Wednesday, 15 September 2021

 Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (09:26): I move:

That this house:

(1)   acknowledges:

(a) that members in this house and in the community condemn animal cruelty where it occurs;

(b) that horses in the racing industry deserve our care and respect;

(2)   notes:

(a) that surveys commissioned by Racing Victoria found that more than 87 per cent of respondents believe that there should be reform to the use of the whip;

(b) the public commentary from Racing Victoria that it supports reform to reduce the use of the whip;

(c) Racing Victoria’s view that the whip remains critical for the safety of the horse and jockey; and

(3)   calls on state racing authorities to work with Racing Australia to develop a national approach to address community concern around the use of the whip.

I rise today to move my motion on the use of whips in horseracing. ‘Gambling is the child of avarice, the brother of iniquity and the father of mischief’, according to George Washington, and nothing has changed in the last 200 years. The most high profile and obvious victims of the gambling industry are racehorses—overbred, trained and raced to within an inch of their lives, and sometimes to their deaths, raced too young, raced too old, forced to jump hurdles over enormous distances, fed diets that ensure almost all of them suffer from gastric ulcers. And when their working life is finished, successful or not, the reward is a bullet before being served up as pet food—what the industry would call ‘wastage’.

Today I want to focus on one particular cruelty in horseracing, arguably the most public display of animal cruelty in the country: whips. Horses are beaten on race days by whipping their flanks, pushing them beyond their limits in fear of the pain it causes. Make no mistake: no matter what the industry will say, it does cause pain. The Catalyst program on the ABC showed that to be the case in stark, horrifying detail. In fact horses’ nerve endings, their pain receptors, are extraordinarily numerous and close to the surface of their skin at the very spot they are whipped. Horse skin is thinner than human skin and very sensitive to pain. Beating an animal is banned under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 in this state. In any other setting the cruelty could rightly see someone punished, but in a perverse tug of the forelock to the powerful, enormously rich racing crowd, an exemption has been carved out.

I want to take a moment to call out another falsehood: that the whip is used sparingly. Current whip rules allow horses to be struck up to five times during a race up until the final 100 metres, where the use of the whip is unlimited. I have watched time and again as jockeys lose their patience, let their anger come to the surface and whip their horses like their lives depend on it. Of course, jockeys who breach whipping rules get a second chance. Those who exceed five strikes during a race can have their fine overturned if they then abstained from whipping consecutively in the final 100 metres of that race. Whether they are overwhipped at the start, middle or end of a race, the outcome for horses is the same, and a paltry fine will not deter anyone.

In Australia’s highest profile race, the Melbourne Cup, the whip rules are broken with abandon and horses brought here from their homes in other countries are also beaten without worry or concern. Jockeys have been fined for overwhipping in the last two Melbourne Cups. And why would they worry? The jockeys and the owners will not lose prize money if they win, and any potential fine is a drop in the ocean by comparison. So who cares if we belt the living daylights out of the old nag, eh? I do. So do an enormous number of people, huge now but growing ever larger, sick and tired of seeing horses whipped. A study in 2018 showed that at least three-quarters of surveyed Australians objected to the use of the whip. Eighty-seven per cent of surveyed racing punters said they would continue to participate if the rules were changed to ban the whip. They would stay.

The RSPCA is unequivocal in its support of a ban on the whip. It is also my position that we must ban the whip, as Norway did 35 years ago. Yes, Norway banned the whip in 1986, yet here we are in 2021 with no action—no action—on the whip, despite mounting public opposition. Since Norway banned the whip there have been no safety repercussions for jockeys—none—and far fewer serious injuries to horses. Hands-and-heels racing is now a fixture in the British racing calendar. Whip-free racing is the way forward if racing must continue.

My motion today does not go as far as I would like; but I know exactly the power, the might, of the industry that I am up against. So my motion tries to move them slowly but surely towards dropping this cruel rubbing of salt into the wound. I sincerely hope that you can all support this motion, that even those amongst you who are fans of horseracing can see that it is beyond time to ban the whip, that you can truly respect an animal that many of us hold such deep affection for, and if you are on the fence, I want you to imagine getting up close to one of those beautiful, magnificent animals, looking them in the eye, holding their gaze and then striking them as painfully hard as you can. Could you betray their trust? Because that is what is happening.

