HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-11-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Greyhound Racing

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

That this council notes that—

1. Greyhound racing is currently legal in only eight countries across the world, specifically being Australia, the USA, the UK, Ireland, New Zealand, China, Mexico and Vietnam;

2. While there are over 50 active tracks in Australia, there are only two operational tracks in the USA, six in New Zealand, 21 in the UK, 17 in Ireland, one in Mexico, and none in Vietnam;

3. New Zealand announced a bipartisan phased ban on greyhound racing in 2024 to take full effect in 2026;

4. Scotland and Wales have recently announced they will soon ban greyhound racing;

5. Tasmania is set to end its funding to greyhound racing by 2029;

6. The ACT banned greyhound racing in 2018; and

7. South Australia is now in the second half of the two-year timeframe first given in late 2023 when the Malinauskas government gave the greyhound racing industry notice to clean up or be shut down; and that to date slow progress is being made to that goal.

(Continued from 15 October 2025.)

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:24): I believe I am standing to conclude my remarks on the greyhounds motion, and in doing so I seek to update the chamber on some of the latest developments and statistics around greyhound racing across the world, as well as here in South Australia. Indeed, as I previously noted, greyhound racing as a so-called sport is now on its last legs. With that, I seek leave to insert my comments in Hansard without my reading them.

Leave granted.

Originally began as coursing, greyhound racing as we know it dates back about a century—in the UK, USA and Australia. Elsewhere it never really took hold, whilst in the former jurisdictions it's been in steady decline for decades.

As members may be aware its now banned in 44 US states with the most recent states to ban it including Arkansas, 2025, Connecticut, 2024 Florida, 2018, Oregon, 2022 and Rhode Island joining 34 other states including Nevada (including Las Vegas, arguably the worlds gambling capital) where greyhound racing was banned in 1997.

While it is still legal in Alabama, Iowa, Texas, Kansas and Wisconsin there are no active tracks in these states and racing only actively takes place in one single state (West Virginia) at two tracks and these are linked to legislation supporting a casino in that state—although the casino operators have said they'd be happy for that to be de-linked.

At a federal level in the US a bill with cross party support is currently before the House. The Greyhound Protection Act of 2025 (H.R. 5017) will not just prohibit dog racing nationwide but also bars US gamblers from betting on foreign races and will block the export of American dogs for racing elsewhere. This groundbreaking measure is endorsed by over 250 shelters, animal protection groups and civic organizations across the country and around the globe.

Members will have received correspondence from US legislators advising them of this initiative and I have written back pledging my support. In Australia similar legislation banning online gambling on greyhound racing was just introduced in the House of Representatives with Andrew Wilkie's Interactive Gambling Amendment (Ending Online Wagering on Greyhound Racing) Bill 2025 introduced this Monday with an aim to ban the online wagering that is propping up this deeply unpopular and cruel industry.

In the UK where greyhound racing was once seen as a sport for the working man the sector too is on its last legs. As I've mentioned previously both Scotland and Wales have announced plans to ban greyhound racing with the Welsh Deputy First Minister, Huw Irranca-Davies saying in February this year now is the right time to move to ban greyhound racing in Wales.

A Welsh government consultation on a national model for animal welfare, received over 1100 responses. Within that, a question asking for evidence and views on a phased ban of greyhound racing found almost two thirds of respondents were in favour.

Popular support for the move was also reflected in a petition in support of a ban on greyhound racing in Wales receiving over 35,000 signatures.

It's no surprise—greyhound racing has attracted growing and continuing scrutiny due to a litany of animal welfare abuses that have been exposed, with serious governance issues and drug cheating being detected across all Australian states.

We have now had legislated inquiries in Victoria, Queensland (2015), and in NSW in 2016 and again last year in 2024 after yet more damning allegations of poor animal welfare standards, governance and the operations of GRNSW following the NSW Chief Veterinary Officer Dr Alex Brittan turned whistleblower—with bombshell allegations around track safety and animal welfare. Dr Brittan revealed harrowing allegations of cruelty in his report including where he alleged that there are vets known by the industry who will willingly euthanise high numbers of greyhounds and named two corrupt vets who he says were responsible for half the euthanasia in New South Wales.

These revelations forced the NSW Government to establish yet another inquiry. The Drake Inquiry conducted by that states Greyhound Welfare Integrity Commission (GWIC) and headed by Acting Commissioner Lea Drake concluded its public hearings and submitted its report to the Minister approximately 12 months ago –– yet the final report and any recommendations have not been published. One might wonder exactly what they have to hide?! Time will no doubt tell.

