Legislative Council, Wednesday 10 December 2025
Ms FORREST (Murchison) (by leave) – Mr President, I move –
That the Greyhound Racing Legislation Amendments (Phasing Out Reform) Bill 2025 be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Greyhound Racing Transition for consideration and report.
In speaking to that motion and moving that motion that effectively refers the legislation that we are set to deal with today to the Joint Standing Committee on Greyhound Racing Transition, in my view, this referral should have occurred when the legislation was first drafted and not in the dying days of the parliamentary year.
The committee’s terms of reference clearly anticipate, as I was informed in a phone call with Mr Carroll that this is the principal and what he expected to be the only piece of legislation required to give effect to the government’s policy to ban greyhound racing in 2029. This is the legislation that does it. In my view it clearly fits in the remit of that committee that was established with one of their terms of reference to look at this question
I acknowledge the genuine animal welfare concerns that underpin the policy intent of this legislation. These concerns are important and deserve to be taken seriously. Personally, I’m not a fan of the racing industry; it holds no attraction for me. But I am a strong supporter of proper process, transparency and treating people, particularly smaller and minority groups, with respect when making decisions that directly and profoundly impact their lives and livelihoods.
On that measure the process surrounding this bill has been nothing short of appalling. On 17 July 2025, during the state election campaign, the Premier wrote to the greyhound racing industry, outlining his party’s full support. Participants had 100 years of bipartisan political support and three weeks after the election they were told the industry would be shut down by a phone call from the minister’s office, literally hours before the policy announcement was made. There was no consultation, no communication other than that very late phone call and, in my view, no respect. That is not how we should treat Tasmanians, regardless of our personal view about their industry.
Following that decision, the parliament agreed to establish the Joint Standing Committee on Greyhound Racing Transition with clear and comprehensive terms of reference. The committee was given significant powers, as all committees are, to send for papers and persons and sit during any adjournment of either House and to adjourn from place to place as necessary to collect the evidence that they would require to assist in that transition.
The committee’s terms of reference specifically identify legislative requirements for the transition as part of its role, yet this bill, in any form, draft or otherwise, was never referred to the committee before it received its first and second reading and passage through the other place.
This legislation does impact on people who have had no real opportunity, in my view, to have their say. You might argue that they were offered opportunities and said no. I mean this has been a very rapidly moving process for those people who are feeling completely disrespected and disenfranchised by a complete turnaround and what they thought was strong support to be anything but. Of course they were hurting. I have heard from people from my community that they wanted to be involved in the legislation; they weren’t aware that this was the process to do it.
You can criticise all you like and say the industry bodies know that, but with all due respect to some of these people – I know some of them are probably listening – that they aren’t the most highly educated people. They’re not a bunch of lawyers and doctors and other really informed people who understand parliamentary process by and large. There are some who probably can and do, but I think we need to be sure that they were given ample opportunity to understand what the process was.
I met with some in my office and encouraged them to be involved. I said, ‘If you don’t, you risk cutting off your nose to spite your face. I know you don’t support the approach being taken by the government or the ban, at all, but when you’re dealing with matters to give effect to this, like the legislation, you do need to be involved and at the table.’
I can understand how difficult that would have been for them. It’s like presiding over your own funeral not an ideal place to be put.
I do hear the criticisms that they chose not to engage initially, particularly with the working group that was set up that through the Racing Integrity Commission to oversee this. I don’t think, even when I tried to explain, there was a full understanding that if you really want a say in the legislation and in the transition, even if you completely disagree, which they do, that you need to insert yourself into it. It’s not a criticism of those individuals, it was just that they were in a terribly distressed state and it was difficult for them to understand how they can and should participate.
That aside, in any event, a proper committee process with a committee that was set up for the purpose to enable all stakeholders, not just those in the industry itself, but those in the animal welfare space and others, to enable them to get support to prepare considered submissions on the bill would have taken some time for them. Usually, we have a period of consultation on draft legislation for stakeholders who are directly impacted or have an interest in the area to have an opportunity to prepare a submission – that’s to a draft bill.
The committee would enable that process. That would allow time to put out a call for submissions to hear from the relevant stakeholders as all committees do. The committee receives those submissions, considers them and weighs up the evidence, and reports, according to it.
Over the years we’ve had other bills referred to committees in this place, either the whole bill or parts of the bill. The most recent one being the expungement matter that was referred to the Gender and Equality Committee, and that wasn’t the whole bill; it was a specific component of the bill. However, it did deal with a very small number of people, probably 10 men, whereas this deals was with quite a larger number not half the population certainly in terms of what it means for them moving forward.