Racing Victoria declared national whip rules as inappropriate a year ago. Despite seeking national action on whip reform, they cannot go it alone. Rules in horseracing are governed by the national body, Racing Australia, so while Victoria may want to stop using the whip, pressure from other states makes it very difficult to bring reform. Racing New South Wales is one of the racing bodies least open to change, so my Animal Justice Party colleagues in the New South Wales Parliament will be calling for the same change in their state.

I make no secret of the fact that I am no fan of horseracing in any form. But I accept that it will be here for my lifetime, so on this issue I must remain practical. This is a change that would be a practical improvement in the quality of life for the thousands of racehorses in this state, and I hope you, my colleagues from all sides, will show compassion today and support this motion.

 Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria) (09:33): It is always a challenge to follow Mr Meddick after contributions on subject matter which is very often very dear to my heart. I rise today feeling grateful for the opportunity to talk about this part of the industry which, as with so many incremental reforms that are geared toward animal welfare and better management of industries which are at least here for the time being, needs to evolve, and I want to really endorse and back in the comments that Mr Meddick has made in support of a move towards a ban on whips being used in racing not just in Victoria but also around Australia. I think Racing Australia has got a lot of work to do to make sure that it is keeping pace with other jurisdictions around the world. Mr Meddick has singled out Norway, but there are indeed a number of other countries where the phasing out of whips and indeed rules such as those we have here in Victoria around the five strikes until 100 metres before the finish line and then unlimited opportunity for strikes thereafter have been in fact removed.

I am interested to see what the correlation is between that and a compromise to rider safety or indeed feelings of safety by jockeys. But having said that, I also note that jockeys, as a stock in trade, as a profession, are profoundly good at reading the language of their horses’ bodies and of reading the temperaments of their horses’ bodies such that they are in so many instances, because of their skill and experience, able to preserve their own safety in a pre-emptive and proactive way simply because of the inherently close partnership and trust which exists between horse and rider.

Another point to raise is around the economic viability of the horseracing industry as it relates to punters being very prepared to continue to support the industry where a phase-out of whips occurs in competitive horseracing. To that end I note that it will then be perhaps a benefit for the brand of horseracing to be able to say that in addition to the other animal welfare initiatives, which have been taken and have been adopted with great enthusiasm from not just those in the industry but horse lovers and people who participate in everything from picnic races to off the track, we will in fact be able to see a very real and ongoing commitment to equine welfare across the state.

When we look at the use of animals and livestock in entertainment activities and indeed for our own use and sustenance, we have come a long way. We have come a long way in every area, from sow stalls through to the change to free-range egg definitions. I always like to think that I can buy eggs at 1500 chickens per hectare rather than up to 10 000, but we are making progress. That is one example of how far we have come in understanding that there are significant economic benefits and there are significant benefits in reflecting social licence to be better and to do better by animals, who are part and parcel of our economic growth, development and prosperity, along with the jobs that they create and sustain across Victoria.

I commend Racing Victoria for the work that it has done in being vocal around the need to phase out the use of whips. I note Mr Meddick’s comment around the all-powerful nature of competition when it comes to elite racing, when it comes to the Cox Plate, the Melbourne Cup and indeed other elite competition races that are streamed around the world to great acclaim. In those races we see whips used with absolute abandon. This is something that I think we need to be better at calling out, I think we need to be better at regulating and I think we need to be more cognisant of in the context of encouraging good practice by owners, by trainees, by jockeys and by the industry and of recognising and rewarding those people within the industry who are doing the right thing. It should not amount to a practical disadvantage for those who place equine welfare at the very top of their list of priorities when faced with a competitor who is prepared to break the rules, prepared to engage in unlimited strikes and prepared to strike, for example, above the shoulder in breach of the rules or in the vicinity of a horse’s head simply to win a race.

I am a big fan of positive encouragement for people in the racing industry to do the right thing, and I have spoken about this many times not just in relation to horseracing but in relation to greyhounds and the greyhound racing industry. There are many people who have very different views about how to advance change in the primacy of animal welfare across these industries. My view has always been that it is within our capacity to encourage people from within the industry to do better and indeed to show the way around best practice being the preferred way to overhaul industries from within, and from within the tent in fact, to effect positive change.

