Friday, 14 August 2026

 Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (15:18): It is a great pleasure to speak today about racing, because racing is something I love. I have been a horse lover and a horserider all my life. I rode a horse to school as a child – it did jump out of the pony paddock and go home and I was left to walk. But horses have been a big part of all my family’s life for a long time. So I am pleased now to say something on the government’s Racing Legislation Amendment (Entity Governance and Other Matters) Bill 2026, particularly since this is a bill which they have been prepared to improve in response to the opposition and the industry. Indeed we have seen that even this morning, and I would greatly like to thank Minister Erdogan and Minister Carbines for their consideration of our amendments removing clauses 7 to 10 in part 3 of the bill. I will deal with the other specific consequences of the bill first, because they can be dealt with briefly, and then I want to spend some time on the industry itself, because after all the industry is what this bill is ultimately for.

The bill does, in the main, four things. First, it amalgamates our two racing integrity bodies, the Office of the Racing Integrity Commissioner and the Victorian Racing Integrity Board, into a single new integrity commission. This is an outcome of the Silver review into duplication in racing integrity oversight. The statutory office of the commissioner is retained, with expanded audit and complaint investigation powers, its own-motion inquiry function preserved and its reporting arrangements strengthened, while the nine-member Victorian Racing Integrity Board is abolished and replaced by a small board with a new commission. I will return to the composition and funding of that commission because that is where the coalition’s work on this bill has been concentrated.

Second, the bill dissolves the statutory authorities of Greyhound Racing Victoria and Harness Racing Victoria and establishes successor bodies as public companies limited by guarantee – the same legal structure Racing Victoria has operated under since 2001. I am a Liberal, in case you did not know, so the word ‘company’ holds no terrors for me. I do worry that some members opposite might be alarmed by it given what we know they think of business and enterprise, but they can relax, because even they should approve of these companies. They will be not-for-profit entities, with every dollar of profit reinvested into their codes. The Minister for Racing will continue to appoint and remove the directors and must certify each new company as the controlling body of its code before the statutory authority winds up, a transition to be completed no later than 1 July 2028, with staff transferred to the successor entities on the same terms and conditions with continuity of service preserved. This brings all three codes into structural harmony. It has the support of the controlling bodies themselves, and we support it too.

Third, the bill broadens the pool of people eligible to serve as deputy chairs of the Victorian Racing Tribunal. It requires at least one deputy chair to be a current or former judicial officer, while allowing other deputy chairs to be highly experienced Australian lawyers with relevant knowledge of racing. The sector has welcomed these changes, and so do we.

Fourth, the bill amends the Australian Grands Prix Act 1994 to give the grand prix corporation proper powers over approved motorsport events: to charge admission, establish supporting facilities and deal in sponsorship and broadcast rights. This corrects an oversight left behind by the government’s own recent amendments to that act. Of course the reason these powers are suddenly needed is that the corporation no longer has the Phillip Island MotoGP to manage. After 28 years another great international event has been lost to another state on this government’s watch, and every pub, cafe and motel on the road to San Remo will feel the effects of that. We will not oppose fixing the drafting. We simply make the point: who made the fix necessary?

The Liberals and Nationals agree entirely with removing duplication in integrity oversight. Integrity is the cornerstone of racing – we all know why – and it is a cornerstone worth $5.5 billion. Any structure that protects it must be robust, properly resourced and beyond reproach. Our concerns – which the Shadow Minister for Racing in the other place, the member for Ovens Valley, prosecuted so effectively – are threefold. The first is numbers. Today 14 people determine racing integrity in Victoria: the commission’s office of four and the nine-member board, plus the chief executive at the Victorian Racing Integrity Board. As introduced, this bill would have cut that to seven, being the commissioner’s office and a board of just three. Stakeholders supported the restructure but not the optics or the substance of halving the state’s integrity apparatus. The coalition proposed a board of five. The government accepted, and amendments to that effect were made in the other place. It is a better bill because of that, and I acknowledge the minister for engaging constructively.