Even preparing a submission, particularly appearing before a committee, can be quite daunting for many people, and we do need to keep that in mind. They might have preferred, and I don’t know because it was never tested, to have some support to prepare a submission on provisions in the bill where they saw there could be problems with it or other ways of achieving it or in consequences that may not have been considered. I don’t know whether that’s the case or not because there was not an opportunity to go through that process.
I do acknowledge that the industry was invited to join, as the Leader by interjection suggested, the Racing Integrity Commissioner’s committee or working group, and they understandably declined to participate. Even if they had participated, that committee, as I understand it, was not given a copy of the draft bill for comment, either. That’s in my conversations.
It just seems that this has been very rushed, and there hasn’t been an opportunity to fully consider the bill. Yes, we can do it in our House and through the Committee stage here, but it’s a bit hard to get feedback on some of the provisions from those most impacted.
I understand that the industry accepted an invitation to meet with the commissioner about the bill on the morning of 6 November, but less than two hours later the bill was tabled before any feedback could be offered.
I’ve heard from representatives of the industry that they didn’t feel that was a respectful process. It was really a briefing, not an opportunity to meaningfully engage and certainly no time to prepare suggested amendments, not being familiar with the process, particularly some of them.
When we’re considering this motion to refer this bill to a committee set up for the purpose, I asked members to try to think if they don’t wish to support that, to identify another example of any time where a major reform and it is a major reform for the people who are impacted by this has proceeded without this sort of public consultation or engagement with the impact of parties before it was tabled.
Greyhound racing participants are overwhelmingly not well versed in political processes and with all due respect, as I said, it’s not an area they do engage in on a regular basis.
Whatever our views of the industry, these are real people, and they have real investments and real lives that will be fundamentally altered, and they deserve to have their voices heard. Many have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in their dogs, their equipment and their premises on the basis of this bipartisan support for many years and on the basis that it was reconfirmed only just before the election.
But I go back to the point, regardless of the view of the industry, this is not the way we should approach major reform, no matter how welcome or supported, if we haven’t taken time to engage with those directly impacted.
What was the rush? The arguments that have been advanced include, first, that greyhound owners in other jurisdictions have destroyed their animals and need legislative protections but, as I understand it, the participants in the industry are already forbidden from euthanising dogs without permission from Tasracing and its chief vet under the greyhound rules of racing. They cannot euthanise a greyhound without reason. There’s a penalty of up to 200 penalty units for that.
Second, we’ve also heard a claim of large numbers of impregnated bitches and greyhounds being brought in from the mainland, and that will add to the cost of rehoming many more dogs. Now, I’m pretty well versed with the breeding of humans and cows. I’m not so well versed in the breeding of greyhounds, but I have done a bit of research while I could, and it seems they only have one, or two litters, at most a year. They only come in season once, possibly twice a year. There are very strict rules on how many litters they can have, what age they are, when they can have them I can’t remember the exact date, but how old they have to be and they can’t breed beyond, I think, it’s about six years from memory. Something like that.
In any event, there are pretty strict rules on that, and to suggest that we might see the use of stimulants to bring them back into season early, when I did a bit of research on that on veterinary sites, there are a number of side effects and risks associated with that. I don’t think that would be something that most breeders would choose to do. In fact, it’s often used to delay coming into season so those female dogs can race. We need to be careful about making claims about large numbers of impregnated bitches in Tasmania because this is the time, as I understand, when often they do come into season, like a lot of animals around springtime. Anyway, that’s my research, and I have had some of that confirmed by the minister’s adviser in how the breeding is actually managed.
The other thing is the concern that the planning for the transition cannot continue until this bill is passed, but I find that a little bit nonsensical. This wasn’t made in the briefing today; this was in a phone call I had yesterday, because I was informed this work is actually going on. Obviously, when we deal with any legislation, like the Commission for Children and Young People one that we dealt with for the third reading this morning, even though that legislation didn’t pass this House for a period, there was so much work that’s gone on in the background to prepare for what the department hopes is a passage of that bill to give effect to that. We all know that work doesn’t go on to support what’s required in any legislation in the expectation that the bill won’t be passed; it just doesn’t happen.