We know that where animals are encouraged through connection, through trust, through effective training and through strong, deep connections with their riders and trainers they do well as much out of a desire to please as anything else and that the adrenaline associated with a racing environment will in fact be sufficient to encourage a horse to do its best. Animals, where they have a close connection to people within the industries that rely upon them, are in a competitive sense hardwired to please.

These are the sorts of areas which I think warrant further work from Racing Victoria and Racing Australia to make sure that as we take these steps in partnership with Racing Victoria in calling Racing Australia to adopt the models that have been implemented overseas, which have not caused economic harm or damage and which have in fact enabled punters to feel more comfortable about having a flutter, we see in fact that there are significant benefits for the animals involved. There is a significant benefit for the reputation of the industry, an industry which already does a lot—it has a further way to go, but it already does a lot to minimise what Mr Meddick has referred to as wastage. I am not going to shy away from that term, because animals are viewed as commodities in these particular industries and it is important that that language is used in the sense that the industry wants it to be used, rather than in fact evoking emotive images and metaphors about horses going off to live on a farm—or greyhounds or indeed any other racing breed, for that matter. That is ‘farm’ in inverted commas, and you can never go to visit the farm, because it does not in fact exist.

We need to have an ongoing discussion, though, about recognising best practice, about encouraging the industry to continue to do better and about encouraging people to be involved and to vote with their feet on the horses, the riders, the trainers and the consortia within the industry that do do the right thing, that are positive role models for better practice and that indeed are showing a new generation of jockeys, trainers, strappers and others how to get the best from a horse without resorting to violence.

So I think Mr Meddick’s motion is a good one. I think the collaboration which Mr Meddick has undertaken not just with his stakeholders and constituents but also with the Minister for Racing and indeed the industry through Minister Pakula in the other place has been profound, and I think that work really needs to continue. I look forward to seeing the progress of discussions with Racing Australia. I look forward to seeing those discussions bear fruit in a way that makes a significant difference to the welfare of horses. I look forward to seeing more research being undertaken around this persistent notion that indeed whips are required for jockey safety, which is not necessarily demonstrated to have been the case in other jurisdictions.

But, again, for an evidence-based approach to policy reform and indeed to change, we as governments and as parliaments need to be receptive to the idea of different views from different stakeholders in different jurisdictions in order to do the right thing, and this is in order to not just do the right thing by the industry—an industry which, as Mr Meddick has indicated, is here to stay—but then reflect on the social licence which has been diminished to the point of disappearing in fact around the use of whips, where 87 per cent of people surveyed, as referred to by Mr Meddick, are supportive of a phase-out of whip use, and also make sure that we are reflecting modern standards in how far we have come on animal welfare matters and how far we have to go and creating the mechanisms and putting the frameworks in place in order to achieve those ends and that progress over time. I thank Mr Meddick for bringing this motion to the house. As always, his passion is at the forefront of everything he does, and he is to be commended.

 Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (09:44): I rise also to speak to Mr Meddick’s motion 619 today around the racing industry and around the use of whips and to acknowledge the contribution that the racing industry makes to the economic value of our state, a very dynamic industry that supports over 70 000 jobs in this state and contributes over $2 billion to the Victorian economy, more than half of which is generated in country Victoria. It supports not just horseracing, as we see. It supports the fashion industry, the food and beverage industry, travel and tourism—and a whole range of other industries that bolt on the end of our great sport.

I was introduced to horseracing as a very young boy. I was a very young boy when I joined my father at racetracks and had the experience of watching some great battles over time—some great battles, including the 1986 Cox Plate, that battle between Bonecrusher and Our Waverley Star. What a wonderful day that was—what a wonderful day. And in 1982 when Bill Collins called out just before the turn that Kingston Town could not win the Cox Plate and of course the great horse went on to win its third Cox Plate. I am particularly fond of the George Hanlon-trained Family of Man, ridden by Brent Thomson in 1977, and members know that I have a personal connection to that win that day. I love this sport. I think it is a great sport. I think of things like when Might and Power, after winning the 1997 Caulfield Cup and the 1997 Melbourne Cup, went on to win the triple and won the Cox Plate in 1998. And of course who can ever forget the queen of the turf, Winx, winning its fourth Cox Plate or when, I recall, in 2016 they said it could never beat Hartnell—and it did.

