Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 11 September 2024.)

Mr BASHAM: Mr Acting Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Odenwalder): I sincerely hope that the member for Chaffey is seeking the call.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (17:55): Thank you, sir, I am indeed. I rise to speak and indicate that I will be the lead speaker for the opposition on this very important bill, the Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector Bill. As some would know, in about June of last year three dog trainers were handed lifetime bans for live baiting, and then in July there was leaked footage of greyhound abuse, which is absolutely unacceptable and illegal behaviour. It was clear that there were concerns within the industry and questions that needed to be answered.

An independent inquiry into the governance of the greyhound racing industry has been carried out to investigate industry operations, culture, governance and practices. That was led by Graham Ashton AM APM and Review Director Zoe Thomas. The inquiry uncovered some major issues within the industry and highlighted the urgent need for reform.

That investigation made 86 recommendations. Some examples were animal welfare, the integrity and the administration reform that was needed, better tracking of greyhounds from birth, on-track vet folders, hair testing as a regular feature of drug testing, better track safety initiatives, and improvements to the Greyhounds As Pets program.

This program has been an outstanding success over time for many people who either did not understand or wanted to better understand that greyhounds make very good pets. The nature of the dog, their temperament and the way that they become a companion very quickly cannot be overstated. I know of a number of people who have greyhounds as pets and I just want to reassure people that when these beautiful animals are relocated for a life after racing or if they do not make the cut, they are given homes. There was a survey done just recently where people were asked whether they would give up their pet for a million dollars, and it was a resounding no. This really does demonstrate the bond and the tie between a pet dog and their owner, which cannot be overstated.

Recommendation 57 was to establish an inspector for greyhound racing reform who would have unfettered access to the Greyhound Racing South Australia (GRSA) system and its data, entirely independent of the industry and the review. The inspector would receive welfare reports from GRSA and receive professional advice from an advisory group, and would provide a final report after two years as to the inspector's level of satisfaction.

There are a few questions that I will raise with the minister with regard to that. I feel as though there is some level of a grey area there with the level of satisfaction and understanding. What does that mean? Who will be the go-to? That will be, obviously, a recommendation that I would like to see upheld, that there will be a point of contact within the industry body that the inspector can go to. That will, I think, streamline and make the process much easier.

On 30 November 2023 the report was finalised, and on 14 December 2023 the government made the report public. I must say that the Premier has said an inspector would be appointed by Easter of 2024, and that gave GRSA two years to adopt the recommendation. Easter 2024 came and went. Maybe the Premier was a little busy at Gather Round.

Sitting suspended from 18:00 to 19:30.

Mr WHETSTONE: I will continue my remarks. The Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector Bill is obviously a very important bill. If I pick up where I left off, on 8 May 2024, two months late, finally the government announced Sal Perna AM as the Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector. Obviously, Sal has had a decorated career, and I will talk a little bit about him later.

However, I want to touch on my concern about the tardiness of how the government has taken quite a slow approach to implementing the inspector, getting governance into this role. On 8 July, two months after Sal Perna's appointment was announced, Sal officially commenced his role but no legislative mechanism was there to help him do his job. On 11 September 2024, another two months later, a bill was introduced—four months later, after the greyhound industry inspector was announced, and it is almost a year since the report was finalised.

It is of concern because I, too, am looking to go down the track—pardon the pun—of making sure that the industry has good governance. I am very supportive of the mechanism of having an inspector to implement the 86 recommendations because we do want to see greyhound racing continue into the future and we want to make sure that there is governance. We want to make sure that the industry is adhering to public expectations, and we want to make sure we weed out those who are doing the wrong thing within the industry.

My criticism of the whole process is that it has not been dealt with with the urgency that is expected of the government. When these perpetrators did what they did within the industry, it was reported, 'We will fix this up as quickly as possible,' but what we are now seeing is that it has been very slow on the uptake.

Sal Perna AM, the current inspector, is highly respected within the community of the greyhound industry, but he is much more than that. He has a wealth of knowledge, integrity and experience. He is a former police officer, was the Victorian Racing Integrity Commissioner from 2010 to 2021, and he conducted Victoria's inquiry into live baiting in 2015.

Currently, he is serving as an independent director of the International Tennis Integrity Agency and he is a panel member of the National Sports Tribunal. He is also a board member on the World Anti-Doping Agency Independent Ethics Board and he is on the National Basketball League Advisory Board. He has a wealth of experience and he also has a wealth of understanding of how governance should be undertaken within a sector, particularly in the greyhound racing sector.

What we are seeing now is that he has started to work closely with GRSA. I know that he has met with the minister and he has met with the Leader of the Opposition. He has hit the ground running and I think that is quite noble. But what we now need—and why we are here tonight—is to put some governance, some structure, into his role and give him the powers that he needs to uphold and adhere to the 86 recommendations in the report.

What we need to do now is establish a good working relationship with him and the industry, and make sure that within the time period allocated we can actually pick up the pieces of the industry, which is currently working as a very strong, buoyant industry, I must say. I was recently at the national long course and short track championships and the industry has grasped the notion that they need to be better behaved and they need to have better governance. I think that, by and large, with the way we are going to move forward now, we are going to see that occur. It has taken time to reach out, but what we are seeing now is that with all the formalities being put behind us, it is great to see that he now has a working relationship with industry and he has a working relationship, obviously, with the minister.

I think we need to better understand what this bill will mean. The Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector Bill introduces important powers for the industry and it sets out offences and penalties for the controlling authority. As an opposition, we want to see the recommendations enacted as efficiently and quickly as possible and supported by the industry body in principle. I have met with Brenton Scott, the CEO of GRSA, and Grantley Stevens, the Chair. They are both passionate advocates not only for their industry but for the governance of greyhound racing here in South Australia.