Dr Brittan's initial report gives us some idea though: Dogs were raced at 'barbaric' intensity, some dogs locked in metal cages (for up to 23 hours a day as we know) and re-homing figures were inflated.

Dr Brittan wrote, and I quote: 'There are cases of extreme distress, deep claw marks gouged all over the inside of metal cages and recent pools of blood from toenails that had been ripped off from clawing at the cage door in distress'. For a so-called 'industry' that professes to love its animals it sure has a funny way of showing it.

Now since I previously spoke on this motion, the Liberal Government in Tasmania has introduced legislation (on Nov 6th) to end the code by 30 June 2029. The Greyhound Racing Legislation Amendments (Phasing Out Reform) Bill 2025 will provide the framework to deliver on this promise.

A Joint Standing Committee on Greyhound Racing Transition has been formed and is working together to oversee and progress the phaseout. This is certainly the next step that I hope South Australia will take – once the GIRI produces his final report at the end of the two-year period in the middle of next year – unfortunately after the next election and the scrutiny that that would bring to the issue however.

Members might be familiar with the noted economist Saul Eslake – his recent report 'The financing of greyhound racing in Tasmania' makes a compelling case for the sector to cease getting government funding.

While his conclusions are quite-Tasmania specific, there are commonalities with other states greyhound sectors; all have attracted growing scrutiny due to animal welfare abuses and integrity and governance concerns (which led to the ACT banning it in 2018); and it is in decline pretty much everywhere.

Falling attendances at race meetings, fewer dogs starting, significant reductions in amounts wagered (compared to other racing codes and overall) and an over-estimation of the economic contribution it claims to make to employment. In Tasmania despite the government's largesse, it amounts to only 0.2% of gross state product and total employment.

The economics of greyhound racing across Australia indeed make for some disturbing reading. Bernard Keane in a recent Crikey article highlights the Parliamentary Library study into the economics of the greyhound sector commissioned by NSW Greens Federal Senator Mehreen Faruqi showing the annual bill to taxpayers from greyhound racing in Australia adds up to over a quarter of a billion dollars!

What did taxpayers get in return?

Well, hundreds of dead greyhounds and thousands more injured for starters!

The take home message was despite massive taxpayer funded subsidies greyhound racing is a massive money loser – making losses in every state – bar SA and WA where a small surplus is returned.

Referring to the study, Keane noted:

'Government funding totalled around $194 million in direct handouts to the industry in 2024 around Australia, and another $60 million dollars for publicly funded regulating bodies. The total figure however is likely a significant underestimate given that government funding for industry-controlled regulators in several states isn't made available to the public, and the figure doesn't include capital grants to 'upgrade' dog racing tracks, the costs which runs into millions per track.'

Keane continues:

'Parliamentary Library data allows taxpayers to find out what their money has purchased in terms of canine pain and misery'

'Based on dog trauma data collected by the Coalition for the Protection of Greyhounds for 2024, NSW taxpayers bought 17 dead dogs, (remembering these are only the greyhounds killed at the track, not injured dogs killed afterwards by owners unwilling to pay veterinary bills), 938 major injuries and 4,240 injuries with their $48 million dollars in 2024. Victorians achieved much better value for their money, buying 46 dead dogs, 605 major injuries and 3,329 other injuries for their $48 million. Queenslanders got 20 dead dogs, 315 major injuries and 1,865 other injuries, while West Australians got 23 dead dogs, 140 major injuries and over 600 other injuries. South Australian taxpayers can reflect on money well spent with 17 dead dogs and 242 major injuries for just $2.5 million in taxpayer handouts. In Tasmania, just two dogs were killed in 2024, there were 40 major injuries and 282 other injuries.'

Senator Mehreen Faruqi called taxpayer handouts 'obscene and sickening', noting that greyhound racing would have vanished long ago without the taxpayer largesse and I concur. 'Greyhound racing lost its social license years ago, yet shameless governments across Australia continue to pour hundreds of millions of public dollars into this deadly industry… Gambling and racing have their hooks deep in the Labor and Liberal parties and the only way to end the misery of the greyhounds is to ban greyhound racing for good.'

While we do not have the benefits of Saul Eslake deconstructing the SA greyhound sector, we do have GRSA's own Annual Reports (noting the 2023-24 Annual Report is the most recent available) which demonstrate a sector in terminal decline.