This racing industry is significantly important to the economic value of Victoria, so I take up Mr Meddick’s motion today that asks for a number of things. It asks the house to note public commentary from Racing Victoria that it supports the reform to reduce the use of the whip—I note that in Mr Meddick’s motion. I note that it calls on state racing authorities to work with Racing Australia to develop a national approach, and I think that is a wise thing to do. I think at some point Mr Meddick strayed a little bit from his own motion this morning to talk of things outside the motion, but we have come to expect that of Mr Meddick.

Let me say to you that the national reform of whip use is a good thing, recognising that whips are very, very important for the safety of jockeys and horses. And I say as I said at the outset, through you, Chair, to Mr Meddick, I love the horses and I want to see no harm come to the horses. But the whip is a very important element of the safety of both the jockey and the horse and—dare I say, after witnessing some things on track myself—of the patrons as well. It is a very important element. I think over time there have been changes to the way that we view the use of the whip. I think there have been times, over a long period of time, when we have come to recognise that very important partnership of the trainer, the jockey and the horse itself, particularly when you see them in the mounting yard and as they make their way to the barrier and indeed as they return to the judge. That very passionate link between the jockey and the horse, a link that sometimes is hard to explain, that connection between horse and jockey, is one that we should recognise today through Mr Meddick’s motion.

I note in Mr Meddick’s notion he talks about animal cruelty, and I do not think there would be a person in this house that would not be opposed to cruelty to animals. I do not think there would be. I just reflect on my own house, where we have a guide dog who lives with us—a guide dog who has been here to the Parliament—and the wonderful work that she does and other guide dogs do and other assistance dogs do to support people in the community. No-one would ever want to see cruelty to animals.

Mr Meddick’s motion also moves that this house acknowledge that horses in the racing industry deserve our care and respect, and, Mr Meddick, generally speaking they do. There are elements in all levels of industry that sometimes we shake our head at, and we have seen that in other industries as well, like the greyhound industry. We have seen some things we shake our head at and think that there could be some reforms. So in a sense, I say to Mr Meddick, it is important that the state racing authorities get together with Racing Australia and develop a national approach to this—a national approach to how we use whips as that element of safety for jockeys, horses and patrons.

I say to Mr Meddick that this motion seems to indicate, through Mr Meddick’s contribution this morning, that he is looking to do something more than what this motion actually says, and that is interesting. Because one would say to Mr Meddick, if that is what you thought, then you should have put that up. That is what you should have said, Mr Meddick—exactly what you felt. But this motion actually supports a view that the authorities should get together, that the industry should get together, and we should have a discussion on the use of whips and the respect for horses. That is what the motion says, so any straying from this motion by Mr Meddick is either inappropriate or there is a hidden agenda here. I would like him to tell us what it is at some point, but I suspect we know.

Mr Meddick, I say to you that the respect that you are indicating this house should give to horses and that the guidance that Racing Victoria is providing in a national agenda about the use of whips is something that should be supported. If that is the element of your motion today, then we should do that. But I think you were talking about other things in your contribution today. I think you were talking about an agenda that is much wider than what you have put forward today, and I suggest to you that if that is really what you meant then you should have said so.

I say to you, President, that the Liberal-Nationals coalition support a review of the use of whips. We support a national code for the use of whips. We do acknowledge and recognise and very clearly make the point that there is an inextricable link between jockey and horse and the safe use of whips—no doubt in my mind. And having lived—not physically—a lot of my life on the racetrack, I see it. I see it a lot. I see the care and the love by trainers, by strappers, by workers, by staff, by jockeys and by owners for those beautiful horses. And of course those who take the folding stuff out of their pocket, on the racetrack or electronically, love the horses—love them, respect them, cheer. I stood at Moonee Valley Racecourse when Winx passed the judge for the fourth time in the Cox Plate, and the crowd roared—roared and roared—and applauded the great horse when it returned to scale. They applauded it. There was so much love on that racetrack that day for the horses that you could not argue that Victorians and Australians love racing and love their racehorses.

We give ultimate respect to those horses. We treat them and those who surround the horses—the jockeys, the trainers, the owners, the strappers, all those associated—with our utmost respect. So we concur with a view that there should be a national code. We concur with Racing Victoria’s commentary around reducing the use of the whip. But we absolutely—absolutely—make the point that the whip is a very important element in the safety of jockeys, the safety of racehorses, the safety of patrons.

 Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (09:52): I want to speak to the motion by Mr Meddick on the use of whips in the racing of thoroughbred horses in Victoria. The racing and gaming industry has been an integral part of the economy of our state and indeed of Australia and indeed is part of the Australian psyche and entertainment. At the end of October this year, for one week, we will have the greatest thoroughbred horserace in Australia—namely, the Melbourne Cup—if not one of the world’s greatest. There is no decision yet on whether it can be held, because of the pandemic, so I would like to take a digression and encourage people to take up the vaccination as soon and as much as possible so we can enjoy a more normal life.

Our government, the Victorian government, is committed to ensuring that all racehorses are treated with care and respect. We expect the Victorian racing industry to put animal welfare at the forefront of everything it does, and we do in fact condemn any act of animal cruelty. But ultimately the decision relating to the use of whips in horseracing is within the responsibilities of Racing Victoria and Racing Australia.

In September last year, 2020, Racing Victoria announced it would seek to propose national action on whip reform to Racing Australia and also to the principal racing authorities at the next meeting, because it confirmed that the rules at present were not fit for purpose. Racing Victoria’s public position is that riders should be permitted to use the whip not more than a maximum of five or eight times and not in consecutive strides. In order to reach the ultimate position of not using whips in races, Racing Victoria hope that the proposed reform will be taken up and considered at the next meeting of the principal racing authorities.

In the few minutes I have left I would like to say that our government, the Andrews Labor government, supports the leadership shown by Racing Victoria through their advocacy on the use of whips in racing and supports this motion, but ultimately further reforms should be coordinated at the national level. We are looking forward to the outcomes of that meeting.

 Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (09:56): I rise to speak briefly on this motion. I was just reminded of how beautiful horses are and how wonderful it is to see them run. I was reminded because across the river from our property is one of those places that Ms Shing spoke about, a place where retired horses actually do go. Watching them race up the hill in the morning, racing against each other—it was such a natural state of being, and it was so beautiful.

So we know that these horses love to run, and it is a natural state of being. So why do we need a whip? Why do we need horse tongue-ties? I note that in 2018 Reason—our party and me—spoke at length about the use of tongue-ties. That was back in 2018. We know that a tongue-tie is a strap that immobilises a horse’s tongue, attaching it to the lower jaw, and is believed to prevent airway obstruction while racing, although there is not a lot of science around that. In fact there is now a pilot going on around not using ties in the racing industry. We have seen things like nylon ties be prohibited in the racing industry. I think right now we are actually probably seeing the end of the use of ties in the racing industry in Australia; that is good, because they are cruel.

Now, whipping a horse—whipping any animal, anything—is illegal in most circumstances, except for this small exception to that rule—that is, that a jockey in a thoroughbred race can strike the horse up to five times during the race and pretty much every second stride in that last 100 metres. Jockeys have been fined for overwhipping, many times. In fact in the last two Melbourne Cups jockeys were fined for overwhipping. Now, I do not think those fines really stopped the celebrations. I do not think those fines really dug in very deep into the prize money that they had received or the earnings that the owners of those horses had received. So, as a rule, those fines do not really act as a deterrent.

In 2020 Racing Victoria conceded that the current whipping rules were not really appropriate and that we needed reform. So I think Mr Meddick’s motion here actually has extraordinarily widespread support. In fact it is hard to find people who do not seem to agree with it. In fact in Victoria they attempted to trial whip-free racing. And one assumes, if those horses love racing as much as they do, and they love running as much as I could see they do across the river from my place, they would not need a whip to continue racing. If nobody used whips, if it were only hands and feet in the race, it would be a level playing field—a level racing field, as it were. It seems anachronistic in the 21st century that we provide an exception to whip an animal. If we saw someone whipping an animal in our streets, we would be outraged. If we saw an animal being whipped on a farm, we would be outraged. Yet we have this exemption for thoroughbred horseracing.

Now, we know that the community is behind us, and that includes the punters—they do not want to see a whip. I think Mr Meddick’s motion is a very modest motion. It is saying, ‘Let’s renew this conversation about the use of whips; let’s trial something different’. And it seems Racing Victoria is behind this, the community is behind this and I would probably say that even the vast majority of the industry is behind this. We are in a very different time than when thoroughbred racing first started. We have seen the gradual removal of whip usage, we have seen the gradual decline of it, and we have seen the regulations be strengthened. I think Mr Meddick is on the right course. I think he has got the RSPCA behind him and he has got the community behind him. I would hope to see not only Racing Victoria but Racing Australia get behind this. I would be interested to hear jockeys getting behind this as well, because they talk about jockey safety, and I have never been a jockey, but I do not understand how that whip that they suggest does not hurt the animal, that they suggest is not painful at all, actually keeps them safe, particularly when we are really talking about the limit of it to the last 100 metres of a race.

I wish Mr Meddick well in this. I think, as I say, it is a very modest motion. And we know where the Animal Justice Party stands on racing; there has been no secret about that. But I think when you are in this place it is about not letting the perfect get in the way of the good, and I think this is one of those motions that does that.

 Mrs McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (10:02): Well, if we look at most of this motion, we would really consider it motherhood statements, actually. Who could possibly oppose condemning animal cruelty? Who could oppose that horses in the racing industry deserve our care and respect? Mr Meddick has referred to a survey. I did a course once, the main title of which was ‘How to lie with statistics’. We do not actually know how many people were involved in that survey where it was found that 87 per cent felt there should be a reform of the whip. But putting that aside, we support the fact that Racing Victoria has reviewed and is reviewing the use of the whip and the development of a national approach to address community concerns. They are all inconsequential issues really that we can all buy into.

But we all know that this is not the real agenda, and Mr Meddick has referred to the real agenda. I mean, he said that his position is that we must ban the whip as in Norway, and he admitted this motion does not go as far as he would like. He added that it is only a matter of time before the whip is banned, and he also said that while Victoria might be leading the way in banning the whip, the other states are less enthusiastic. But he did refer to his real agenda on this matter, which is to ban horseracing altogether. So we have got the watered-down version of Mr Meddick’s real agenda, and we should all be well aware of what that real agenda is.

It is the case that the use of the whip has been changed, and we support that. You would assume that the whip is used to make the horse gallop faster, Ms Patten—they do not usually run; they gallop. And we do not usually use hands and feet, we use hands and heels. I just want to get your racing vernacular on track, as a horserider. You indicated that you like watching them—perhaps not being on them. But those of us who have ridden horses all our lives love the animals. We care about them. There are a lot of slow ones around our paddocks. There is even a famous one, Chicquita, buried on our property. I know what we have to do to ensure their longevity with the care that is needed. So, really, the vast majority—the very vast majority—of people involved in the horse industry love the animals. They would not be in it if they did not.

In Mr Meddick’s and my electorate there are 20 racing clubs, so the banning of horseracing, which is what Mr Meddick’s real agenda is, would have a massive consequence economically to these communities. Not only is it of economic benefit but it does give people a day out. Sometimes these clubs only have one race meeting a year. It is a very big community event.

Mr Finn: What would happen to all those horses, I wonder.

Mrs McARTHUR: Well, exactly. I do not think there are enough refuges in Mr Meddick’s world that could house them all if they had to be taken off the track.

We know that the contribution to the economy in our area, especially around Geelong, Ballarat, Warrnambool and the south-west alone, comes to $260 million from the thoroughbred racing industry, and it is 11 000 jobs. So if we end the racing industry, which is the real agenda here, we would put paid to all those people involved in the racing industry and all those communities that also enjoy it and depend on it. He would have them all shut down; there is no doubt about that. In the state the direct contribution to the economy is $1.4 billion. The indirect contribution is $2.9 billion. That is a total of $4.3 billion. The direct jobs in the industry are 15 415 and the indirect 18 411, a total of over 33 000 jobs in this industry. That is significant, especially at a time when we are talking about creating jobs and keeping people in work, especially in rural areas. These are very specialist jobs, and the people involved in them love the work they do and are very pleased to be involved. And how good is the racing industry? It has actually managed to keep going, as far as I know, without one COVID case for this entire pandemic. Maybe they should be running the whole management of the pandemic, because they seem to have worked out how to do it quite safely.

Mr Finn: Put them in charge of the health department.

Mrs McARTHUR: Yes, put them in charge of the health department—very good idea.