Some of the conversations that we have had with the greyhound industry, particularly with the chair and the CEO and the inspector, have been they would like to see a little bit more work done. They would like to see a liaison officer established to ensure that the recommendations can be implemented as efficiently as possible. I think that is common practice for companies to appoint a lead contact to work alongside government agencies, so I would urge the minister and her department to give serious consideration to having a lead so that Sal can actually go to a contact point.

I do not want to see a scattergun approach. I do not want to see us not knowing who is where, whether it is contacting the CE, the chair, a volunteer or officials. We have to have a point of contact to streamline what is going to be done and give the inspector the powers that he needs to make it stick and make sure that the industry is held to account, but in a respectful way.

The powers are necessary, but they also need to be quite carefully scrutinised and questioned. I also want to put on the record that they are far-reaching powers that will give the industry extensive access to Greyhound Racing SA's systems, documents and information. It even lets the industry inspectors speak to staff. I do not like the words that they have the capacity to break into premises with the authority of a warrant, and heavy fines of up to $10,000 for a noncompliant employee.

It is also worrying how far the definition of 'employees' reaches. How far? Are we talking about employees on a gate? Are we talking about employees working in the stalls? Is it employees working in training facilities? Is it talking about volunteers? I think there needs to be some level of clarity there. Does it extend to contractors who have previously worked within the industry?

I think we need to be very careful that we have people who have the industry at heart rather than the industry that has some baggage, because no matter what sport it is, no matter what industry it is, we have to make sure that the inspector is given the information that he needs by credible authorities or by credible employees, so I think it is vital that the process is carried out very carefully. Also the liaison would definitely help to ease concerns particularly with volunteers within the greyhound community.

I have talked to a number of volunteers within the sector and they are quite scared that they will be approached, they will be forcibly asked to provide information when it does not need to go that far. I think we need to make sure that industry are prepared to hand over information, calmly, concisely, and that could be done via the liaison to the inspector. At the end of the day this is about implementing all of the recommendations of the report.

I do not want to see excessive force used, I do not want to see intimidation used, but, most of all, I do not want to see the volunteers within that industry be turned away or be turned off doing the great work that they do. One thing that I picked up very early coming into this portfolio is that the majority of the industry is buoyed by passionate people who are there for the good of the industry. They are not there to support bad behaviour, they are not there to support the wrongdoing that has brought this report to the front. I think it is really important that the industry be a thriving sport.

I think it needs to have a bright future but it will not be without its challenges. Establishing an independent inspector or the greyhound industry racing inspector is very important. I have already noted a number of times that the inspector has credibility but I want to make sure that the government, the inspector, and the industry are working together in quite a cordial fashion. What we have seen over a long period of time has been that the bad within the industry are getting the headlines rather than the people who are good for the industry, and they are putting a slur on an industry that has been around for many decades and I think it should continue to be.

It is about ensuring the industry is clean and safe, it is about giving greyhound racing the opportunity to be an honourable and respected sport in our state, promoting an industry that can continue to be enjoyed by all South Australians. I urge anyone, whether you are a racegoer or you have some level of inquisitiveness, to go along and have a look at what greyhound racing is about. I think you should just to evaluate what a great industry it is.

So Sal now has the task ahead of implementing the remaining 85 recommendations and I am committed to working with him, working with the government and working with the industry to see greyhound racing continue as a valued sport here in South Australia. The industry has been there with very good animal welfare, very good governance of an industry but it has been slurred by a minority within the industry. That is why we are where we are today.

So the inspector has a role to play. It is about reforming the sector, it is about reforming the industry and making sure that it has credibility when they go to government looking for a level of funding or a level of support. When people go to those race meetings, they know that it is an industry, it is a sport that has credibility and very good governance.

Without further ado, I look forward to progressing this bill and making sure that the Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector Bill is passed with good governance and with careful consideration by the government, making sure that the industry is not intimidated at every step of the way.

Ms O'HANLON (Dunstan) (19:45): I, too, rise to speak on the Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector Bill 2024. As has been well canvassed in the speeches by other members thus far, this bill was created, in effect, as part of the government's response to the outrageous and highly disturbing treatment of greyhounds revealed in footage which emerged last year. This followed earlier cases of greyhound trainers being found guilty of live baiting and subsequently receiving life bans.

As someone who has owned dogs all my life, both as pets and working dogs on my farm, I cannot fathom the need, let alone the want, to treat dogs in this way. Dogs by their very nature want to please their owners and will do their best to do what they think it is you want them to do. I think you can attest to that, Mr Speaker, with your beautiful kelpie.

I also had several rehomed greyhounds in my life a few years ago when my eldest son adopted the beautiful Evie who loved nothing more than curling up in a ball on the sofa like a giant cat and sleeping for hours on end. When Evie did decide to unfurl herself, she loved to be taken to the park or the beach to stretch those beautiful long legs and to play with other dogs—gentle, no matter how their size compared to her. After Evie was the equally delightful, though shy, Scout. We always wondered whether Scout had been mistreated because she was such a timid and unsure though no less delightful dog.

In addition to this, there are many people in my electorate who have adopted these beautiful creatures and who even pop into my office from time to time to say hello, like Marg and Fred, who have brought in the delightful Baily to say hello on many an occasion.

In my mind, it is always a blight on an industry that involves animals that they require a gamekeeper or an overseer to ensure they behave in an ethical and humane manner, but here we are. This bill establishes a greyhound industry reform inspector to oversee the implementation of the recommendations from the Independent Inquiry into the Governance of the Greyhound Racing Industry in South Australia.

The report recommended significant animal welfare and integrity reforms, including the inspector, which will be established as a result of this bill. Minister Hildyard has already announced Mr Sal Perna AM has been appointed to that role, and it certainly seems as though it was a coup that South Australia was able to secure Mr Perna and all the recent relevant expertise he brings to the role, not to mention his other sporting integrity roles that add to the breadth of his knowledge.