GRSA's 2015–16 Annual Report counted 180 licensed breeders. By 2024 there were only 121—a 33% decrease. Trainer numbers over the same period have declined from 386 to 222, a 42% drop. This is a concern as the Ashton Review identified, given a diminished trainer pool increases integrity risks. Fewer independent participants create more conflicts of interest.

The biggest decline however is among registered owners and handlers, sinking from 1,401 to 575, a 59% fall. These three groups of breeders, trainers, and handlers are the only people genuinely financially involved in racing and represent the true operational capacity of the sector.

This collapse also exposes how inflated the industry's employment claims are. GRSA routinely counts anyone loosely connected to racing as a job, including syndicate members who have never met the greyhound, hospitality staff near a track, and vets who treat injured greyhounds.

Racing SA's recent IER report assessing the economic, social and community benefits of the South Australian racing industry for 2023/24 included thoroughbred, greyhound, and harness racing in South Australia, but just doesn't stack up. There are serious shortcomings with this report– and it lacks credibility.

Notably the report itself admits it's based on self-reported data from GRSA and the estimates provided may be subject to 'level of duplication' A similar report was produced by IER in 2023 funded by Racing and Wagering Western Australia (RWWA) to assess similar economic and employment data for greyhound racing in Western Australia during the 2021-22 financial year.

In February 2024 however a review of the report by economist Sebastian Broadhurst (published by the group Free the Hounds) found that the report 'presents a series of misleading assertions and faulty analysis that aims to justify taxpayer support for the greyhound industry.' This included 'counting the same individuals performing multiple roles as separate people' which represented 'an overstatement of more than 8 times' the actual employment figures when compared to average worker numbers in the racing industry as published in ABS data. [Data from 2021-22 found an average of 1,235 FTE employees in the racing industry in Western Australia, while the IER report claimed 10,249 FTE employees.]

In South Australian the figures seem similarly inflated – examination of the publicly available data published by ABS indicates that during the May 2025 quarter there were approximately only 600 in SA employees in dog and horse racing activities, (however it was not possible to isolate what percentage of those employees worked specifically in dog racing).

Clearly therefore GRSA's claims to sustain 1,684 jobs (including 254 volunteers) should be taken with a rather large grain of salt.

This is corroborated by the Ashton Review's industry participant/staff survey [page 107] showing that 71% of breeders and trainers identify as hobbyists, meaning they do not meet any reasonable definition of full-time employment.

The organisational chart in the Ashton Review [page 106] also shows a small corporate workforce, nowhere near enough to support the industry's employment claims.

While Eslake notes attendances in Tasmania have declined relative to government expenditure, it is not possible to directly determine the situation in SA as GRSA does not publish attendance figures in any annual report. We can extrapolate however from proxies such as 'Food, Beverage, and Gaming' revenue, which while it increased from $4.87 million in 2015–16 to $6.85 million, this is essentially accounted for by inflation. Given GRSA now runs more than 1,100 additional races per year than a decade ago, flat revenue actually suggests lower attendance per race night.

However, I'd argue attendance is no longer a meaningful performance indicator, because as the Ashton Review noted, structural changes within the sector have shifted greyhound racing away from community engagement. Most wagering now is online and dog racing today operates primarily as a business responding to the needs and timing of corporate bookmakers, rather than as a community activity.

While Saul Eslake uses race starters as a metric to highlight trends, this is potentially misleading in the SA context. Race starters do not account for individual dogs racing multiple times, the shift to six-dog fields, or the increased frequency of races.

GRSA reports 32,377 race starters at SA tracks in the last annual report. While the number of races has risen from 3,855 to 5,016 since 2015–16, six-dog fields mean each race is intentionally smaller – a move supported by corporate bookmakers while the TAB strongly opposed them.

Many experts, including the Coalition for the Protection of Greyhounds who I acknowledge have assisted in my research, are fundamentally opposed to using race starters as a performance metric because they are often manipulated to sanitise poor statistics and, at best, are unreliable due to numerous variables specific to SA.

The industry also uses race starters to understate the impact of injuries by representing harm as a percentage of starters, with an overall injury rate of 2.95%. However, what we know from analysis of the GRSA's own reported Category F data indicates that the severity and frequency of injuries are the highest in Australia relative to the size of the SA industry. The Ashton Review also highlights that this approach is misleading and underreports the severity of harm. Overall, focusing on race starters does not reflect industry health or efficiency and ignores welfare and rehoming pressures.