Mr Finn: They’d do a better job than the minister.

Mrs McARTHUR: Well, the contact tracing at the moment is appalling, so maybe the racing industry could take that over too. There are regulatory protocols already involved, and we see on regular occasions the trainers and jockeys being called out for inappropriate behaviour. We see trainers banned; their whole livelihood is gone. Fair enough. If they do the wrong thing, they are called out and prosecuted and their involvement in the industry is ended.

We know that Mr Meddick is really on about banning racing; it is not only banning the whip, it is banning racing. We imagine that if you want to ban the whip in horseracing you probably want to ban it in every other form of equestrian activity as well. This is the short edge of the wedge and just the beginning of the downhill slide to an end to racing, which does create a lot of joy, a lot of value, for many people and is a very important part of Victoria’s activity and history.

So, Mr Meddick, it is hard not to support the motherhood statements in this motion, but I am sure they are actually not what you really originally intended to do here. But we have to vote on the sort of words that you have put up, even though that is not the intent—you have not spoken really to the motion, you have spoken to what the real agenda is—and we know that, and so there we are.

 Dr RATNAM (Northern Metropolitan) (10:10): I welcome the opportunity to speak to Mr Meddick’s motion today, and at the outset I would like to state what the Greens position is: that the continued use of the whip in horseracing is cruel and should be phased out as soon as possible. I agree with what Mr Meddick said in his contribution—that the use of the whip is cruel and painful for horses; it no longer has the support of the community; and there is a growing body of research that suggests that the old industry arguments for whipping, that it is necessary for safety and control, are not based on any evidence.

Last year a study by researchers at the University of South Australia found absolutely no evidence that whips used in horseracing benefit the jockey in any way, not in speed, safety or interference. It found that the racing industry’s position—that the whip is a necessary part of horseracing—is not backed up by any evidence. So if whips are not needed for safety, for control or even for speed, then whips are being used to inflict pain on horses for absolutely no reason. We also know that horses feel similar pain when whipped as humans do, that whips frequently leave clear indentations on the body of the horse and that the unpadded, more painful part of the whip ends up being the part that makes contact with the horse.

A Senate committee recommended banning whipping in horseracing 30 years ago, stating that it could not condone the use of the whip to inflict pain on a horse, but 30 years later we are still hearing arguments about the need to wait for a national consensus on the issue. It seems clear that if the consensus has not been reached in the last 30 years, it is unlikely to be reached now, especially among an industry that is even better and more powerful than before.

So while I support this motion, what I am really perplexed about is why the obvious conclusion here, that whipping should be banned entirely, is not being advocated for. Without it, we have what appears to be a total concession to the racing industry which puts the decision on the future of whips in racing back into their hands, when we know very well that the industry cannot be trusted to do the right thing here. This is an industry that has used its influence over the government to get special treatment on funding, on taxation, on special events—even on lockdown rules. It is an industry whose existence is tied to gambling and the pain and distress gambling causes across our community, and in New South Wales it is an industry that forced the government to backflip on what was one of the most significant reforms for animals in decades—an end to greyhound racing in that state. It is hard to see how the industry would agree to ban whips on their own, and this motion even makes a point of noting Racing Victoria’s view on the issue—that the whip remains critical for the safety of the horse and jockey. The racing industry also argues whipping is necessary to properly control the horse. I would have much preferred Mr Meddick’s motion in point (2)(c) to begin with, ‘It rejects the assertion of the industry’, and then the remainder of the sentence.

I do not understand why we have to wait for everyone else in the country to get it together before we take action. Victoria has gone it alone on plenty of progressive reforms before. We were the first state to pass voluntary assisted dying legislation, for example, and to ban puppy farms. I see no reason why we cannot do the same with banning whipping. It would demonstrate a commitment to ending animal cruelty in our state and a willingness finally to take a stand against a predatory and harmful industry. We could even begin to have the hard conversations about whether the entire racing industry still has a role to play in modern Victoria. Compromise is often necessary in governing, and it is something we reach in this chamber frequently, when the crossbench and opposition push the government to amend flawed legislation or to back down from poor policy. But if the fight begins with a compromise, there is nowhere to go except even further away from your goal. So I remain perplexed about why this motion has not made the hard call and has not asked this government to commit to the banning of the whip in Victorian racing. Instead it asks us to call on state racing bodies to work with Racing Australia to develop a national approach to address community concern.