The next concern was timing. New South Wales, the only other racing jurisdiction that rivals ours, commissioned Brad Hazzard to review the integrity and proper regulation of thoroughbred racing under its Thoroughbred Racing Act 1996. Most participants agree that uniformity of integrity structures across our two great racing states benefits everyone. Our jockeys ride at Caulfield on Saturday and at Randwick on Wednesday. Whatever ultimately emerges from that review, if it contains findings worth adopting here, Victoria should be willing to act on them rather than treating this bill as the last word of racing integrity.

For those reasons, the coalition did not oppose the bill in the Assembly, and I confirm that if the amendments in my name today can be accepted, we will be pleased to support the bill in this place too. I will formally move those amendments at the committee stage, but for now I will just say that we are grateful to the government for responding constructively to feedback raised by the metropolitan racing clubs about part 3 of this bill. Those provisions largely sought to place Racing Victoria’s existing functions and powers on a more explicit statutory footing, but the clubs had questions about the way the provisions were framed and the way they might operate in practice. The opposition conveyed that feedback to the government, and we welcome its foreshadowed agreement to remove part 3 from the bill.

I do not want to spend all my time on machinery, because the machinery only matters for what it protects, and what it protects is one of the great industries of this state, something I have had the pleasure of supporting publicly in this place many times before. The latest IER report Size and Scope of the Victorian Racing Industry for the 2024–25 season is a goldmine of useful information. Racing generated more than $5.5 billion in value-added contribution to the Victorian economy last season, up from $4.7 billion when this was last measured, and sustained more than 33,000 full-time-equivalent jobs. It put $2.9 billion into Victorian households in wages and salaries. Almost 100,000 roles are occupied in this industry as participants, employees or volunteers, including nearly 2000 breeders, more than 2700 trainers, 73,000 owners and over 7000 volunteers. Across 109 racing clubs and 108 tracks, the three codes staged 2169 race meetings and more than 22,000 races last season, drawing nearly 1.6 million attendances. Thoroughbreds alone contributed $4 billion of that value, and the 2024 spring racing carnival delivered a record $785 million in gross economic benefit, attracting more than 83,000 visitors to Victoria specifically for the carnival and generating some 321,000 visitor nights across the state.

But here are the figures that ought to attract our attention above everything. Close to 80 per cent of those 100,000 roles are in regional Victoria, and more than 46 per cent of the industry’s entire value-added impact lands in regional economies. This is not a Flemington industry with a country hobby attached. It is a regional industry with a city shopfront – a very pretty shopfront, I agree, but the guts are still in regional Victoria. Our racing clubs are community infrastructure too. More than 560 community and not-for-profit organisations share racing facilities, while clubs supported 960 charitable and community organisations and helped raise nearly $5 million on their behalf last season. The industry is not just about clubs: it is about the farrier, the feed merchant, the float driver, the strapper, the country vet, the stablehand and the publican, whose best weekend of the year is cup day. No government built this industry; it was built by breeders, trainers, owners, volunteers and punters over more than a century and a half and by communities organising themselves, which is something I commend to members opposite.

But those numbers are not a birthright. Victoria has long been Australia’s racing capital, yet other states are investing heavily to attract our major events, our participants and our investment, and we cannot afford to be complacent. We have already lost the MotoGP; we should be determined to lose nothing else. Despite that, this government has taken a year-to-year approach to an industry that needs long-term certainty and strategic planning. A future Liberals and Nationals government will work alongside the thoroughbred, harness and greyhound codes to ensure Victoria remains the home of Australia’s premier racing events for the next decade and beyond. Our focus will be on providing certainty, encouraging investment, strengthening regional racing and giving all three codes the confidence to plan for the future. My colleague the Shadow Minister for Racing put it well: an industry that contributes more than $5.5 billion to Victoria’s economy deserves a government with a vision that extends well beyond the next budget.