Industry-commissioned IER modelling can provide long-term comparisons but is well known to inflate economic activity. A far clearer indicator of real employment is the number of registered breeders, trainers, and handlers, the people who actually do 'hands-on work'. All three categories have collapsed while government funding has increased significantly under this current government. The result is an industry becoming more dependent on public money as its genuine workforce shrinks.

The Ashton Review made a broader point that is relevant here. It noted that relying heavily on one income source can distort organisational priorities and drive decision making that undermines other goals. This does apply to South Australia. GRSA's overwhelming reliance on wagering revenue, supplemented by government support, means sustaining that income stream often becomes the primary organisational focus.

Meanwhile we know that putting profits ahead of principles mean the animals suffer.

Members will be familiar with the damning Ashton Review and its two-year timeline the review granted to GRSA to acquit the 86 recommendations, so it's appropriate to reflect now – nearly three quarters of the way through the given timeline how that's tracking.

While the GIRI informs us that 47 of the 87 recommendations of the Ashton Review have been acquitted, it remains unclear as to how the GIRI has determined that, and on what basis he has signed off on many of the recommendations.

While I supported the establishment of the role of the GIRI, his published progress reports to date raise serious questions about how and why they've been signed off on.

Some specific examples are the GIRI's midway report noting the RSPCA recommendation 7 to increase penalties for banned substances as 'complete.' Yet, from the (limited) Internal Hearing Panel report outcomes on GRSA's website there is a significant pattern of reduction in sentences and fines for doping in the 2023-2024 period. For example, two individual trainers in this state that had a disqualification for positive swabs of methamphetamine and testosterone were substantially reduced on appeal during 2024. In fact, Zipping Elke (who was given methamphetamine, was transferred to another trainer and was raced and making money while the original trainer served a short-lived suspension which was quickly overturned. This is a matter of public record. How does the GIRI, reconcile his finding of 'completion' with the reality that the most serious penalties are being systematically undermined? How can the independent inspector, sign off on a recommendation as 'completed' when the practical application of it by the industry itself is failing? When questioned in the Budget and Finance Committee he was unable to explain or detail the specific metrics that were used to determine completion.

The GIRI signed off on the recommendation to pursue prosecution for breaches of the Animal Welfare Act, yet in the highly publicised case of trainer Jack Trengove, the RSPCA confirmed that GRSA made no contact to pursue a prosecution.

How can this be reform be considered 'complete' when the most fundamental step the active pursuit of accountability is not being taken by the industry the GIRI is supposed to be overseeing?'

GRSA's model maintains a self-regulating framework. The GIRI's one-year progress report (if you can find it buried deep with the Office for Recreation, Sport and Racing's website) contains very little of the specific, verifiable data the public would need to determine for themselves whether change is really happening or not. The Premier said we 'will not be taking the industry's word for it,' yet the GIRI's progress report appears to do exactly that. His report includes no raw data, only broad statements of progress. What are the specific data points that underpinned his assessment for all 41 completed recommendations? For example, regarding Recommendation #25 on track safety, what are the key injury rate trends that showed this was completed?'

In SA we know from the GRSA's own reporting the rate of category F injuries – this includes major fractures, sever soft tissue tears and injuries requiring 60+ day stand downs are the highest in the nation.

On what basis could anyone claim that reforms related to animal welfare and track safety are 'complete'?

While the GRSA Animal Welfare Policy recommends dogs 'should' have 30 minutes of daily exercise, rather than mandating it, the GIRI admitted he had not conducted any unannounced inspections of kennels to verify that this is actually happening. Yet even if he had, it'd be impossible for him to know or confirm whether kennels were fulfilling their obligations other than by taking them at their word. How then could he sign off on this this recommendation?

But even if kennels are following this to the letter, the reality is that greyhounds can therefore be confined for up to 23.5 hours a day in their kennels!

The public was promised independent oversight, however an inspector who receives reports from the industry and takes them at face value does not meet that test.

The reality is the GIRI's process to date has been a 'tick and flick,' public relations exercise for the government rather than any genuine audit of reform.

The Greyhound Industry Reform Inspector Act gives the GIRI the power to compel information and inspect premises. He has publicly spoken about his engagements with over 300 people, yet apparently not one of those people provided him with information significant enough for him to use his legal power to compel GRSA to provide further information. As a former Racing Integrity Commissioner in Victoria, a role with investigative powers, the GIRI should be uniquely qualified to understand the difference between oversight and enforcement – especially as the reforms in that state made no outcome to overall injury and death rate.

