingly ever, or only ever rarely, being consequences of significance.
On the rare occasions when disciplinary action was actually taken, often outcomes remained unpublicised on the GRSA's website. Other incidents were revealed when the RSPCA was not notified when arguably charges could and should have been laid under the Animal Welfare Act. The case studies make for harrowing reading and one could wonder: were GRSA actually trying to lose their social licence? It is hard to imagine an organisation seemingly any more wilfully blind to its responsibility for ethical oversight and governance relating to animal welfare.
Commissioner Ashton's conclusions were brutally frank, and I quote him, 'Animal welfare is
the primary issue affecting the ongoing viability of greyhound racing in SA.' His inquiry received
nearly 600 submissions from people primarily advocating that greyhound racing be discontinued
based on animal mistreatment.
Many were supported by detailed first-hand experiences of people involved in the industry.
He noted, and again I quote him, 'the trust element of the social licence provided to greyhound racing
in SA has been significantly eroded amongst the general community because of recently publicised
animal cruelty cases'. His message was clear and unequivocal: there is an urgent need for the
greyhound industry to reform if it is to meet contemporary community expectations. The reforms
needed, Mr Ashton noted, were considerable and were dominated by welfare concerns, including
the sustainability of the GAP program
It is notable that in 2017 GRSA had commissioned its own review into governance, welfare
and integrity, known as the McGrathNicol report. While it made many sound recommendations for
reform, many were not undertaken, a situation that had not improved when in 2020 GRSA appeared
before a committee investigating the Statutes Amendments (Animal Welfare Reforms) Bill 2020, a
committee of this council.
While they undertook to that committee to improve their performance across the board,
Commissioner Ashton notes that they have not sufficiently delivered against that commitment, which
he argues raises the critical issue of transparency and independent oversight of any future reform
process. Indeed, trusting the GRSA when they say, 'Trust us,' has proven folly time and time again.
I remind the Liberal opposition, when they changed their mind on supporting the Greens
select committee back in 2016, that that press release that the Greyhound Racing SA industry
dropped to FIVEaa that morning, with fantasy wish lists of how they would do better, has never been
fulfilled. It was just a fairytale.
But I return to Mr Ashton's findings. In South Australia, he noted, we are one of only two
states not to have independent oversight of our racing codes. If the industry itself cannot reform and
clean up their act and they have lost their social licence they do not deserve to continue. As the
RSPCA stated in their submission, 'Unless the significant, entrenched animal welfare problems
inherent to the greyhound racing industry can be recognised and effectively resolved, this industry
should not be supported.' The commissioner agreed, noting that animal welfare issues he identified
must be urgently improved before the government could be assured that the industry should continue
in its current form. With that in mind I draw members' attention to recommendation 57:
Government to establish the role of an independent inspector for greyhound racing reform, to be known as
the Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector, (GIRI) which should include the features, functions, and duties set out
below.
• The GIRI should have unfettered access to GRSA systems and data to inform this work.
• The GIRI should be entirely independent of the industry…
• A greyhound racing reforms advisory group should be formed to provide professional advice to the GIRI
regarding reform progress. The skill sets of this group should comprise:
• Animal welfare expertise (independent of greyhound racing)
• Gambling regulation expertise
• Greyhound industry experience
• Sports regulation experience
• The General Manager Integrity and Welfare at GRSA should have a dual reporting line to the GIRI…to
report on welfare matters [directly] to the GIRI.
• The GIRI should determine the frequency and mode of reporting [they receive] from GRSA as to reform
progress.
The GIRI should report on a regular basis to the Minister for Racing as to reform progress, and ultimately provide a final report after two years as to their level of satisfaction with the reform progress. If a decision is made to continue greyhound racing at that point—
I repeat, 'If a decision is made to continue greyhound racing at that point' because Mr Ashton found that this industry should be given notice or be shut down—
the GIRI should express a view as to the most appropriate oversight model going forward.
Commissioner Ashton recommended after two years, only if the inspector was satisfied the reforms had been achieved should the industry be allowed to continue, with a best-practice model of oversight, something that is far from being in existence at this point. That is the challenge he has posed to this government and to Greyhound Racing SA. GRSA are on notice, two years' notice to be exact, with its previous form suggesting the industry will not change unless it is dragged kicking and screaming to do so.
But the government must also be challenged on this: why, despite the devastating findings of the Ashton inquiry and the recommendation that the only way for the industry to continue in the short term was with the oversight of an independent GIRI to drive fundamental reforms to governance and conduct and animal welfare, has it has taken over 12 months to progress this, with legislation only now here to enable the GIRI to have the full powers they need? Taking 12 months from the time of the Premier's promise is simply not good enough.
Two months after the initial announcement, Mr Sal Perna AM was officially appointed to the role of GIRI, not at Easter but on 8 July. Mr Perna had a long track record of involvement in fighting crime and corruption as a police officer and as the former inaugural Victorian Racing Integrity Commissioner from 2010 to 2021 and as the person who conducted Victoria's inquiry into live baiting in 2015. I have faith in Mr Perna, but he has already been having to do this job without the powers he needed to hit the ground running being legislated.
As a member of numerous integrity bodies, including the World Anti-Doping Agency Independent Ethics Board, Mr Perna should have the appropriate blend of integrity, ability and industry know-how, but did he have the legislative powers he needed to date and will he have the full legislative powers he needs to truly do his job should the Greens' amendments not be supported today is a question I pose to you all.
Whether the GIRI's oversight will be sufficient to ensure GRSA can address and resolve the seemingly intractable trifecta of animal welfare, integrity and governance concerns that have been endemic to the industry for so long, of course only time will tell—and we keep giving them more and more time.
The Greens will eagerly await the final report to be measured against the ultimate test: the welfare of the canine participants on whom this industry is based. In the meantime, this bill before us promises to go some way to facilitating the powers that the GIRI needs to do their job. They do not go far enough. We will support the bill today, but we will seek to amend it, to improve it. There are a number of shortcomings and deficiencies in this bill that do need to be rectified to ensure the GIRI is empowered with all the necessary tools and powers necessary to adequately equip their role in overseeing the 85 other recommendations of the Ashton inquiry that the government has committed themselves to supporting.
The Greens support the recommendation of the Ashton inquiry for a fearless independent Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector, and so we support this bill, but we will of course be introducing amendments to give the GIRI powers that they need to do their job properly. Put simply, the GIRI must not be muzzled. I will have more to add in the committee stage, but I conclude now, and I would like to acknowledge and thank the nearly 600 respondents to the Ashton inquiry and everyone who has communicated recently and over many years with my office about this issue.
I wish to particularly thank the Coalition for the Protection of Greyhounds, the RSPCA, Animals Australia, the Australian Alliance for Animals, the Law Society of South Australia's Animal Law Committee, and the Animal Justice Party, as well as so many other stakeholders and concerned individuals, including numerous greyhound owners—some rehomers, some trainers, some former trainers—who actually love their animals and want the best lives possible for them. With that, I commend the bill, but I urge members to consider the Greens' amendments seriously if we are to believe that they are serious about greyhound reform.