I understand there has been a lot of work done and that will continue, regardless. If this was referred to that committee, the committee could consider it and report back by March when we come back. It doesn’t have to be a massive you’re looking at the legislation, you’re not looking at the whole transition; you’re not looking at the policy position; it’s the piece of legislation. If members wanted to amend the motion to say it had to report back within a number of sitting days, you could. That’s how it works in the Gender and Equality Committee. We had a limited number of sitting days, a short number. That certainly made us get on with it and we did.
The policy intent is clear: to stop greyhound racing by 30 June 2029 and that is over four years away and so I don’t see
The Council suspended from 1.00 p.m. to 2.30 p.m.
Resumed from above
Ms FORREST (Murchison) – Before the break, I was talking about the policy intent of the government with regard to the greyhound racing industry, which is to ban or stop it by 30 June 2029, which is more than four years away. For me – and from the information I’ve heard and had the opportunity to hear from a range of people, including the Racing Integrity Commissioner – to me there’s no compelling argument why this legislation must be dealt with this week, rather than being subject to more full and proper scrutiny where those directly impacted have a chance to participate in that process.
For these reasons I seek members’ support for the referral of this bill to the Joint Standing Committee on Greyhound Racing Transition to do the job this parliament gave it. The committee should and could call for public submissions in response to the bill. This would allow all interested parties on all sides – animal welfare advocates, industry participants, regional communities, and others – to raise issues, concerns, and opportunities for improvements in the bill if needed.
It’s not a policy debate that we’re suggesting. It’s a proper scrutiny of the legislation that gives effect to that policy. I note, for example, there is no provision in the bill for compensation for industry participants who may rely on this for their income, and even if that may be a small number, I ask, is it the government’s intention not to provide any support to these people?
I’m also told that part of the transition program and consideration that the Racing Integrity Commissioner has to do is to look at that. I go back to the expungement of historic offences legislation, and when that first came in I can’t remember what year it was it was when Matthew Groom was the Attorney General, and I had spent hours negotiating with him on the original bill to try to get compensation in the act. I got a few things I was after, but that was not one of them. I came back at least once between the last iteration and the first iteration trying to get the compensation again. But no, the next iteration that we’ve just dealt with came without compensation and through the work of the Greens in the lower House, they put forward a process to establish compensation then the Gender and Equality Committee looked at that as a committee set up for these sorts of purposes and came back with a recommendation for compensation.
You’re not going to provide compensation or, in this case, redress, to industry participants or people impacted if you don’t have a legislative mechanism for it. I was concerned when I was informed this is the legislation to guide this process and this is it. That may or may not be the case I don’t know it may become apparent there needs to be further legislative change, but if it’s not there, it means it won’t happen. I don’t have a view on whether it should or it shouldn’t at this point. We just haven’t had the information.
To the role of the committee will be to work through this bill’s provisions, hear from those affected, examine the economic and financial implications, and provide this House with the informed analysis that we need. This referral would replace the consultation process that should have been undertaken by NRE when it was drafting the bill. It was interesting to hear in the briefing that NRE gave instruction to the Racing Integrity Commissioner to provide the drafting instructions. It’s a bit of an unusual way to do it in many respects.
In any event, even when the draft bill landed, it was not referred to this committee that was set up for that purpose under its agreed terms of reference that went through both Houses of parliament. I believe it would allow our House to make more evidence-based decisions rather than rushed ones.
I acknowledge again the animal welfare concerns that motivate this legislation and any potential delay. These concerns matter, but so does proper process, so does respect, and so does treating people with dignity when their lives and livelihoods are being directly impacted.
We cannot write to an industry in July – or we can, we obviously have – but we should not write to an industry in July assuring them of our of support and then shut them down three weeks later without consultation and expect that to be considered acceptable governance. You cannot or should not draft legislation affecting many people without actively enabling their input.
You need to remember that sometimes you need to take a much more considered approach to enabling input when you’re dealing with people who don’t fully understand how it works. We do make special provisions for vulnerable communities. I’m not suggesting this is a particularly vulnerable community, but I’m talking in broad terms. If we’re trying to get evidence or input into a committee process from a vulnerable community, you would make a provision for that, you would enable that, because that is the right thing to do.
We should not bypass this committee process that parliament specifically established to oversee the transition and to consider legislation to give effect to the transition. The government should not seek to rush through major reform in the final sitting week of parliament without proper scrutiny, but that’s what we seem to be trying to do here, or what the government seems to want to do.