While the Premier has told us this reform is so important, he has set up a model with a toothless inspector to oversee a self-regulating industry.

You can but wonder whether the GIRIs role is part of a political strategy to appear to be doing something, while leaving the industry free to continue with business as usual?

It is clear the government has put the onus for upholding integrity and welfare squarely back on the very industry that has already failed to police itself.

Even after the halfway point –the SA greyhound racing sector is still self-regulated with no enforceable animal welfare code and no published birth to death traceability system.

Why is the sector still offering breeding incentives? This only adds to the rehoming burden placed on the South Australian community, when recent research suggests up to ¼ of the greyhounds being adopted in SA are being returned, for a variety of reasons.

Amongst the Ashton Reviews' most shocking revelations were its finding that, due to a loop-hole in local racing rules, greyhounds retired to sector participants in SA can be euthanised or killed, and with no tracking system to capture the individual dog's status we do not know how many retired or unraced greyhounds (i.e. commercially unviable dogs) rejected by the sector are being killed in SA.

Closing this loophole should have been prioritised.

Recommendations that directly impact dog welfare still haven't been implemented, e.g. (GRSA's Rec #39) that requires greyhound housing to be of a certain size, and (RSPCA Rec #24) that requires participants to be trained in animal welfare. Given the incidents of cruelty highlighted by the review and by the media, it's inexplicable why these haven't been prioritised!

Less than a quarter of the recommendations to address the greyhound rehoming problem have been enacted. These include RSPCA Recommendation #15 calling for GRSA to verify and follow up all third-party adoptions (i.e. non-GAP), properly fund their GAP program, and publishing an audit of all retired and non-raced dogs in the program prior to adopting a lifecycle tracking system (e-Trac) have not been enacted either as per Recommendations #52 & #54).

Neither have recommendations to enforce breeding caps and require the home states of interstate dogs coming to SA to take responsibility for their rehoming (Rec #55 & AJP Rec #8). The community has limited rehoming capacity and with some research suggesting a return rate of up to 25% of the greyhounds being adopted in SA, this problem seems insurmountable.

More fundamentally, there is still no birth to death tracking system (e.g. eTrac) for greyhounds in line with GRSA Rec #17, RSPCA Rec #14 and AJP Rec #9).

Nor has Freedom of Information legislation been amended as per AJP Rec #13 to ensure that the South Australian greyhound racing industry is not exempt from scrutiny and is open and transparent about its conduct.

Then there are concerns about the reform process itself.

Community confidence in the process is undermined by the difficulty the average person has in locating the GIRI Progress reports. Neither do these reports detail the frequency of follow-up monitoring or how it will ensure ongoing compliance.

With the GIRI stating that reducing the rate of greyhound injuries is specifically not in his terms of reference either, the community at large is right to be sceptical of the reform progress to date.

This is made worse by the Parliament failing to subject GRSA to FOI legislation when it had the chance—as every other greyhound regulatory body nationwide is (bar the NT). SA remains, along with WA and Victoria the only states to allow oversight of animal welfare to remain with the commercial operators who have a clear and overarching financial vested interest in maximising gambling income and cash returns. While NSW, Queensland and Tasmania at least maintain welfare and integrity commissions at arms-length from the commercial racing aspects GRSA remains hopelessly conflicted.

GRSA's promised to eliminate unnecessary euthanasia in 2016 – yet without the transparency of FOI or birth to death tracking systems how can the public ever know exactly what happens behind closed doors?

GRSA promised in 2016 that 'none of the [live baiting] issues that plagued NSW… exist in SA'… well, we all know now just how that hollow that reassurance turned out to be.

Premier Malinauskas' promises to ban puppy factories meanwhile will mean nothing if he does not address one of the worst offenders – the SA greyhound racing sector.

It is clear that this Government delaying the commencement of the GIRI until July 2024 will means the inspector's final report won't be delivered until after the election next March and will avoid the scrutiny of the people at the ballot box.

I can only hope that the GIRI will do his job with due diligence and regard for the welfare of the animals at the centre of this sector – animals who have no choice but to run for their very lives, and will come to the inevitable conclusion as other jurisdictions have – that greyhound racing is a relic from a bygone era, that it is incompatible with what the general public expect of animal welfare in this day and age and it must be phased out as soon as possible.

I can only hope whoever is in this place in the next Parliament will consider the GIRI's report very carefully when it is finally delivered and act accordingly to stop this cruel and harmful gambling-driven industry before it is responsible for yet more greyhound deaths in pursuit of profit above principle.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT