Legislative Council, Wednesday 15 April 2026
Ms FORREST (Murchison) – Mr President, I rise today to speak on the Greyhound Racing Legislation Amendments (Phasing Out Reform) Bill 2025 in what is, for me, an unusual position. I have sat with this legislation, read extensively, sought information from a wide range of perspectives, heard from industry participants and animal welfare advocates alike, and reviewed the substantial body of evidence that’s been placed before us and also the joint sessional committee set up to oversee this transition. Yet, I find myself genuinely unable to form a final position on the merits of this bill. Not because the evidence is thin, but because the manner in which the decision was made has so fundamentally complicated my assessment of it that it’s really hard to separate the two.
I do note, when the government first announced its intention to shut down the industry, I did not have a firm position either way. I’ve since vacillated between support and opposition, the more I have sought to engage in this issue. There have been thousands of emails on both sides of this debate, and I’ve read all of them. I haven’t responded to all of them, but I have read all of them. What has led to some of this conflicting advice, data and meaning, applied to much of the data, the high emotion and the disingenuous use of statistics on both sides at times have muddied the waters rather than created clarity. As such, I’ve still not reached a firm position.
I intend to use this speech to set out the full picture, as I understand it. The political context that brought us here, the process concerns this Council has already registered, the animal welfare advice on both sides, the economic arguments and their limitations and the unresolved questions that remain outstanding. I do so in the hope that a complete and frank account of where things stand will be useful to all of us, to the government and to those who have a stake in this outcome.
Let me be clear at the outset about what I’m not doing. At this stage, I’m not opposing the bill. I’m not supporting it. I’m laying out what I believe every member needs to grapple with before a vote is cast. I’ll listen to all contributions before we vote in the second and possibly third readings.
Mr President, the central difficulty I face, and I suspect I’m not alone in this, is that the Premier of Tasmania made an explicit pre-election commitment to the greyhound racing industry that his government would continue to support it. This was not a vague general statement of goodwill. It was a commitment made to people who run small businesses, who care for animals, who employ workers and live predominantly in regional Tasmania. It was made. It was heard. And it was acted on. Only three weeks later – not three months, not three years – three weeks later, that commitment was reversed. The government announced the phase‑out of greyhound racing by June 2029.
Of course, the government is entitled to change its policy position but reasonable people would expect that if such a reversal is to be made, the industry and sector participants would have at least been engaged, consulted and considered before such a complete change of position is confirmed. This did not occur and I absolutely appreciate the distress this has caused participants in the industry.
The change came not as a result of new evidence, not as a result of a recommendation from a regulator, not as a result of changed community circumstances, it came as part of negotiations to secure crossbench support in order to retain government.
I want to be careful here because I’m not suggesting the policy decision to phase out greyhound racing is necessarily wrong. This is a separate question. What I’m saying is that the manner in which it was reached without prior regulatory recommendation, without economic modelling, as to what it would cost to phase out this industry, without advice from Treasury and in direct reversal of a commitment made a mere three weeks earlier is deeply troubling from the perspective of good governance and public trust.
When the member for Elwick asked whether any regulator had recommended the shutdown, the government confirmed no. Notice the decision to shut down the greyhound racing was, in the government’s own words, ‘appropriately as a policy decision of government.’ No regulator advice that the industry could not be regulated to acceptable welfare or integrity standards. No economic analysis or modelling was relied upon. The government says the decision reflects that greyhound racing no longer aligns with community expectations. That may be legitimate policy rationale, but it is difficult for any member of this place, in my view, to hear that stated as if it was self-evident, where no community consultation of any kind had preceded that decision, particularly with those who were most directly impacted.
I also reflect on the fact that legislation that has a direct impact on a small sector of our community must ensure that their voices are heard, regardless of whether we support or oppose their position. In this case, it is the participants of the industry and the organisations who rehome greyhounds. That broken promise and the manner in which it was done without any consultation or discussion with those directly involved is not something I take lightly, nor should anyone in this place. How we legislate matters as much as what we legislate.
We have already made the point clearly by referring the bill to the Joint Select Committee rather than allowing it to be rushed through at the end of last year. The referral to the joint committee was appropriate. The bill proposed the closure of an industry that’s been part of Tasmania’s community for over a century. It affects the livelihoods of around 900 industry participants and 480 direct employees, and many more in regional supply chains. The closure of an industry demands careful and comprehensive scrutiny. I have concerns about whether the scrutiny that has been provided has been adequate.
The committee received close to 150 submissions, broadly split between those supporting and opposing the phase-out. That alone should have signalled the depth of feeling on both sides and our emailing boxes attest to that story. This is a particularly deeply polarising issue with no apparent middle ground. The committee only held three public hearings totalling five and a half hours, with industry representatives, with the most to lose and the biggest direct impact given two hours and 15 minutes to present their case.
The committee also reported before receiving an independent economic analysis commissioned by Tasracing from consultant Ben Selinger. Mr Sellenger is principle of Alliance Sport and Media, a Melbourne-based consultancy with more than two decades of experience in economic and social impact analysis of sport. He is not an unknown figure in the Tasmania racing context. The industry’s documents disclose that he had previously undertaken a separate review of the Tasmanian racing industry at the direct request of the Racing Integrity Commissioner, Sean Carroll, and he did confirm that in the briefing this morning before being subsequently engaged by Tasracing to prepare what is described as an analysis of the economics and future of the racing industry, among other work he’s doing.
The second body of work, the economics and future of the racing industry was still in preparation when the committee reported. Finding 29 of the committee stated Tasracing is conducting a feasibility study on the impacts of the greyhound racing transition. It could well be an important source of detail that could and should inform this debate. I’m unsure where that report is up to. I did ask for some feedback on that in the briefing. I also note the only reference I can find related to Mr Sellenger, except for the comments in the briefing today, is in the current commission industry advocacy documents. It would be helpful to know where that’s at and if it is reasonably likely to be available anytime soon. It is not clear, as I said, whether it’s been finalised and the government’s answers to questions on notice make no reference to it, but the process concern that arises is real, regardless of what the report may ultimately say.
The committee was presented with one substantial independent economic analysis, the Eslake report, commissioned by a coalition of 12 animal welfare organisations who Mr Eslake was clear, did not influence his report. But there was no equivalent analysis commissioned by the industry that would allow the committee to test competing methodologies and conclusions side by side. That’s a challenge and that’s a problem because all of these things are contested. This is what makes it so hard to reach a decision because who and what do we believe? The committee knew a Tasracing commissioned an economic analysis and was in preparation and it chose to report before that analysis was available. Maybe it was months away, I don’t know. Whatever the merits of either analysis might have been, the result was that the economic study before the committee was asymmetric. One side of the ledger was independently assessed, and the other was not.
I hope that the Deputy Leader can inform the House as to where Mr Sellenger, this particular report of his is at and will it be, even in draft form, available to the members before we vote. If the government is serious about the claim that a decision to phase out greyhound racing is evidence-based, it should have no difficulty in supporting the release of relevant economic analysis, including analysis that may be uncomfortable toward its position.
Since the committee reported, the government has committed to including compensation provisions in the bill with a funding package to be outlined in the budget. We did just get a letter from the Minister for Racing sometime during the afternoon, who knows what time that was. It alludes to a figure that the Premier announced a day or two ago, $4.8 million in the budget. I did ask him when he rang me to ask if he had any questions. I said to him, ‘Is that over 4 years? How was it determined? Where’s the modelling that shows that it’ll be adequate? What’s the purpose of that actual allocation?’ We can see from this letter that it’s over the forward Estimates, $1.5 million over the forward Estimates each year. It’s really unclear as to how that figure was arrived at. It does say in the letter in relation to how the figure was arrived at – this is in the 2025 so-called ‘interim’ budget, the 2025 Budget – provided initial provision of $500,000 to support the greyhound racing phase-out implementation, but where did that come from? How was that determined? Where’s the modelling? If we’re going to make a decision that says there’s an economic benefit to do this, we need to see what the economic benefit actually is. If it’s likely – the Premier said, ‘Well, that’s just a start, this funding. Just a start. There may need to be more.’ How much more? At what point does it become not an economic benefit to the state? I hope – and I did ask the Premier that when he rang me in all good faith, and I haven’t heard – except for this letter from the minister that doesn’t tell me anything we didn’t already know, effectively, except that it’s definitely going to be spread over 4 years. No indication of how that number was arrived at.
I do acknowledge this is – sorry, I do want to understand more about that modelling, how it was done, if it was, what advice was sought from Treasury – one hopes that Treasury are consulted on these things, but we know that that’s not a necessary way the government approach decision making and big matters in this state. I do need to understand what the likely cost of the state will be before I can form a firm decision on this bill.
I do acknowledge that this is a meaningful response to one of the major concerns raised by myself and others about supporting the industry. There are some people who think they shouldn’t be compensated at all in the industry, but when you make a decision like the way it’s been done – and we’ve done it for other sectors when we’ve changed their industry, not closed it, like the forestry industry. We didn’t close it down, it changed the way it was. It bought out some of the contracts, et cetera. It was the right thing to do, so it’s difficult for me to make a decision when I only have part of the story.
The Racing Integrity Commissioner has indicated it may take two or three years to determine the appropriate compensation, and he did say that was part of his job in putting together the transition plan. He did say he wasn’t consulted, as the member for Montgomery mentioned, on this amount, the $4.8 million. The minister says he was. Yet again, who’s telling the truth here? Who can I trust?
Industry estimates of asset values of racing dogs varied between $10,000 to $200,000. I’ve heard figures of brood bitches between $10,000 and $50,000, kennels representing hundreds of thousands of dollars in upkeep and investment. I do make it clear this is not a trivial matter. A commitment to compensation without the detail around how it’s been established and the framework to how it was calculated is not actually certainty for industry participants who reasonably require some level of certainty around that, in my view. And this thing, ‘trust us, we’ll sort it out in the regs or in the transition plan’? Well, they did trust. The industry did trust the Premier when he gave what they thought was a rock‑solid guarantee that he had their backs, so I can understand the people who don’t believe or trust the government.
We all know that the state budget is in a precarious position, unless you have been living under a rock, so it is important that we understand what the impact is. When we consider findings 30 to 36 of the committee, the cost of this cannot be ignored. It needs to be understood before we can make a fully informed decision. Finding 30 talks about consideration of compensation must be included in any transition closure plan. Finding 31: compensation may be required and funded at different stages of the transition. Finding 32: more than 1000 ex‑racing greyhounds will need to be rehomed, following the transition period. Finding 33: the rehoming of ex-greyhounds will be a substantial, complex and costly endeavour, both during and following the transition period.
Finding 35: local rehoming organisations have expressed their willingness and capacity to undertake the task of rehoming ex-racing greyhounds but require extra sustained resourcing. Currently, non‑industry rehoming organisations are not funded to rehome greyhounds exiting the industry and they have relied on community funding to do this work to date. Finding 36: rehoming organisations will need to be adequately funded by government to assist with the humane transition of dogs out of greyhound racing, both during the transition period and at the closure until all dogs are rehomed.
There are several points there and I commend the committee for outlining these points. That all costs money. What modelling has been done about how much will be needed, or is it just taken on trust? I don’t have a lot of trust in the financial management of the state at the moment. We need to have some idea at least of the likely costs associated with these measures, not just be told, trust us, it’ll be in the budget, if they need more, we’ll give it to them. It will be too late then to make a truly informed decision if we have to wait for the budget, although we have some indication of what is going to be in it now. It’s unusual. They can give matters in the budget when it suits. I was thinking of other questions asked today and we were told to wait for the budget on 21 May. Wait for the budget.
I now want to turn to the important matter of animal welfare because this is the primary policy rationale advanced for this legislation, and it deserves careful attention. I’m going to start with what the data actually shows, or as much as I can, rather than the contested interpretation of it. The government’s own response to questions on notice provides a 10‑year longitudinal record of greyhound euthanasia in Tasmania. The numbers are striking. In 2016, 635 greyhounds were euthanased across all categories. By 2025, that figure was 33, so from 635 to 33. There were some legislative provisions that changed during that period that resulted in that, but that shows you what can be done when you change the law. This is a reduction of approximately 95 per cent over a decade. Well, that’s a very good outcome. Even setting aside the 2016 figure, which was elevated by a legacy audit, we’re informed, the decline has been sustained and dramatic. That’s very good news.
The largest reductions of categories that had most troubled animal welfare advocates, dogs euthanased as not for raising or not for rehome: in 2016, 215 dogs were euthanased as not for racing and 199 as not for rehome. By 2021, both those categories had reached zero. That was again, because of a change of policy, change of rules, and they’ve remained at or near zero since. This transformation reflects rule changes that required justification before any greyhound could be euthanased rather than rehomed: changes that worked.
On‑track deaths from racing industries fell from 29 in 2016 to four in both 2024 and 2025. We don’t really want or expect to see any dog or any animal die on a track. We see horses put down on a track. The one time I did go to the races, the Devonport Cup years ago at the badgering a friend of mine, and a horse broke its leg right in the front of the home straight and had to be put down in front of us. They put the screen around. It’s awful. No one wants to see that. Training injury euthanasia fell from 10 in 2016 to one in 2025. The industry’s claim that injury rates have fallen by over 25 per cent in the last five years is consistent with that data.
The kennel inspection record since the Racing Regulation and Integrity Act 2024 commenced on 1 February 2025 is also notable. Of 135 licensed trainers, 131 have had their kennels inspected. One animal welfare breach was identified, and we did ask Mr Carroll about this in the brief, or it might have been the department – it was Mr Carroll – before the introduction of the Racing Regulation and Integrity Act, were these inspections not done adequately or often enough? He suggested that they weren’t done as often or as well as they should have been. So clearly they’ve lifted their game here, which is important. There’s been one animal welfare breach. The other breaches, as I understand, were related to failing to fill in forms properly and things like that.
There have been breaches of those racing rules primarily related to record keeping, which can be dealt with through education and rectification and, with all due respect to a lot of the people engaged in the industry, and I say this with the with the deepest respect for people, a lot of them aren’t overly highly educated and filling out lots of forms can be a challenge and you make a mistake on it or an omission on it, and that’s a breach. We do need to work on education and rectification, those sort of areas, whatever area it is, not just throw the book at them. When you look at those figures, this is not a picture of an industry ungovernable on animal welfare grounds.
The Dogs’ Homes of Tasmania and correspondence provided to the member for Elwick confirms that of the seven greyhounds euthanased in 2024-25 that came through their facility, all were euthanased for severe dog aggression, meaning they pose an unmanageable safety risk in the community. It is not clear if this was due to their experience in the racing industry or inherent in their nature. There are a lot of dogs for the Dogs’ Homes to deal with, other breeds that can or are euthanased for the same reason. The average length of stay for greyhounds in that facility was 49 days compared to 20 days for all dogs, reflecting the socialisation work required for dogs transitioning from the racing environment. We did hear more about that in our briefings.
The Dogs’ Homes operates this program without government funding and relies on its foster network, a point worth acknowledging. I do acknowledge the work that they do, and I do acknowledge the committee’s finding that said they should be funded to do the work. I also want to be equally clear about the concerns that have been raised, because they are genuine and they are not dismissed by the positive trend data. I’m trying to provide both sides of this. I’m not making a judgment, I’m just putting out what information we’ve heard.
There was a 2013 parliamentary inquiry –
Ms O’Connor – 15.
Ms FORREST – 2015? I thought it was 13?
Ms O’Connor – No, we started in 2015 after Four Corners and then reported in 2016. I’m pretty sure.
Ms FORREST – Whatever year it was – into greyhound racing in Tasmania that documented live baiting, neglect and conditions that were, by any account, unacceptable. But live baiting wasn’t found to occur in Tasmania. It was triggered by an ABC program that showed live baiting, which was occurring in New South Wales, is my understanding of that. But those findings from that committee prompted a range of reforms, some of which have contributed directly to the improvement in euthanasia data, as I’ve just described.
But the Greens have argued that the Animal Liberation of Tasmania report A Few Bad Apples, covering the period from August 2023 to July 2024, provided evidence to support that systemic problems have not been fully resolved.
Individual incidents documented in parliamentary debate, including euthanasia [inaudible] following cervical spinal injuries in July 2025, continue to demonstrate that greyhound racing carries inherent injury risks that no amount of track improvement will eliminate. I say no amount of track improvement – that’s assuming the tracks are still curved. We did hear some evidence that a straight track would be far safer than getting dogs to run around corners.
However, I do find some of the misrepresentation of data related to euthanasia of greyhounds in recent media and by some members inappropriate and disrespectful to industry participants who are feeling very vulnerable at the moment.
I wish to read part of an email related to this matter, as I think we should be careful and sensitive to be accurate with the data in such an emotive debate – for both sides of the debate. Whilst it might not have been said directly, the inference was that the dogs named in an opinion piece in the Mercury and in comments made in this place, that that was the innuendo that dogs were euthanased at the track or as an immediate result of racing industries.
I just want to be a little of Tash Croft’s email that she sent, and I did ask permission to use her email and identify her. She wrote, in part:
I want to set the facts straight in regards to our beautiful girl Marley, also known as Why Sparky. The Mercury newspaper published a story about greyhounds in the Mercury newspaper on 10th of April with regards to our girl Why Sparky. She was one of the dogs named in the article on Friday the 10th of April as deceased. Yes, she raced on the 2nd of April this year, that was her last race start.
She then added crying and broken heart emojis, and went on:
Yes, she was four years and 25 days old.
Tash then outlined the very sad and extremely stressful period that followed between the following Friday and Saturday when she and her partner sought emergency veterinary care for their dog. She wrote about this:
Our beautiful girl Marley wasn’t responding to the medication –
This is after she’d seen the vet and treatment.
… and treatment. An ultrasound was performed and they suspected a twisted intestine. Sepsis had set in. We then had to make the devastating and heartbreaking decisions to euthanase our beautiful girl Marley.
That’s the true facts in regards to our beautiful girl Marley. She did not die of an on‑track injury.
Natasha then posed a couple of questions, and I think it’s relevant to read these out because these people are feeling pretty under threat at the moment. She says:
(1) How did the publisher, the author of the article, find out our information before the stewards’ report was made available to the public Friday afternoon?
That’s not good.
How did the publisher find out about a beautiful girl’s race name to search ‘Fast Track’?
‘Fast Track’ is their online reporting.
(3) And know she was deceased? There are millions of dogs on ‘Fast Track’.
(4) They would have had to know our girl’s race name or the trainer’s name to search Fast Track.
We want the truth to be heard, not the misleading information surrounding the deaths of our greyhounds.
That’s pretty distressing to feel like you have to respond to that. Whilst the author of that opinion piece didn’t specifically say My Sparky died at the track as a result of an injury, it was the inference. It was in the list of dogs that inferred that and it was quite distressing. I’m sure every member got that email and if you read it, it shows the very tortuous and terrible time they had going to the vet, waiting outside, the dog having a seizure, being rushed in. You can only imagine, with any pet –
Ms Rattray – Something like five hours, wasn’t it.
Ms FORREST – Yeah, well, it was a pretty rapid decline. These are serious issues that happen not just for greyhounds, other dogs. Humans too.
Despite what me and the community say, based on other emails I’ve received, Natasha dearly loved her dog and to have her death misrepresented or inferred in this way at such a time has been devastating to her and a partner. I absolutely agree, animal welfare is critically important, as is respecting our fellow humans. Let’s show respect for both.
I will move on now to what I note is also a structural concern about the Racing Regulation Integrity and Act 2024 that deserves some acknowledgement. Some of these points go back to when we debated this in 2024.
The act consolidated day-to-day animal welfare enforcement within Tasracing, a commercially driven organisation whose overarching legislative purpose is to provide the community with a viable future for racing in Tasmania.
Animal welfare advocates argued during the bill’s passage that embedding a welfare and integrity function inside a commercial entity creates an inherent tension and that the Racing Integrity Commissioner’s role, while important, is primarily advisory and referral-based rather than directly enforcement-based. There were legitimate concerns about that and it possibly needs looking at as well.
I would add, however, that the act also established an integral animal welfare advisory committee with RSPCA representation, introduced a new independent commissioner and expanded the inspection regime in ways that the data suggests have had an early positive impact.
The question is not whether the architecture is perfect. It’s not, I don’t think any regulatory framework is perfect all the time. But whether it has been given adequate time to demonstrate its effect before the phase-out decision was made.
This brings me to what I consider them one of the most significant unanswered questions in the debate. The Racing Regulation and Integrity Act 2024 commenced on 1 February 2025. The Premier announced the phase-out on 10 August 2025, six months later. This bill passed the House of Assembly on 4 December, 10 months after the commencement of the Racing Regulation and Integrity Act.
The reforms in this act were the most substantial overhaul of Tasmania’s racing regulatory framework in two decades. They were the product of recommendations from the Monteith review and the Murrihy investigation, which had exposed serious integrity and welfare failures that the old regulatory model was unable to address.
The 2024 act was presented to parliament and supported by the government. The same government is now proposing to phase out one of the codes, greyhounds, as the framework that would deliver improved welfare and integrity outcomes has hardly had a chance to prove itself. The government’s own 2024 election platform described as delivering the largest integrity reforms in decades, and good on them. It covers all three codes. To pass that act in 2024 and have it commence in February 2025 and then announce the phase-out six months later, before a full year’s data under the new framework is available does raise a question that has not been satisfactorily answered either. Was the new regulatory framework actually given the time to prove itself or not? I hear the points and I’ll come to those about the social licence and community expectations, but the industry makes this point forcefully and I think it’s a fair point: the animal welfare data cited to support the phase out decision is overwhelmingly predating the act and the implementation of the act. That’s where the bad numbers are, absolutely, and unacceptable numbers, absolutely. The improvements shown in the data were achieved under previous frameworks. Yet we do not know yet what the racing integrity act would have produced over a full cycle of operation, because it hasn’t had a full cycle yet – a whole year – including all your breeding data and everything that goes with that.
There was a broader context to the animal welfare debate that I believe deserves acknowledgement to and which does not diminish genuine concern for greyhounds but perhaps helps put it in proportion. The RSPCA is Tasmania’s principal animal welfare enforcement agency authorised under a service level agreement with the government to investigate cruelty complaints across companion and domestic animals. According to RSPCA, Tasmania’s own budget submissions to government, its inspectorate receives approximately 3000 cruelty reports per year. That’s a sad indictment on us as humans. The national RSPCA statistics for 2023-24 confirm that RSPCA Tasmania investigated 2702 cruelty complaints in that year alone. A figure that exceeds the national average on a per capita basis; that’s not good. We need to have a good, hard look in the mirror. The vast majority of those complaints concerned dogs of all breeds, followed by cats and sheep. I’m surprised cows aren’t there, to be fair, because there’s been some pretty unfortunate instances of animal welfare issues with cows as well. They reflect neglect, abandonment, insufficient food and water, injury, and abuse across the general companion animal population.
In 2023-24, RSPCA received 130 dogs through its facilities, down from 162 the prior year. Of those, 12 were euthanased, all for medical or severe behavioural reasons, and 31 were rehomed. These are small numbers for a state population of our size and they reflect the work of an organisation that has been chronically underfunded. This was raised during the 2024 legislation and other times as well. Its core inspectorate funding was frozen at $550,000 from 2018 until 2023, well below what is required to deploy inspectors safely in pairs, and well below the per capita funding provided to comparable agencies in other states. That’s not good enough.
By contrast, the greyhound code generated eight animal welfare complaints to the Racing Integrity Commissioner in all of 2024-25, and three in the first eight months of 2025-26. [inaudible] I’ve mentioned one animal welfare breach was substantiated across 131 kennel inspections since February 2025. I’m not drawing this comparison to minimise what happens to greyhounds, I’m drawing it to make a different point: if we’re genuinely concerned about animal welfare in Tasmania, the evidence suggests the most acute unmet need is not necessarily or only the greyhound code, where the new regulatory framework is actively operating, reducing results, but in the broader companion animal population where an unfunded inspector is stretched beyond its capacity to respond to thousands of reports each year.
A decision to phase out greyhound racing on animal welfare grounds sits uncomfortably alongside the record of inadequate investment in the agency responsible for enforcing animal welfare standards across all dogs in this state. This inconsistency is not an argument for or against the bill, but it’s an argument for the government to be honest about the breadth of its animal welfare obligations and to fund them accordingly.
Of critical interest to me, and I’m sure other members too, is the economic arguments. The economic debate surrounding this bill has been, at times, more heat than light, and I’d like to try and set up both sides as fairly as I can while being honest about where the analytical weaknesses lie. The pro phase out economic case has been the one most rigorously made by independent economist, Saul Eslake. His analysis initially prepared in May 2025 and further developed in a presentation to the joint committee in September 2025 drew out figures from the industry’s own commission reports. On that basis, he concludes that greyhound racing contributes approximately 0.2 per cent of Tasmania’s gross state product and 0.2 per cent of total employment, figures he described as no more than ’rounding errors’.
Government funding of the greyhound code increased by 90 per cent in real terms over the past decade, while race meetings declined, starters declined, attendance fell by more than 10 per cent, and wagering, in 2024-25 was 22 per cent below its peak. Mr Eslake’s analysis, government funding per job sustained has roughly doubled over the decade, even on the industry’s own figures. Critically, Mr Eslake also draws on the Western Australian cost benefit assessment of Stephen Walters, former chief of economist of JP Morgan Australia, the New South Wales Treasury, and the Business Council of Australia which found greyhound racing in Western Australia reduces overall economic welfare by $36 million in 2025-26, with a cost‑benefit ratio of 0.79 per cent. That’s less than one, just in case you’re wondering, but I note it’s still better than the stadium cost-benefit ratio – the member for Hobart wasn’t listening to that, but anyway. Mr Eslake argues that there was no reason a comparable Tasmanian assessment will produce a materially different result, particularly given Tasmania’s greater government dependence.
The industry’s rebuttal is substantial and cannot simply be dismissed. It’s most important argument concerns the historical basis of the funding arrangements. The Tasmanian government’s ongoing financial support for the racing codes is not an ordinary subsidy. It is the product of a 2009 Racing Industry Funding Deed struck in order to maximise the sale price of TOTE in 2012 – the member for McIntyre and I were here at the time, I’m sure she remembers it well. Every other Australian jurisdiction had privatised its TOTE and arranged for the betting agency, not the government, to fund the racing codes on an ongoing basis. That’s where it started.
Ms Rattray – I think somebody had a nose for it, if I recall.
Ms FORREST – Yeah, you did. Tasmania retained that responsibility, effectively trading away future obligations in exchange for a higher sale price at the time. Yes, I was here, and that legislation was passed. The industry argues, perhaps with some justification, that framing what is essentially a contracted government obligation as a taxpayer subsidy misrepresents the underlying financial architecture. So, you have to go back in history and look at how it all came about. That’s how it happened.
The industry also argues that Mr Eslake omitted the most significant item of revenue attributable to greyhound racing: the $8.4 million in race field fee revenue generated in 2024‑25, which they say will be entirely lost when greyhound racing ends. Adding that revenue, along with attributable sponsorship and the point of consumption tax, produces a net loss for the greyhound code of approximately $1.6 million rather than the $3.2 million net cost figure that’s featured predominantly in this debate. I just put these out there because they’re contested. It’s a bit hard to know what the actual reality is and why Mr Selinger’s report would be very helpful to have.
A substantial component of the shared cost allocated to greyhound racing ‑ depreciation facility management, administration ‑ will continue regardless of the outcome of this bill, whether or not the code continues to operate, because they’re shared facilities in some cases.
[inaudible] Mr Eslake’s critique of the IER methodology is well founded and supported by multiple authoritative sources, including the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Victorian Auditor‑General and the Tasmanian Department of Treasury and Finance, all of which have noted that input‑output multipliers tend to overstate economic impact. Even the IER itself conceded in its November 2024 report that much of local resident spending would likely substitute to other activities if racing ceased. The industry’s claim of $59.7 million in total economic contribution based on those multiplier should be viewed with appropriate scepticism.
What I can say with confidence is this: the economic picture is genuinely contested. The methodology matters greatly and the government has yet to produce its own economic modelling. I’m confident of that, the rest of it I’m not so sure about.
An industry employing around 490 employees and over 900 in participants in participants, 89 per cent of whom are from regional Tasmania where alternative employment is not always readily available. It does deserve rigorous and independent economic assessment, more than what’s been produced. I live in and represent the rural and regional electorate of Murchison, which is, for those who don’t remember, far, far away from Hobart. It is far away from the greater Hobart area where the vast majority of emails seeking support for the ban in this industry originate. Not everyone identifies where they’re from, but a lot of people do, which is really helpful. If you go back and ask them where they’re from, they’ll usually tell you, which is helpful.
As members are all aware, my electorate encompasses much of the north‑west coast and its rural hinterland. The geographic distribution of this industry matters to me directly, when the industry tells me that 89 per cent of economic activity occurs in regional Tasmania, that’s not some random abstract figure; it’s a reality for the people I represent. It is trainers and kennel hands in small towns, it’s vets, it’s feed supplies, it’s people for whom the income from greyhound racing is part of a portfolio of rural livelihoods, not a single profession easily replaced. The majority of representation I’ve had from my electorate are in support of the industry and oppose the bill. There are some who oppose it in my electorate, but the vast majority are on the other side, because country people have different ways of living and if you’re not amongst it, you don’t actually understand that.
The government’s commitment to ensure no healthy greyhound is euthanased, as a result of the phase, is welcome and important. But what has been committed to the people, not the animals, who will be displaced, is far less clear. The compensation framework, that I’ve spoken a little about, is now, in some measure, committed to, but there is a lot of ‘trust us’ in developing what it actually looks like. I absolutely understand why the industry players don’t trust the government.