The greyhound racing industry participants will be affected. The organisations responsible for rehoming animals and the broader Tasmanian community all deserve better than that. They deserve legislation that’s been developed with consultation and passed with the oversight of the committee that was set up for the purpose.
This parliament has agreed to that process through supporting that committee and it’s a shame that we got to this point. It all started with the Premier’s commitment that meant nothing at the end of the day. It’s all about retaining power.
At least we can assure a proper process around the passage of this legislation. To be absolutely clear, I’m not asking members to support or oppose the policy intent of this bill. I’m seeking members’ support to respect our proper process, to respect the people affected and to do our jobs as we’re expected to. I’m seeking support of members to refer the bill to the Joint Standing Committee on Greyhound Racing Transition to enable that scrutiny and to enable directly impacted parties to be heard, and for the committee to fulfil its mandate.
This work can be done before we return to parliament in mid-March, and then this House can make an informed decision based on evidence that has been informed by those directly impacted and not one made in haste without that input.
I look forward to other members’ contributions. I hope that this sees the favour of the House.
Response to debate:
Ms FORREST (Murchison) – Mr President, I want to make a few comments in closing the debate. To reiterate, I’m not here to talk about whether the policy should be adopted and the legislation passed. I’m here to talk about a proper process and a proper process that wasn’t taken. As a person who does take proper process very seriously, I find it anything but acceptable that if that’s a matter that you really value, you should always apply it whether you agree with the decision or the policy we’re looking at or not. That said, I hear the member for Hobart’s comments about the risk associated with this and I spoke about that in my contribution in moving the motion. I acknowledge the comments made by the member for Rumney when she talked about the very different situation with the stadium. It is a very different situation because that was taken to two elections, love it or hate it, and I think everyone knows how we voted in this place on the order. That is no secret. It was subject to various forms of scrutiny over the time and it was something that was not a surprise. The only surprise perhaps came from the Labor Party way back when they changed their position on it, but they’re not in government.
When we look at this matter on its own, this is a very different situation. You have an industry that received a letter quite clearly and strongly confirming support for the industry from the Premier of the day. Yes, we had another early election and in order to retain power, one of the things that was agreed with the crossbench was to phase out the greyhound industry, but that was done without any recourse to that sector at all. That is a shocking and appalling way to deal with any industry, regardless of your view of it. It’s just an unconscionable thing to do to anyone. The only way, in my view, the government can retain some credibility around this is to ensure that it does follow a proper process, consulting on the legislation and the transition process to at least enable the people to feel like they’ve been heard.
I will just go to the Joint Standing Committee on Greyhound Racing Transition terms of reference because, for the life of me – and one of the reasons I didn’t respond to Mr Carroll’s email was I thought, well, the committee’s going to look at that; I will worry about it after then and I will get some more information then, because it clearly says – and I’m going to cut out the bits that don’t relate to the bit I’m talking about – this is the motion that was that was resolved in both Houses:
That a Joint Standing Committee on Greyhound Racing Transition, be appointed with the power to send for persons and papers, with leave to sit during any adjournment of either House and with leave to adjourn from place to place to oversee the phasing out of greyhound racing in Tasmania by 30 June 2029 including matters of:
…
(iv) Legislative requirements for the transition; and …
That’s pretty clear. Time pressures aside, I saw that. I supported that when that motion was moved in this House. I expected that to be the case. To be criticised for not responding to a broad scale email to all members saying, ‘Tell us what you think’, when this was the process that I had agreed to, I find somewhat interesting to say the least. I raise the point about compensation not being in the bill. We’ve had assurances that there will be a just and fair transition for industry participants and others impacted by this proposed policy that has effect in the bill; but I’ve seen a number of quite solid commitments from government in recent times that have all been trashed. Why would I believe this one above all those?
There’s no provision made, not for an amount of compensation, but at least acknowledgement that will be part of the plan, I think maybe that’s something that should be included in the legislation. It’s not there, and it’s something that should be thrashed out by the committee, in my view, so if they’re serious about that, then let’s have a provision in there, otherwise we end up with the situation like we had with the expungement of historic offences. It was not until we actually got a provision in the legislation that we saw that occur, despite asking, despite a TLRI report that said it should. It has to be in the legislation, unless we are going to rely on ex gratia, and that’s fraught in itself, for all the reasons we understand.
It was the member for Hobart who talked about the committee which she was a member of, and she did hear from the Racing Integrity Commissioner about the bill and some other players on that, including some of the industry representatives; but I don’t believe – and I’m happy to be corrected if I’m wrong – that the committee put out a public call for submissions. That’s what a committee should do. That’s how committees work. That’s how committees are public-facing. That’s how committees get input from the various sectors of the community. That’s how parliament goes out to the people. That didn’t occur.
To say you had a hearing where you talked about the legislation is not the same. It’s absolutely not the same as taking the parliament to the people, asking for submissions, pulling them in, making a judgement about whether or not – you consider all the evidence, you might get hundreds, thousands of emails. I’ve been on committees where you’ve got that. You don’t hear from everybody. You pick a selection; certainly you hear from the representative organisations in my view, other committees may do things slightly differently. Then there may be some individuals who raise matters that are not in the general theme of other thinking, then you say, let’s hear from this person; why do they suggest that? Why this person? See, why do they suggest that? Why do they think that? Why is that a problem? Not about the policy, but about the bill. The industry players themselves will probably need some assistance for that, but that’s what the representative bodies should be able to help them with.
I hope the committee can help them with that too, to give them an opportunity. As to the concern about the potential large increase in puppies that will be birthed in this interim period, in my mind, we’re talking about an extension until March next year. No one suggested a timeline on it, but if the committee is able, there’s no reason why the work can’t be done over February, early March. This House is not back until later in March. There is time to look at this matter and report on it. Obviously it would be an interim report of that committee, because it’s a standing committee that’s to oversee the whole transition piece, but any bitch that’s pregnant now can only have one litter; and for those who are not in season now and are not pregnant, then they’re not going to be able to necessarily get in pup until after this potential deadline.
From the research I did and talking to others who are much more knowledgeable in greyhound breeding than I am, they’re only on heat twice a year at the most, one to two times a year. The risk of using stimulants like IVF for greyhounds, it would be costly, for one thing, but it would also – sorry, not IVF, fertility treatment, sorry would be costly and carries risks according to the veterinary sites I looked at, if you’re going to use that. I think we need to be genuine about this, that the bitches that are actually likely to have pups during this period are probably already pregnant or were going to be anyway in the natural cycle of things. I don’t dismiss that that will mean there’s more dogs than there might have been born.
Ms O’Connor – I just don’t think you can say that, because there’s three months for these dogs to be made pregnant.
Ms FORREST – They can only have one litter a year, there’s lots of restrictions around how many litters they can have. I think, from memory, it’s three litters per bitch. They can’t be impregnated too young and they certainly can’t be too old, and so there is a limitation around that. I’m not saying people might not bring dogs within that timeframe that haven’t had three litters already or are within that age range from the mainland, maybe they will, but let’s follow a proper and decent process here. Let’s not throw proper process out when we’re making a significant and fundamental change to a sector of the community that there’s many who public opinion is not in their favour, absolutely it’s not, but proper process matters and respect for humans matters as well as respect for dogs and other animals. I think we shouldn’t elevate one above the other here in this, and we should do our best to ensure that both can be considered in this.
I know there’s challenges; I’m not denying that, I’ve not denied it in my original contribution, I’m not denying it now. The fact is that we shouldn’t be here. This should have been referred to the committee, as I referred to earlier, when it was drafted. The government controls the timing of legislation that comes to this place, and I think it was the member for Rumney who made the point, that if we do seek to progress this legislation this week, it has to go through unamended to be in place to enable that 1 January date. Whether or not the member for McIntyre’s amendment got up or not, but if it did, that puts pay to that, straight up. The government control their agenda. They should have thought about this. They should have referred the bill to the committee, as they agreed downstairs and up here, and they should have followed a proper process to give at least some confidence in the process, even though the outcome is likely not to be what the industry participants want, in my view. I could be wrong, that’s a matter for another day though.
I thank members for their contribution. I think that numbers are probably there to be sent off to the committee. I hope the committee are in a position where they can progress it and bring it back to us early next year so all those players feel like they’ve had their voices heard because that’s the least we can do for our fellow Tasmanians.
Mr PRESIDENT (Mr Farrell) – The question is that the motion be agreed to.
The Council divided –
AYES 8
NOES 4
Ms Armitage Mr Duigan
Ms Forrest Ms O’Connor (Teller)
Mr Gaffney (Teller) Ms Palmer
Mr Harriss Ms Webb
Mr Hiscutt
Ms Lovell
Ms Rattray
Ms Thomas
Motion agreed to.