The Greens will keep pushing back on the vested interests in industries that exist only on the back of animal cruelty, like racing and gambling, and we will continue campaigning for the government to bring an end to animal cruelty in our state. While I support this motion and thank Mr Meddick for his advocacy on these issues, there are a number of issues with the motion that have been canvassed by all sides in this chamber in this debate today. We have heard the opposition saying that their interpretation of the motion is that it condones the continued use of the whip, we have heard members of the government also indicate their interpretation of the motion is that it condones the continued use of the whip in some regulated form and we have heard Mr Meddick in his contribution argue that this motion is a move to try and reduce the use of the whip. I would much rather this motion said that we should ban the whip once and for all, and I urge Mr Meddick in his conclusion to clarify the intention of this motion, given that it has been open to such different interpretation by this chamber and it seems to be being supported for very, very different reasons. So I hope that that clarification will come. But given Mr Meddick’s initial contribution about needing to reduce the use of the whip—the Greens want to see the whip banned—we will support this motion.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Ring the bells. We need a speaker, and there are two speakers left, Mr Hayes and Mr Quilty.

Bells rung.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I call Mr Quilty. Is Mr Quilty speaking? His name is on the list. The problem we have here is there were three members of the crossbench left to speak: Mr Grimley, Mr Hayes and Mr Quilty. I texted Mr Grimley, who came back and said he was not going to speak. I sent a text to Mr Hayes, who after we had rung the bells came back and told Mr Meddick he was not going to speak. Mr Quilty came in during the bells but has now said he is not going to speak. We have wasted 4 minutes now of this debate for people who were not going to speak. If you are not going to speak, please do not put your name on the list, or have it removed, because it will save us ringing the bells.

Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan)

Incorporated pursuant to order of Council of 7 September:

I rise to speak on motion 619 regarding the use of whips in horseracing.

I will be supporting this motion today.

Racing Victoria’s chief executive, Giles Thompson, has said, and I quote, ‘It is Racing Victoria’s view that progress on whip reform is needed now’.

I think this is a conversation that should be able to continue at a national level to ensure that the sport aligns with community expectations.

At this time, national consensus has not been reached on any reform to the use of the whip. This is something we should be working towards.

This is a decision for Racing Australia to make and it has to be uniform across the country.

I support the furthering of the conversation around this issue and I look forward to seeing what comes from it.

It is vital to the industry that Australian racing retains its existing audiences and attracts new fans and employees.

There are many different perspectives and I believe it is always important that there is consultation with those in the industry and efforts to reach some form of agreement on new regulations.

I commend this motion to the house.

 Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (10:21): I will not take long in summing up. I just want to thank all of those who have spoken in favour of the motion and also those who have spoken against it. I appreciate that. This chamber is nothing if not a great sounding-board for ideas. I just want to in particular thank Mrs McArthur, who in her speech underlined—in fact made a point of telling everybody—just how much overbreeding takes place, that there would be nowhere for all these horses to go at the end of their careers, underlining the point that they end up in a can of pet food. So I appreciate her pointing out that fact in her speech.

To sum up—as I said, I will not take too long—there are two final points I would just like to make, one of which is to address how things actually work in the rules of racing for some in the chamber who might not be aware. Victoria does not run its own rules of racing. Neither does New South Wales; neither does anybody else. The entire country is run by Racing Australia. That is where the rules lie. Each state, if they would like to change a rule, must take it to the national body, and a vote is then taken and they must get consensus for that to change. Victoria has 35 per cent of the vote, as does New South Wales, so if you do not get those two states, you do not win. If Victoria tried to go it alone, it just would not happen. It cannot happen under the rules of racing run by Racing Australia. So that is the explanation as to why we cannot go it alone.

The last point I would like to make is, as I pointed out and others have pointed out here, just how enormously wealthy the racing industry is—how much money it makes, how much it generates, all those sorts of things. And I understand that; I am not immune to that. But there is one maxim that we should stick to: no amount of money—none—can justify the continuation of a cruel practice.

Motion agreed to.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I call Mr Davis. Ring the bells, because the next speaker is not here. Mr Davis, you are needed in the house, please.

Bells rung.