A trainer who has invested their savings in kennels and racing dogs with a promise of compensation to be determined over the next three years without any real indication of what it relates to and how it will work, is not much comfort. This is an intergenerational pastime for many people. I know you’ve all met Ben Englund – I’ve been to his kennels, he lives and has his kennels quite near – well, everyone lives pretty close to each other in Wynyard, I suppose. There’s multi‑generational participation there. I’m not a fan of greyhound racing or any form of racing and I’m not really a fan of dogs with big mouths and teeth either, by the way, having been bitten more than once. I felt that it was not a set‑up thing. I just dropped in one day when I was going past and what he described to us in the briefings is what I observed. Not the photo that I saw on the screen in a briefing, whatever day it was.
I note that the thoroughbred and harness racing codes are also affected by this decision. They are not, though. They are not being phased out. The industry argues, and this claim has not been directly refuted, that greyhound racing accounts for 54 per cent of Tasracing’s racing content, underpinning sponsorship and broadcast agreements. The cross‑code financial interdependency of a tri‑code organisation in a small state like Tasmania is real. So, what does happen to thoroughbred and harness racing if the greyhound code is removed? We have heard different things here – that it’s going to be a cost saving thing, but then we’re going to have to use all the same amount of money to support those two codes. What is it?
Ms O’Connor – That’s what Tasracing says.
Ms FORREST – Yes, I know.
Ms O’Connor – It’s not up to them, really. Through you, Mr President.
Ms FORREST – No, but that’s the point. There’s no certainty about any of this. We’re making an economic argument. I know it’s not just an economic argument. I’m trying to make all the different arguments and try to find a way to a decision here.
Whether the government has modelled that impact is not clear. There are questions that remain unanswered in that space.
I also want to acknowledge the community opinion dimension, because it has featured prominently in this debate and is important and not to be glossed over or ignored at all. Polling conducted by the EMRS found 74 per cent of Tasmanians support the Premier’s announcement following the phase‑out decision in August 2025. An earlier 2023 EMRS poll found that 60 per cent of those surveyed opposed greyhound racing, with only 11 per cent in support. The 2022 parliamentary petition calling for an end to public funding of greyhound racing received 15,519 signatures, confirmed as the largest e‑petition in the parliament’s history. That is public sentiment, the numbers are there.
These figures speak of a genuine shift in community sentiment and I take this very seriously. At the same time, I note that the community polling industry closures, particularly when framed around animal welfare concerns, does not always reflect the full range of views about how such a closure should be conducted, at what cost and what timeline. You can easily ask people about a matter they may have no interest in and they make a decision based on gut instinct rather than having all the facts – that’s our job here, to try and get the facts.
Over 900 participants and 480 employees whose livelihoods are directly at stake are also members of the community. An absence of significant prior community consultation before the announcement, or at least some sort of meaningful consultation with the industry players, means that we’re responding to polling on a decision that was already made rather than using polling to inform the considered policy development process. I say that, acknowledging that before the announcement it was 60 per cent, so it was already a majority.
I want to say something about community sentiment that goes beyond the polling figures, because I think that polling alone does not fully explain why this issue has the weight it does in the public mind, nor does it fully capture the competing human dimensions I’ve been wrestling with. There is a genuine and reasonable instinct in the broader community that a dog racing on a circuit not straight – particularly a dog like a greyhound, and with the body of a greyhound – but running a tight oval with bank turns is an animal being asked to do something that carries inherent risk of physical harm by design. A greyhound running at speeds at up 70 kilometres an hour, turning sharply under centrifugal force, is placing enormous stress on limbs and joints that are bred for straight line speed. The physics of the circuit matter, and they’re not incidental to this matter. Track improvements, banking, service management, veterinary oversight can all reduce the risks at the margin, and the data shows they have, but they cannot eliminate a risk that is structural to the activity itself.
I think the community understands this intuitively, even if they did not express it in those terms. When people say greyhound racing no longer aligns with their values, at least part of what they mean is that they are uncomfortable with an activity whose injury toll, however much reduced, flows directly from what the activity is, not from how badly or how well it’s managed. We have talked about the inherent danger or risk and I accept that, it’s not an unreasonable position at all. Whether that can be mitigated by significant change to the way the dogs race is another question. It hasn’t actually been fully considered and I know the industry said they would be open to those sort of things.
I also want to say something about the people on the other side of the community sentiment because they deserve to be seen as clear as the polling numbers see them. I’ve heard from participants in the industry, trainers, owners, breeders who have been part of the greyhound racing industry for 30-40 years. For some of them, this is not a primary commercial enterprise, it’s their rhythm of the week. It’s the reason they are at the track at five in the morning. It’s an intergenerational connection, grandparents and grandchildren handling their dogs, learning from each other, sharing something that most of the rest of the community has no visibility of and therefore no particular reason to value.
For some of the people I’ve heard from, particularly many in rural communities where isolation and lack of structured activity carry very real mental health consequences, the routine of caring for and racing their dogs is not incidental to their wellbeing. It’s central to it. I don’t know whether members had a chance to read an email from a Vietnam veteran but I did respond to him in full terms because think this is a very real thing. You cannot ignore the humanity in this. I note that animal welfare and the need to care for animals and ensure that we don’t put them in positions where harm is inevitable, which is part of the problem here, but we also need to think about the impact on the humans in this as well. I don’t think we can legislate away an industry that serves that function without people at least acknowledging what we are taking away. We need to be honest about that. I think the government should have been far more upfront about that and give them a chance to actually have some input and feel like they weren’t just railed right over after they had what they considered to be a rock-solid guarantee.
The participants that I’m most concerned about are those who have demonstrated over a long period of time that they are good operators, and one of those is Ben Englund and his family. They are the trainers who don’t have a welfare complaint raised against them. They are people who took the reforms the last decade seriously. They invested in better kennels and better socialisation programs, embraced the Greyhound Adoption Program as an obligation rather than a box that had to be ticked. There are people who’ve done everything they can to satisfy the needs of the community, of community expectation, and put a lot of time, money and effort into doing that, to have ‑ as they feel ‑ the rug pulled out from under them.
The owners who, when the dog was injured, spent more on veterinary care than the dog would ever earn in prize money; these people, and there are many of them, who are being asked to carry the reputational burden of the industry’s worst actors. The conduct that drove community concern over greyhound racing over the years was real, but it was not universal and the people who behaved well throughout have been as much aggrieved by the outcome as anyone. It’s a bit like we have to deal with one bad politician makes us all bad politicians.
Ms O’Connor – In the public’s mind.
Ms FORREST – Yeah, that’s what I’m talking about. I’m talking about the public’s view here.
Ms O’Connor – It’s true.
Ms FORREST – There is one further dimension of community sentiments I just wanted to speak about. A significant part of the community’s comfort with greyhound racing is not solely about the dogs; it’s about the gambling. Greyhound racing exists within a wagering ecosystem and for many Tasmanians the concern about the industry is inseparable from the broader unease about the social cost of gambling, the harm it does families, the way it extracts money from communities that can least afford to lose it.
The normalisation of wagering is entertainment, and I’ve made my views pretty much known on that in other forums as well. And this is a legitimate concern too. Saul Eslake’s analysis notes that a proper benefit-cost analysis assessment of greyhound racing would need to include the adverse consequences of gambling, which he cited the Western Australian assessment found to be relatively large. The industry funds itself through wagering. The government collects point-of-consumption tax from bets placed on greyhound races, including races in other states, and has confirmed it will continue to do so after Tasmanian racing ends.
That tension from ending the local industry on community values grounds while continuing to collect revenue from the same activity conducted elsewhere is one the government hasn’t satisfactorily addressed or even referred to, and we see that in ACT ‑ you can do it and you just hop across the border or New Zealand can bet on Australian races [inaudible]. I raise this not to conflate the gambling question with the animal welfare question because they are very distinct, but I think it’s important we are clear‑eyed about the full range of factors shaping the community sentiment in this issue and I share some of those concerns about the gambling.
When 74 per cent of Tasmanians say they support the phase-out, some of them are thinking primarily about the dogs, some of them are thinking about the gambling and some of them are thinking about both. The weight we give to that figure depends, at least in part, in understanding which concern is driving it, and the polling does not disaggregate that for us.
So, all of this is to say, Mr President, that I find this debate genuinely hard – not because I lack conviction about the importance of animal welfare, nor because I’m indifferent to community sentiment, but because the picture I see when I look at this carefully is not the simple moral choice that some in this debate would have us believe it is.
There are real animals being harmed. There are also real people whose lives were built around caring for those animals and who have demonstrated that care over many years. There is a community that has shifted its values and there is also a government who broke its promise. There’s a genuine economic question. There is a gambling question that shadows over the top of everything else. None of these things cancel out the others and I don’t pretend they do.
I just want to briefly comment on the global trajectory for greyhound racing. New Zealand announced the phase-out in December 2024 with an end date of July 2026. Wales has made similar moves but only had one track and it wasn’t in use. I don’t think it’s entirely comparable with Tasmania. The 2024 New South Wales Drake Inquiry delivered a highly critical report, finding systemic cruelty and corruption, though it recommended reform rather than closure. South Australia placed its industry on a two-year probation in 2023 following an inquiry that produced 87 recommendations. Western Australia is currently considering its options following a benefit-cost assessment showing a negative economic return. This is being looked at right around the country and around many parts of the world. The international trajectory is unmistakably away from greyhound racing.
Tasmania is not making this decision in isolation, but I know that the reforms consistently recommended by inquiries in other jurisdictions, including Tasmania’s own 2013 inquiry, had been reforms, not blanket prohibition. This was a significant change and from that.
The Tasmanian industry has implemented many of those reforms. The question this council must weigh is whether that reform record, combined with a new regulatory framework now in place, was given sufficient opportunity to demonstrate whether prohibition is in fact necessary.
I’ve set out the picture as honestly and as completely as I can. I just want to summarise where this leaves me. I have no direct interest in this industry. I have no desire to attend greyhound racing or horse racing. I’m not conflicted in any way making my decision. I’m absolutely neutral on it. I recognise that an industry that does not have broad community support is an easy position to form for many people, myself included. This is an industry that has seen community sentiment and support decline and is now significantly low.
I’ve also heard the heartfelt pleas from those of the rural community who participate in the industry, an intergenerational activity, and a reason to get out of bed in the morning ‑ members of our community who care deeply for and love their dogs and include three or more generations in the care and training of those greyhounds. I hear the love and care many in our community have for their greyhounds, many rescued and requiring significant investment in their socialisation and general wellbeing.
I hear the pleas of those engaged in the rescue and rehoming programs and the concerns continuing with this industry will put on these organisations and individuals. Animal cruelty in any form for any cat, dog, cow, sheep, goat, bird or other creature is not okay. Sadly, animal cruelty is not confined to one species or breed. I absolutely acknowledge the dedication and commitment of all those who work in this area: what they see can be truly heartbreaking. Animals do not have a voice. It is up to us to ensure that cruelty to any animal is never condoned or overlooked.
I and many other health professionals, police, teachers, community service workers see an enormous amount of cruelty to fellow humans as well, who, whilst they do have a voice, are often unable to use it; instances of family violence and abuse of children, for example. This bill is not about that, but I just want to raise the point that we all have a role to play in standing up to all forms of violence and cruelty.
I accept that the animal welfare concerns underlying this bill, are genuine and have substance. They did not emerge from nowhere. The 2013, or whatever year it was, parliamentary inquiry into greyhound racing in Tasmania placed on the public record evidence that has, by any account, been deeply troubling. Those findings were a reckoning, and the reforms that followed were necessary and overdue.
The decade-long improvement to welfare outcomes since the inquiry is real, and it should be acknowledged honestly. The total euthanasia has fallen from 635 in 2016 to 33 in 2025, a 95 per cent reduction.
The categories of most concerned animal welfare advocates ‑ dogs destroyed as surplus to racing requirements, dogs euthanased because they are deemed unrehomeable without any independent oversight ‑ have reduced to near zero. These are not trivial improvements, they’re marked with improvements. They reflect the sustained effort by regulators, by the industry, and by advocates who refuse to accept the status quo. They demonstrate that reform, when properly design and enforced, can produce meaningful changes in animal welfare outcomes. But I do not dismiss the evidence of harm, nor the community’s concern about it. I want to be careful not to allow the improvement trend to carry more weight than it should.