This bill is time-limited and will expire at the end of the reform period. The minister has already pointed out that Greyhound Racing SA have been cooperative during this process, and I have no doubt that will be relieving news to the many people in my community who know and love these sleek and graceful animals, who love to run but deserve the very best treatment and care for their troubles.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (19:48): I rise to make a contribution to the Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector Bill 2024. Certainly, I have had a bit to do with greyhounds, not that I am much of a betting man as was proven Friday night, but we have a reasonably new greyhound track in Murray Bridge which I believe is world-class. Well over $8 million has been invested, not just in the oval-shaped track but in the straight track, which is certainly another form of racing that alleviates the stress on the dogs as well.

Certainly that has been my experience with attending events in Murray Bridge, and I note that there are tracks at Mount Gambier and Gawler, and also obviously at Angle Park where the big races are held. I have gone to many a race there. We only had the cup there the other night. On Friday night the minister and I were there and we were involved in the presentations. The cup event has always been quite a bipartisan event at Angle Park, the greyhound cup, whether I have been in opposition or government, which is a good thing.

I think generally there is a lot of support for the greyhound industry. Grantley Stevens at the top does a great job, and there has been some great entertainment. It supports a lot of punters and people involved in greyhound racing who do not have the wherewithal to get into the thoroughbred horses. You can see when you talk to them they get a real buzz about looking after their dogs and training them up to see their success.

But, as has been highlighted, there have been some indiscretions and this has led to where we are now. Certainly a couple of years ago there was some live baiting. We had the place where a trainer—actually, in my electorate—was filmed by a drone and someone on that property was caught abusing a dog. That sort of treatment of any animal should not be tolerated. My understanding is the trainer involved in that was fined around a quarter of a million dollars, and so they should have been.

What I am saying is, in the light of all these disciplinary matters that have had to happen—and a few trainers have had life bans, and this person got a life ban because of these quite distinct indiscretions, and so they should have. But Greyhound Racing SA knows they are on notice. They are keen to follow all these recommendations and to get on with the job to make sure that this sport can stay alive and well in South Australia. They know they have got a lot of work to do and they have committed to do it and they have gone through a distinct process so far, but whether or not any more of this legislative framework came into play? I know from talking to the board, talking to the Chair of Greyhound Racing SA, they are committed to making sure they keep the industry in the right frame of mind and the right management of dogs.

Certainly when you look at the welfare of greyhounds, and greyhounds at the end of their sporting life and the greyhound rehoming program, they have taken some quite novel ways to do that. The members of the public can rehome a greyhound and many, many people do that. I think in the last year they said there were 500 that had been rehomed. Certainly it is something that is also conducted through the prison system; used therapeutically for the prisoners. I have been in Mobilong at times to see what is going on for various meetings—I always got out voluntarily, of course. They can hold about 16 greyhounds at a time. They are allotted to prisoners and they go through a program for a certain amount of time and look after these greyhounds. I think it is good for both the prisoners and the dogs. There are a lot of ways that the greyhound industry looks at looking after their dogs that are not racing any more. This legislation was introduced on 11 September by the minister, Minister Hildyard.

On 30 November 2023, the report of the Independent Inquiry into the Governance of the Greyhound Racing Industry was released. That was conducted by the former Victorian police commissioner, Mr Graham Ashton AM APM, and Review Director Ms Zoe Thomas. Certainly, at some of these events that I have attended I have met Graham Ashton.

The inquiry made a total of 86 recommendations, all of which are to be implemented by Greyhound Racing South Australia within two years following the appointment of a greyhound industry reform inspector. That certainly has happened. Mr Sal Perna AM was announced as the Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector in May and officially commenced his role on 8 July. Mr Perna has a wealth of integrity and experience within both the racing industry and international sporting organisations, including serving as Victoria's Racing Integrity Commissioner from 2010 to 2021 and conducting an inquiry into live baiting in Victorian greyhound racing in 2015.

As others have mentioned today in the debate, Greyhound Racing South Australia have been fully cooperative throughout the inquiry and the appointment of the inspector. Previous to now there has not been a legislative requirement, even though Greyhound Racing South Australia are keen to go through the recommendations that compel the greyhound industry to cooperate with the Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector.

The main purpose of this bill is to establish a greyhound industry reform inspector to oversee Greyhound Racing South Australia's implementation of the recommendations of the inquiry. The bill also manages and governs the inspector's functions and powers, the assignment of staff and the inspector's final report and the expiry of the act.

The bill requires that the inspector be independent of Greyhound Racing South Australia and not involved in the greyhound racing industry, not involved in the inquiry and not accept any office or role relating to greyhound racing within or outside South Australia.

The inspector's main functions are to oversee the implementation of the inquiry's recommendations, receive reports from Greyhound Racing South Australia regarding integrity and welfare, facilitate collaboration between Greyhound Racing South Australia and the minister, gather information relating to greyhound racing and Greyhound Racing South Australia and provide progress reports to the minister.

The inspector, or an authorised officer who has been appointed to the inspector, has the powers to:

require Greyhound Racing South Australia to provide information or documents or to attend meetings;

enter a premises or vehicle owned or operated by Greyhound Racing South Australia (and this is a bit contentious) or break into a premises or vehicle on the authority of a warrant.

I think we will have some questions about that during the committee stage because it sounds like the powers that are related to licensing matters with the commercial fishing industry. The inspector also has power to:

inspect and search the place and copy and retain documents; and

require any person in the place to answer any questions and to produce any documents that are in the person's custody or control.

Certainly, there is a range of offences that the bill sets out with the appropriate penalties:

failure to provide documentation or information or attend a meeting without reasonable excuse: $10,000;

hindrance or obstruction of the inspector or an authorised officer without reasonable excuse: $10,000;

failure to answer questions put by the inspector or authorised officer to the best of a person's knowledge or belief: $10,000;

failure to comply with any lawful requirement or direction of the inspector or authorised officer: $10,000;

use of abusive, threatening or insulting language towards the inspector or an authorised officer or a person assisting either: $10,000;

impersonating an authorised officer by word or conduct: $5,000;

divulgence, communication or use of confidential information: $10,000; and

providing false or misleading statements or information: $10,000 or imprisonment for two years.

The inspector is required to submit a final report to the minister on Greyhound Racing South Australia's implementation of the inquiry recommendations within the two-year reform period or at a later date that could be allowed by the minister. I am sure that would be through consultation with both the inspector and the industry as to where everyone is at, and I would like to think that there is a bit of free play there in case there are a couple of things that need ironing out but the industry is well on the way to getting these in place.

Once the final report has been tabled, the minister may set a date for the act to expire. As I said, hopefully if we need that extension it can be put in place so that Greyhound Racing South Australia can do a few things they may need to do if that extension of time is needed.

Greyhound Racing South Australia have made their own submission to the Office for Recreation, Sport and Racing, noting their support in principle for the bill in establishing a Greyhound Racing South Australia liaison officer to facilitate the supply of information and documents between Greyhound Racing South Australia and the inspector and amending section 11 of the bill to extend to civil proceedings.

Section 11 lends to protecting a person who is required to produce a document or answer questions that may be self-incriminating from having the fact of producing said documents or providing answers to questions used as evidence in proceedings for an offence or imposition of a penalty, with the exception of proceedings regarding false or misleading statements. We understand that section 11 already extends to all proceedings, including civil.

As I have indicated, I have a lot to do with Grantley Stevens, the Chairman of Greyhound Racing South Australia. He has noted his support for the bill but obviously wants time for the industry to get used to the regulation and make sure they keep the greyhound industry on track.

In regard to their new chief executive officer, Brenton Scott, he has 30 years' experience in the greyhound industry throughout Queensland and New South Wales. He is a top operator in the field of managing the greyhound industry wherever he operates, and I really commend his appointment within the greyhound industry in South Australia. Between Brenton Scott, Grantley Stevens and the board I believe they will keep the commitments to put these recommendations in place.

One of those reasons is that Brenton Scott was involved in the issue in New South Wales where greyhound racing was banned for quite a while. He went through the process of getting the industry back on track. There was a huge political backlash in New South Wales in regard to the ban on greyhound racing in New South Wales, and it has certainly had a ripple effect through that state and caused quite the political upheaval.

I acknowledge the bill and I acknowledge its intent, but I hope things can be worked through in a workable manner and that we have great work between the inspector and the industry through the liaison officer. I would like to think that we will not get to the stage where we have to have people's homes broken into, even though it may be legislated if this bill goes through unamended, but we will see how that goes.

I went to a couple of functions recently when South Australia and the greyhound industry hosted the greyhound nationals with people involved in the industry from right across the nation. It was great to catch up with everyone at both of those events here in Adelaide. Certainly, Adelaide knows how to put on a show. I think everyone was impressed at the professional way greyhound racing is conducting itself, the professional way they conducted that national get-together.

I believe that they have the true professionalism to work through all the inquiry's recommendations and get the job right, because they know there is a high price to pay if they do not. They know there is a very high price to pay if they do not get this right, and so they know that they must comply with these recommendations and work through the process.

We just cannot have rogue operators in the business, because that will destroy the industry in South Australia. I take my hat off to what the greyhound racing industry already has done, with lifetime bans on trainers who have done the wrong thing. Apart from lifetime bans, there are very, very sizable penalties—and so they should have.

Greyhound Racing South Australia are deadly serious. They want to keep this industry flourishing in South Australia. I know from talking to the board, talking to Grantley, talking to Brenton and others, that they will be doing their utmost to make sure that the greyhounds can be running around these tracks for many years to come.

I look forward to the debate. I know we will be going into the committee stage and we will work through some of these issues, just to get an insight to how far-reaching some of these powers will be, under warrants especially. I think this can be implemented in the right way. The greyhound industry has certainly acknowledged they have had some issues in the past, but they will do their absolute utmost to make sure that the industry flourishes into the future.

Ms HOOD (Adelaide) (20:07): I rise in support of the Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector Bill 2024. I echo the comments of the member for Dunstan, having also grown up on a farm, where we had our beloved working dogs, border collies and kelpies, Jam and Meg and Perkins. They were not just colleagues; they were friends and they were family members. I strongly believe that racing dogs, just like working dogs, deserve respect, care and compassion.

That is what this bill does, by providing the required powers to ensure the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into the Governance of the Greyhound Racing Industry can be effectively overseen and to ensure government is able to determine if the industry is sufficiently reformed over this two-year period.

The independent inquiry, led by former Victorian police commissioner Graham Ashton, was a necessary response to concerning footage that appeared to show the mistreatment of greyhounds on a South Australian property. The ABC story resulted in two trainers being suspended and investigations launched by the RSPCA and Greyhound Racing South Australia. Mr Ashton was tasked with undertaking a comprehensive review of the industry's operations, culture and governance; the nature and efficacy of the current model of regulation; and the relationship, if any, between that model and the operation, culture, governance and practices of the industry.

Mr Ashton's independent system-level assessment led to the release of the inquiry report in December last year, with 57 recommendations. An additional 29 recommendations were included from Greyhound Racing SA, the RSPCA and the Animal Justice Party, which the Malinauskas government accepted in principle, recognising the importance of these reforms.

The recommendations included better tracking of greyhounds from birth, the implementation of an on-track vet folder, hair testing as a more regular feature of drug testing, better track safety initiatives like increased straight track racing, and improvements to the Greyhounds As Pets program.

After two years, that inspector will make a recommendation to the government about whether the industry should continue. Among the critical recommendations was the important establishment of the Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector (GIRI), a role that will be instrumental in the implementation of these reforms. The inspector's role involves developing and maintaining relationships with the relevant parties, convening a greyhound racing reform advisory group for professional guidance and regularly reporting to the Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing on the progress of the reform implementation. This role is vital as we evolve the industry in line with community expectations.

Importantly, this work is already underway, with Mr Sal Perna formally starting in his position on 8 July 2024. Mr Perna brings a wealth of experience and a deep commitment to integrity in sport, having served as Victoria's inaugural Racing Integrity Commissioner, whose previous inquiry into live baiting in greyhound racing in Victoria demonstrates his dedication to industry reform. The former police officer is also a member of the National Sports Tribunal and World Anti-Doping Agency's Independent Ethics Board.

Mr Perna will regularly report to the Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing, with the final report due two years from his appointment. While Mr Perna started in the role almost three months ago, it is important to note that until now there had been no legislative mechanism to compel Greyhound Racing South Australia to cooperate with the role. This bill seeks to address this gap, granting the inspector the necessary powers to ensure effective oversight of the industry as it seeks to address the inquiry's recommendations.

The provisions outlined in this bill will define the independence and functions of the inspector, allowing for the gathering of information, inspection of premises and penalties for noncompliance. This will enable a collaborative environment, where the inspector can work alongside Greyhound Racing SA and industry stakeholders to enhance the welfare of greyhounds and rebuild public trust. As we move forward, it is also important to recognise that Greyhound Racing SA has been cooperative throughout this process.

In conclusion, this bill ensures the inspector has the tools they need to undertake the necessary oversight of Greyhound Racing South Australia and greyhound racing industry stakeholders, as they work to address identified issues, improve the welfare of greyhounds and generate public confidence in their efforts, the sport and its future. In a nutshell, the industry has two years to clean itself up. In closing, I wholeheartedly agree with Mr Perna and echo his statement that it 'goes without saying that the welfare of greyhounds must be a priority, not just their racing ability'. With those comments, I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD (Reynell—Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Women and the Prevention of Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (20:12): Can I firstly say thank you very much to everybody who has spoken in this debate. First of all, to my friends and colleagues on this side of the house, the member for Dunstan and the member for Adelaide, thank you for your very thoughtful and considered contributions. Thank you very much to the member for Chaffey, the shadow spokesperson for racing, and also of course the member for Hammond, the assistant shadow spokesperson for racing.

I was listening to all of your collective remarks and I think there were a number of points that were made that speak to an alliance of thought, first of all about the acknowledgement of the awful things that we all witnessed and the absolute need for this inquiry that the government acted swiftly to establish. That was conducted by Mr Graham Ashton, assisted by Ms Zoe Thomas, both of whom, as I said in my second reading speech, did an extraordinary and very thorough job to set out the 86 recommendations and to look very closely at what needed to change.

As I said, we were very happy with the work of Mr Ashton and Ms Thomas, and I am also very pleased that we have found a person of the calibre of Mr Sal Perna to now perform the role of Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector. Again, I was very pleased to hear alignment of thought across the chamber about Mr Perna's calibre, appropriateness and the experience that he will bring to this role, so I am very glad there is agreement about that.

I note that I think there is a collective desire to make sure that the inquiry progresses well and fulsomely and in an effective and efficient manner, so I am glad that there is a shared desire for that to happen. I note that there are some questions that have been broadly flagged by the member for Chaffey and I look forward to responding to those questions and then continuing with the work ahead.

Again, thank you very much to all the speakers and thank you so much to the incredible staff who are here from the Office for Recreation, Sport and Racing. Kylie Taylor, the CEO, is very well known to people in this place and just last year, Mr Speaker, you would be aware, marked 30 years of dedication in the Public Service to the Office for Recreation, Sport and Racing. That is extraordinary service and I know that everybody in this place absolutely agrees that she is an outstanding CEO and an incredible supporter of sport, rec and racing in this state. So thank you to the team from ORSR and thank you to the team from my office as well. I can more formally introduce everybody when we get started on committee.

The SPEAKER: Thank you, minister. I would like to add my support, too, having been the Minister for Sport and having worked with Kylie Taylor, who is a fantastic person to work with. I am sure members on both sides have had a good experience working with Kylie Taylor over the years. It is good to see you in here.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

Mr WHETSTONE: Clause 4, (3)(a) provides that:

(3) The Inspector—

(a) must be independent of the controlling authority and not involved in the greyhound racing industry;

What does 'involved' mean within the industry?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: As I said, I think we all agree about the calibre of Sal Perna. I am sure that you would have seen his record and I know the member for Hammond spoke about that in his contribution. He is an extraordinary person, so I will not go back into that record and previous roles held, etc., but what is really important to note—and this goes to the substance of your question—is that we wanted to make sure that the Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector was completely not involved and completely independent of the greyhound racing industry. Certainly, as you would see from the roles, including the role inquiring into the Victorian industry, he has upheld that independence, lack of involvement and lack of connection in that way to the industry throughout all the roles that he has undertaken. So we are very confident that in appointing Mr Perna, he certainly fulfils in spades that desire to not be involved, to be independent of the industry.

Mr WHETSTONE: The reason for the question is that obviously subclause (3)(a) says 'must be independent of the controlling authority and not involved in the greyhound racing industry' and yet Mr Perna has been involved in the greyhound racing industry as an inspector in Victoria, so I am just wanting clarity. Subclause (3)(a) says 'not involved' with the greyhound industry at all and yet he has been involved with the sector within Victoria.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Just to clarify, he is not currently involved in any way in the industry and, again, I do not think I need to go into the qualifications or the roles that he has held that clearly demonstrate his ability to display and operate with independence and integrity, so he is certainly not currently involved.

Mr WHETSTONE: Clause 4(3)(c) states 'must not accept any office or role relating to greyhound racing in this or another jurisdiction'. Is the role of Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector not regarded as a role relating to greyhound racing in this jurisdiction? I am just looking for some clarity because (3)(c) of 'must not accept any office or role relating', having been involved in the greyhound industry previously. So for clarity, (3)(c) says 'must not accept any office or role relating' to the industry.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: If I am understanding the question correctly, what (3)(c) seeks to do is to make sure that once a person is the inspector that they do not accept any office or role relating to greyhound racing in either our or any other jurisdiction, and we can all be abundantly confident and clear that as the Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector, Mr Perna has not and nor will there be any intention whatsoever to accept any such role in this jurisdiction or another jurisdiction. I am absolutely confident that that will not be an issue that will need to be dealt with. I am very confident that on accepting the role as inspector he will not be taking on any other role or office.

Mr WHETSTONE: I accept that and I am on that page but I am looking at the legislation and what it states there, and I think it really does contradict the current situation. I am not here to obstruct but I just want to make sure that we are clear, the industry is clear, and Mr Perna has a clear set of guidelines that the role he is undertaking will not be compromised by his former role in Victoria or his former role as being part of the industry.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Just to be really clear, clause 4(3)(c) or clause 4(3) in its entirety refers to what the inspector can or cannot do. Obviously as per our media release on 8 May, Mr Perna was appointed as the inspector, and as I think you or the member for Hammond pointed out he commenced formally on 8 July as the inspector. On taking on that role as inspector, it is the expectation that he will not take on any other role or office as set out in 4(3)(c). If this helps, member for Chaffey, obviously as the inspector he has a role. Obviously, he has been appointed as the inspector so, to be really clear, there is an expectation: while he is the inspector, he will not take on another role or office in this jurisdiction, or another role relating to greyhound racing.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

Mr WHETSTONE: Referring to clause 5(1)(a), how will the inspector assess the implementation of the recommendations? Will there be a metric? Will there be KPIs? What will the dynamic be for how these recommendations are implemented?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: As the member is aware, recommendation 57 sets up the Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector to oversee progress on the 86 recommendations from the Graham Ashton inquiry. As I am sure the member is aware, amongst the 86 recommendations are a number of recommendations that make it abundantly clear that either something is done or not, something is progressed or not, something is changed in a policy or not. So there are a number of things that anybody will be able to very quickly ascertain whether or not a particular recommendation is complete. Of course, Mr Perna's role is to look at those recommendations.

Also, he has been appointed under recommendation 57 as the inspector to oversee the progress on all the recommendations. We have appointed him with his significant expertise in sports integrity, in policing and in a range of other matters because we trust that he will apply his judgement and experience to ascertain whether or not sufficient progress has been made on other recommendations that are not simply a yes or no 'this has been done', to satisfy him as the inspector and to satisfy, of course, our community through his judgement that a particular recommendation has progressed as it should.

Mr WHETSTONE: Just touching on that, if Mr Perna is satisfied that a recommendation is complete and you are not, will you override Mr Perna?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Can I just check which clause you are talking about?

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Odenwalder): We are on clause 5.

Mr WHETSTONE: That is the same clause, clause 5(1)(a).

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: As per the Ashton inquiry and the recommendations pertaining to that inquiry, as I said, recommendation 57 requires that a greyhound industry reform inspector is established. That has happened and inherent in that role is an independence to assess whether or not particular recommendations are fulfilled, completed, etc. That is not a process that I can—nor should I, nor would I—override. It is up to him to deliberate and to assess whether recommendations are completed as they should be.

I refer to a comment from the member for Hammond. Once the period of two years is complete and the Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector has made all of those judgements and assessed the progress of particular recommendations, then of course it is up to the government to hear about that progress and consider that progress and think about community expectations in terms of the progress that has been made.

I think the member for Hammond articulated well that the industry is aware of the need to progress particular recommendations, to look at how they are working to make sure that they are meeting their obligations and progressing those recommendations as they should and then there will be particular judgements made about that progress. It is, though, the Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector who has that power independently to assess whether or not particular recommendations are progressing as they should. That is his remit. Once that is complete, obviously judgements will be made.

Mr PEDERICK: Following up on that and just having a bit more of a discussion around the two-year period, I think it would be beneficial if there was perhaps a report brought to the parliament at the two-year timeframe so we could all have a bit of a look at the stage it is up to, because obviously it is a very sensitive matter we are dealing with here. If there needs to be an extension of time—we are going to have an election in between; you are the minister now and I think perhaps we would need a commitment wherever we are with this stage of compliance, and I know, as I said in my speech, the greyhound industry will do their best—will there be a report brought back to the parliament at the two-year stage for an update?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I think that the concerns that you raise, member for Hammond, are right. We do not want anybody to be surprised. There needs to be some fulsome communication about how things are progressing. What I can tell you is that actually I believe that Mr Perna will more regularly provide particular reports about progress—I think much more regularly than waiting for that two years. I understand that he is working through what form that will take, but I can tell you that I understand there is an intention to produce reports on a more regular basis, for exactly the reasons that you just spoke about. We do not want anybody to be surprised. We want to be continually looking and thinking about that progress. We want the industry to be continually looking at their progress, or not, and we want the community to understand how particular recommendations are progressing. Can I add something that might be helpful?

Mr PEDERICK: That was helpful. I am just going to seek a bit more clarity, though. So those reports that he lodges will be entirely public?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: That is my understanding, and the reason—if it sounds like there is any hesitation—is, again, he is independent. I understand that he will be publishing reports. I am not sure if he will make decisions about particular content, etc., and about how or in what form that is published, but there is an intention to publish progress reports in the form that he chooses.

The thing that I was going to add that may be helpful, is I am very happy to provide to yourself and to the member for Chaffey information when it is completely clarified with me about how that will happen.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

Mr WHETSTONE: I move on to clause 6, under 'staff'. Minister, can you give me or the chamber an understanding of how many staff will be assigned to the inspector?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: There are two staff currently from the Office for Recreation, Sport and Racing who have been assigned to work alongside Mr Perna. I just checked with the chief executive and they may be a little less than full-time each. I can certainly again clarify exactly how many hours, but two staff.

The other important point to note, of course, is that Ms Taylor as the Chief Executive Officer of the Office for Recreation, Sport and Racing, as would any chief executive obviously, through those staff will provide any appropriate support, resource, etc. So that is another resource, if you like, as well as those two staff.

Clause passed.

Clause 7.

Mr WHETSTONE: Moving on to clause 7(1), for what reasons might the minister or the inspector have to delegate functions?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: For very, very practical reasons is the short answer. For instance, if there were a circumstance where he needed to inspect two particular premises on a particular day because that is when the owners of those premises were available and it was literally impossible for him, for instance, to be in two places at once, he may delegate to one of those staff members to go and provide a document, if that was what was required, or to inspect in some other way, if that was what was required. So for very, very practical reasons to ensure that he can continue to fulfill his role and to work with the industry to do so.

Mr WHETSTONE: Would any delegate have the power to further delegate a function, or in what case would the functions need to be further delegated?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: No is the short answer. A delegate could not delegate. Of course, the inspector may delegate to both of those staff members at any given time but a delegate cannot further delegate a particular function or power.

Clause passed.

Clause 8.

Mr WHETSTONE: Moving on to clause 8(1), will the government consider working with GRSA to appoint a designated internal liaison officer as a first point of contact for this section?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I will try to keep this short. The first point of contact, as you would understand, is the chief executive officer. I know that Mr Perna is speaking with the chief executive officer to gain particular access to information: records, minutes of meetings, etc. Also, we want to ensure that the inspector has unfettered access to information, so from time to time there would also be an expectation that there will be an ability for the inspector to also speak with other particular personnel in the organisation so that we never have a situation where one person alone is a gatekeeper in terms of providing particular information.

Mr WHETSTONE: Minister, that was not really what the question was asking. It was about a first point of contact—so having a delegate who can be a first point of contact for Mr Perna who then can either delegate or refer the inquiry on.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: We do not want, and it is my understanding that the inspector does not want, to create a situation where there is a filtering of information through one person. I am not suggesting that is for any purpose that is untoward, but when you have only one source of information of course other sources could be inadvertently missed.

What the report does say, as I said, is the chief executive is a key point of contact for the inspector. There will be other points of contact also so that that situation does not arise where there is not that unfettered access to information. What the report also says is that there needs to be a line of reporting to the integrity and welfare officer as well, so there is also in place that point of contact and, again, the other points of contact that sit around or underneath those particular points of contact. I hope that answers your question.

Mr WHETSTONE: Thank you, minister. Just one small point of clarity there on a 'further point of contact'. You have your lead point of contact, potentially the CEO, and there might be others who will be called upon. How do you categorise a volunteer within the industry? Would that be a point of contact?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Again, it is a really important point. There are circumstances where a volunteer in the industry will have really important information, potentially. For instance, what comes to mind for me is a volunteer in the GAP program operating in a particular environment. They may have really important information that would be of interest to the GIRI.

I acknowledge that; however, I would also say that a volunteer would not be that primary or first point of contact. That does not mean that there would not be a need after that first point of contact to request to see—or whichever way Mr Perna chooses to interact with—a volunteer. There is certainly an acknowledgement that there may be a need to do that, but not as the first point of contact.

Clause passed.

Clause 9.

Mr WHETSTONE: Clause 9, if I may, subclause (1)(a): in what event would the inspector or his staff need to personally break into a GRSA premise or vehicle?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: As you can see, the first part of clause 9(1)(a) speaks about having a warrant ordered by a magistrate to be able to, as you said, break into premises, etc. I cannot predict every circumstance, of course—none of us can. What I would imagine may come into play in that particular situation is where, for instance, the inspector has gone out to a particular premises, there is no-one there, it is all locked up and there is clearly a dog at risk inside a building.

That is a circumstance that I can think of. There may be others that we cannot contemplate, because they are not yet known, but again only the inspector, that person of character and integrity with that experience, only with a warrant issued by a magistrate, would ever be able to be in that situation where they may have to exercise that judgement.

Mr WHETSTONE: Just to clarify that: will there be any requirement for SAPOL or any other authority to be present should a magistrate issue a warrant for a seizure of information?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: We did consult with SAPOL, and it is their expectation that in that particular circumstance, or other similar circumstances that we have not yet predicted, they would attend with the inspector for that particular purpose.

Mr PEDERICK: Just further on that, there is similar legislation involving the commercial fishing industry. Does this action to entry, obviously under the use of a warrant, mimic that power of entry that is involved in the commercial fishing industry?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Member for Hammond, I am not quite sure exactly. I trust what you are saying. I just do not have that particular clause in that particular act in front of me to provide deeper commentary, but I can say that this particular set of circumstances was modelled on the Animal Welfare Act. That does not mean that the act to which you are referring is not the original place from which both of those provisions were modelled. I am not sure.

Clause passed.

Clause 10.

Mr WHETSTONE: Clause 10, paragraph (b) says 'fails to answer a question to the best of the person's belief'. How will a person's belief be determined?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: That particular provision is modelled on the Animal Welfare Act, the Dog and Cat Management Act and also—I would not say similar—on legislation about similar topics in other jurisdictions. I am very happy to get more information about how that particular clause has been interpreted in those contexts if that is helpful.

Clause passed.

Clause 11.

Mr WHETSTONE: I refer to clause 11(2). As a company, GRSA, its board of directors and employees can be subject to civil proceedings. Does that section extend to civil proceedings? Can it be subject to civil proceedings? Does it extend to civil proceedings, so a prosecution?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Member for Chaffey, I am just trying to be helpful. I know you are asking the questions, but I just want to clarify what sort of civil proceedings you had in mind that will enable me to more fulsomely answer the question.

Mr WHETSTONE: It does say in clause 11(2), 'If compliance by an individual with a requirement under this Act...' Its board of directors and employees can be subject to civil proceedings, but if there is a 'subject to civil proceedings' does that extend to implementing civil proceedings on an individual or the body?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I am not being difficult; I am just making sure I am understanding. That particular clause is in relation to compliance by an individual with a requirement under this act. I know, as you would know very well, boards of directors also, as well as being aware of their particular obligations under this act, have a whole series of other obligations.

Mr WHETSTONE: If there are civil proceedings against an individual—

The Hon. K.A. Hildyard interjecting:

Mr WHETSTONE: No, but an individual within the organisation—can those civil proceedings extend to the organisation? You have an individual having civil proceedings against him or her. Can that extend and roll in to the organisation also having civil proceedings taken against the body or the entity?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Again, I am really hoping I am getting to the right point. As you would be aware, directors of companies have particular insurance in relation to their decisions, etc. If they are acting within their duties—for instance, as a director of GRSA—then of course they are covered, I imagine, in terms of the decision as long as it is within their particular role as an individual. If that individual were to do something, provide something, etc., that was outside of those duties relating to, for instance, GRSA, I think that is an entirely different matter. Are you asking: if a director, for instance, is held accountable for a particular action, as well as the director having particular responsibility, does the whole entity also take responsibility?

Mr WHETSTONE: Yes.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: The short answer is that I think it depends on what they do. Company law says: are they operating as an individual solely making decisions with their own processes to come up with a particular decision or are they operating collectively as a board? So I think those same principles would apply.

Mr WHETSTONE: Just for clarity, it is about: does one person's action drag the whole organisation into civil proceedings? I am happy with that.

Clause passed.

Clauses 12 to 17 passed.

Clause 18.

Mr WHETSTONE: Minister, as I understand it, GRSA has two years to implement the recommendations, or Mr Perna has two years to implement the recommendations. Does that time period begin when the act commences, or has it already begun?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: It is from when the Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector, Mr Perna, formally commenced in his role, which was 8 July this year. So the two years commences from that time.

Mr WHETSTONE: How much later would the minister allow that final report to be submitted, should the 86 recommendations not be fully implemented? Is there some wriggle room, or is there a hard line on the implementation?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: The short answer is that the expectation is that this process is two years. However, I go back to the answer to your very first question about Mr Perna making particular judgements, etc., and reporting on those judgements as to progress in relation to particular recommendations. We do have that provision that there may be a later date as the minister may allow but, again, I say two years.

However, if I have a report—and, again, hypothetically—on 7 July 2026 that says 85 of the 86 recommendations (this is hypothetical) are complete but the rehoming facility is in its final stage of construction and we anticipate that that is in two months, well, of course, there is a reasonableness. However, if we got to 7 July and the report says, 'Actually there are a whole lot of things that have not progressed,' that would be a very different story.

So two years—we are firm about that. I would anticipate, with a great deal of trust in the judgement of Mr Perna, two years. If the report is saying everything is progressing and it is very far progressed, as it should be, but there is one thing that is just about to finish, of course there is a reasonableness, but two years is where we want to be.

Mr PEDERICK: Just on that—and I did talk about this before, and certainly everyone wants the best animal welfare outcomes here, including the greyhound racing industry, and I know it is hard because things may move before the two years is up—I would like to think that there could be some sort of bipartisan discussion around something that is even slightly contentious at the two-year mark. I acknowledge what you have said. If some rehoming facility looks like it is on track to be finished in two months, I think that is a very sensible proposal.

Certainly from my discussions with Grantley Stevens, they are committed to making sure that this is right. I would like to think that there could be some sort of reasonable bipartisan approach where there could be, if there had to be—I have no doubt when it comes to Mr Perna's ability, but politics is politics and we are the ones who have to sit in here and take the heat—a reasonable amount of collaboration to make sure that we get the right outcome for everyone.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I will go back to what I said when I made my remarks to sum up. I was really pleased just from hearing from the four speakers aside from myself that clearly there are some really strong ways in which we all agree. We all agree that the inquiry was absolutely needed, we all agree that Graham Ashton did an excellent job. I think we all agree that Sal Perna is a very good person to be the inspector. We all absolutely agree that we want the very best for these dogs, these beautiful dogs, and we want the industry to fulsomely, comprehensively apply itself to progressing the recommendations in the way that the report sets out, in the way that they should, in the way that our community expects them to.

We want them to do that. We want them to respond to the community by doing the right thing and progressing the recommendations in the most fulsome, positive way that they possibly can. I think we all agree on that. We all agree that if they do not, there are consequences. We know what those consequences are. We want them to apply themselves and do this.

I hope that just through the debate we have had this evening, and the points that I have made about information, about progress, etc., being public, I would hope that that can continue as this process continues over the next two years. What that looks like I do not know, but I am hoping that you hear that there is an openness and that shared desire for the industry to get on and do what they need to and respond to community expectations, and a shared understanding about consequences if they do not.

It is my hope, also, that we can continue dialogue in this way as things proceed. I will say again, and I know I have said it quite a bit this evening, that I think you have had a briefing with Mr Perna.

Mr WHETSTONE: The Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: The Leader of the Opposition had a briefing with Mr Perna. I have not talked to the Leader of the Opposition about this at length, but I would be very surprised if he did not also agree that Mr Perna is an exemplary person. I have absolute confidence in him, and I think that also helps in terms of that shared faith that we have in him to oversee things in a thorough, fair, efficient and effective way. I think we can all share confidence in him and the way that he will approach things.

Clause passed.

Clause 19 passed.

Clause 20.

Mr WHETSTONE: How will the date be determined for the act to expire?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: This is all about the role and the powers of the Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector. So the day that we do not need the Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector any longer would be the day on which we continue that progress to deal with this act, because this is all about the power of the inspector. Once the inspector's role is no longer there for obvious reasons, this act is no longer required.

Mr WHETSTONE: Just for clarification, the act will expire by notice of Gazette, as written in the legislation?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Yes.

Clause passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD (Reynell—Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Women and the Prevention of Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (21:07): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.