A 95 per cent reduction in euthanasia is a remarkable achievement, but it does not mean that the underlying risks of the industry have been eliminated. Greyhounds are bred selectively for speed and musculoskeletal capacity, and race at high velocities in tight circuits. The physics of the activity produce injury rates that no amount of track improvement or regulatory oversight will reduce to zero. But animals – farm dogs and all that – are hurt and injured doing their work on the farms, too. There are many places where you can’t reduce the harm to zero.
The data from the government’s own questions on notice show the on‑track and training injury euthanasia: dogs that die because of what happened to them while racing or being prepared to race has fallen substantially but has not disappeared. Sadly, other dog breeds are also euthanased in tragic circumstances at times, too, and much of that cruelty is not seen in the racing industry. This has not led to a suggestion, however, that we ban all other dog ownership, so, of course, we must take an evidence‑based approach.
I also note the RSPCA Tasmania’s concern expressed in October 2024 in their response to the Tasracing annual report that injury rates in the greyhound code remain unacceptably high and the transparency around post‑racing outcomes is insufficient. I do not dismiss the evidence of harm, nor the community’s concern about it. The RSPCA Tasmania is not some fringe organisation; it’s the state’s principal animal welfare enforcement agency, named in legislation and a participant in the Integrity and Animal Welfare Advisory Committee established under the Racing Regulation and Integrity Act 2024. Its concerns about the adequacy of data reporting and ongoing rate of injury deserve to be weighted seriously and not set aside because the long‑term trend is positive.
What this tells me is that the animal welfare question in this debate is genuinely difficult. It is not a question of whether the industry has improved – it has substantially and demonstrably. It is a question of whether the remaining harms are acceptable, whether the new regulatory framework has been given adequate time to address them, and whether prohibition is the only instrument capable of achieving animal welfare outcomes the community expects. Reasonable people, acting in good faith, can reach different conclusions on each of these questions. This is precisely why I find myself unable to treat this as a straightforward case in either direction.
I accept that the economic case for our continued public funding of the greyhound code is on balance weak, when viewed through the lens of straightforward fiscal analysis. The productivity of government investment in this code has declined and the cost per job sustained has risen. On Mr Eslake’s analysis, drawing on the industry’s own data, Tasmania funds greyhound racing more generously than other jurisdictions and gets a lower economic return for that investment.
But I cannot easily set aside the manner in which that decision to phase‑out greyhound racing was made; a pre‑election commitment reversed within weeks for political reasons, rather than policy reasons, without regulatory recommendations, without economic modelling, without Treasury advice and without community consultation. That is not how government should make decisions that affect the lives and livelihoods and wellbeing of hundreds of Tasmanians, the welfare of thousands of animals and the financial sustainability of an industry that has operated in this state for over a century.
I cannot easily set aside the timing concerning the Racing Regulation and Integrity Act. This Council supported substantial investment and legislative reform that was described by the government as a framework that would deliver welfare and integrity outcomes ‑ commenced on 1 February 2025. Six months later, the decision was made to end the industry. That’s not an adequate period of time to assess whether the new framework is working. Welfare data from that six-month period, including kennel inspections, suggests that a single substantiated animal welfare breach – just one – from 131 inspections, suggests it was actually working.
I still have outstanding questions about the compensation framework, and I hope the Deputy Leader can provide some responses to that.
I also found it entirely inappropriate for the Racing Integrity Commissioner today to repeat, more than once, that we do not need to consider or scrutinise the relevant data to make the decision. I just found that extraordinary that he would suggest that we just ignore the data, because the data’s hard to really ascertain, it’s really hard to get to the bottom of it and he said twice, sitting across the table from me, you don’t need to worry about the data, you don’t need the data to make your decision; well yes, I do. Yes, I do. I want to look at the economics, I want to look at the animal welfare, I want to look at the community sentiment, I want to look at the time the Racing Regulation and Integrity Act has had to work. I look at all things when I make decisions and whether it’s a decision I’m being called on to make where I really have had trouble to land, I don’t find that helpful or professional or reasonable at all. This is not and has never been how I make decisions in this place. Data is important. Economic impact is important. Lived experience on both sides of this debate are important. Animal welfare is important. I won’t go on.
Mr President, I will listen to other contributions. This has been another decision with polarised opinions in this state. I’ll make my decision with an understanding of what is at stake for animals, for the participants, for the regional communities, some of which I represent, that contribute to and support this industry, for the integrity and accountability that democracy requires, noting the obligation that flows from seeking a mandate, a mandate that makes the commitments of elected governments mean something.
And one last matter. I do not know where this vote’s going to end up. I genuinely don’t, but I want to state very clearly this bill, this vote, this policy, this matter has, again, divided many Tasmanians, some to the edge of their mental health and wellbeing. It’s not about individuals in this parliament. We’re not the ones who’ve got most to lose here. Emotive and at times misleading innuendo and statements do nothing to assist me in my decision‑making. My vote and my decision is made on considering all of these matters and some I simply don’t have time to cover and, as I say, my decision is not and will not be based upon how important it may be to an individual member of another place who tells me how important it is to her. It’s not about her. There are many. There are many matters that really matter to me and I try absolutely to avoid emotive, coercive and at times threatening approaches that I’ve witnessed by some here and in the community.
Regardless of where we stand, we must allow other members to make their own decision and not be fearful of reprisal from either side. And I find this an extraordinary position to be in, and I’m getting tired of having such divisive, polarising debates in this place.
And one last matter: if this bill is successful, I urge the supporters of the bill to tone down reactions and social media comment as I genuinely fear that we will see some figuratively dancing on the graves of those who will lose so much; something that matters enormously to their mental health and physical health and wellbeing.
If this bill is supported and successful, I hope that we don’t see photos on the front page of the Mercury and all over people’s social media of people dancing on the graves of the people I represent. So, I hope people can contain themselves and if it goes down. The same applies to the industry because I think member for Montgomery said, whoever said sorry ‑ it might’ve been the member for McIntyre ‑ that on either side, there’s going to be people hurting at the end of this.
Uknown member – It’s like the stadium.
Ms FORREST – It is. It’s just another polarising, divisive situation we actually didn’t need to find ourselves in this way. So, I just hope people can think about that. I hope they can think about how they’re approaching other members in this place. We make our own decisions and we do it the best way we can in doing so.