Racing is also about dreams and passions, pedigrees, breeding, picking out a yearling and ownership shared by everyone from serious investors to people with the smallest of shares. My own family knows this well. My husband’s family bred Chicquita, who won the VRC Oaks and ran second in the Melbourne Cup and who is commemorated to this day in the Chicquita Lodge stables at Flemington. Once you own even the smallest share of a horse, you have skin in the game, and the joy is the same whether that share is large or small.

I say plainly: there are some in this place who would legislate this industry out of existence tomorrow if they could. The campaign against one code is always part of a campaign against them all. It starts with the greyhounds. It moves to jumps racing, then to flat racing and will not stop before it reaches the pony club. To those who run that campaign, I say go and spend a day at a country race meeting. Watch the horse lovers who start before dawn in the cold to feed, exercise and care for their animals. The industry’s welfare standards are international best practice, and the three controlling bodies alone employ 179 full-time equivalent staff in animal welfare and integrity roles. Racing Victoria’s Off the Track program, which I have championed in this place, retrains and rehomes retired racehorses into second careers in polo, eventing, pony clubs, therapy and pleasure riding. People in the horse world love their animals and look after them. Where individuals do the wrong thing, they are banned and prosecuted, and so they should be. But do not judge an industry of real animal lovers by its rare offenders. Nowhere is all of this more true than in Western Victoria Region. The IER studybreaks the state into regions, and three of them – Ballarat, Geelong and Warrnambool in the south-west – sit substantially within my electorate. Between them they account for more than $520 million in value-added economic contribution every year – $225 million in the Ballarat region, $159 million in the Geelong region and $136 million in Warrnambool and the south-west. The Warrnambool and south-west region hosts more than 5000 racing participants, the largest regional participant base in Victoria, larger than Geelong, larger than Ballarat and larger than Bendigo or Hume.

Anyone who doubts what those numbers mean on the ground should come and see. Come to the Warrnambool May Racing Carnival: three magnificent days culminating in the Grand Annual steeplechase, worth at last count some $14 million to Warrnambool and district and filling every bed and front bar in town. Come to Apsley, founded in 1855 and Victoria’s oldest surviving racing club. Come to Burrumbeet on New Year’s Day, where a single race meeting each year carries a whole district’s traditions. Come to Camperdown in January and stand under its historic grandstand, or to Dunkeld, where the track sits at the foot of the Grampians and doubles for polo. Come to the Geelong Cup, where a famous club gives a city a public holiday of horses, fashion and fun and gives its traders one of their best days of the year. And come to the harness and greyhound meetings across the west, where the same families, the same volunteers and the same devotion keep two more codes alive. Come to Terang, come to Mortlake. These clubs are community institutions. Their race days are the annual gathering points of my electorate, and they are employers too, which is why I have long argued that young people in the south-west should be able to train locally as stablehands and track workers instead of being sent to Melbourne.

Integrity is the cornerstone on which this entire edifice rests. Question the integrity of racing and you place $5.5 billion of economic activity, tens of thousands of livelihoods and the lives of hundreds of country communities at risk. That is why the structure must be right, the numbers must be right and above all the funding must be right – integrity that is independent in fact and independent in appearance, beyond reproach and beyond capture. The industry wants this settled before the Parliament rises, and it deserves that certainty. Let us never forget the punter, whose dollar wager underwrites so much of this through the clubs, the codes and the taxes on every bet and who asks only for a fair go and a straight race.

The Liberals and Nationals support this bill. We will always stand with this industry – with the trainers, the owners, the volunteers and the communities of Western Victoria who make it what it is. I commend the bill to the house. I will circulate the amendments in my name at the same time.

 Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (15:39): The Greens will be opposing the Racing Legislation Amendment (Entity Governance and Other Matters) Bill 2026. This bill merges the racing integrity commissioner and the Victorian Racing Integrity Board into the new Racing Integrity Commission Victoria. It restructures the Victorian Racing Tribunal. It converts Greyhound Racing Victoria and Harness Racing Victoria from statutory authorities into companies limited by guarantee, and it gives the Australian Grand Prix Corporation additional commercial powers. It is being sold as a governance modernisation bill by the Labor government, but in practice it gives racing bodies greater commercial freedom with less transparency and accountability, while doing little to address the serious gambling harm and animal welfare failures that these industries create, all while taxpayers continue to prop them up with public money. And the industry is not hiding this. Greyhound Racing Victoria has been remarkably frank about what it likes about this bill. GRV says the new structure will allow it to operate more commercially without being bound by public sector governance policies around procurement, advertising, finance, borrowings and asset ownership, and it says explicitly that the change will ‘move GRV out of the public sector’.

The government is not, with this, taking ordinary private businesses and freeing them from unnecessary red tape. These are industries that Labor and the Liberals have supported with extraordinary amounts of public money, and they are now removing them from public scrutiny. The government itself boasts of a $72 million racing industry fund and a $15 million Major Racing Events Fund, and Parliament has been told that one of the racing entities, Harness Racing Victoria, has received $86.8 million in government support, including a $41 million taxpayer loan. At the same time, the government is cutting essential community services.

Then there is the extraordinarily favourable wagering tax arrangement. In 2023 I spoke in this chamber against Labor increasing racing’s share of point-of-consumption wagering tax revenue from 35 to 50 per cent of the tax collected. Parliament was told in 2023 that the changes would deliver the racing industry an estimated $119 million a year in additional funding. We now know that in the first full year of the scheme Victoria collected $382 million in racing and sports wagering taxes, implying around $191 million flowed to racing under its extraordinarily generous 50 per cent entitlement. On a like-for-like basis the increased entitlement itself was worth roughly $102 million more in 2024–25 than racing would have received under the old arrangements. The latest budget forecast suggests that an additional benefit will be about $111 million in 2025–26 and an average of roughly $113 million a year over the next four years.

I argued then that there was something fundamentally wrong with taxing the harmful gambling industry and then funnelling so much of that revenue straight back into racing, and that is still absolutely true. That money could instead be used to help provide affordable housing, health care, education, community services and programs that not only are essential for our society to function and for our community to thrive but would actually help to support reducing gambling harm. The Greens’ position remains that Labor needs to end its financial support for animal racing rather than continuing to use public money to prop up these harmful industries.

Against that background, it is extraordinary that this government now wants these entities to enjoy less accountability than normally accompanies public sector status. This bill expressly provides that the successor of the GRV and Harness Racing Victoria companies will not be public entities under the Public Administration Act 2004 and will not be public bodies under the Financial Management Act 1994, yet the public assets, liabilities and contracts will be transferred to them. You cannot have it both ways. If an organisation is sustained by public money and receives publicly derived assets, Parliament and the public are entitled to strong safeguards around how that money and assets are managed and transparency around this. The government needs to explain what these changes mean for freedom of information, for Victorian Auditor-General’s Office oversight, for the Ombudsman and IBAC and public interest disclosure protections, for procurement, for borrowing, for executive remuneration and for public records. And we need much stronger protections for public assets. What prevents valuable land from eventually being sold, mortgaged or transferred? What happens to those assets if one of these companies becomes insolvent, is wound up or ceases to be a controlling body? These questions are particularly important given Harness Racing Victoria’s significant landholdings at Melton. So this bill is quite disappointing, in our view, in terms of the transparency, accountability and oversight of these activities.

The bill is equally disappointing on animal welfare. It includes promoting animal welfare as an objective, and it gives the new integrity commission some capacity to audit animal welfare policies. But the bodies whose job it is to promote and commercially develop racing will continue to have substantial responsibility for regulating the treatment of the animals that are used by those industries. That structural conflict is not new. Sue Pennicuik was warning this Parliament on behalf of the Greens back in 2018 that racing’s integrity functions needed to be separated from its commercial and promotional functions, and this echoes the disastrous Outdoor Recreation Victoria – or whatever we ended up renaming it – bill that has just gone through, where the government has set up a deeply conflicted agency. The same principles of separation should apply even more strongly to animal welfare. This industry should not be responsible for promoting itself and for growing wagering returns but then at the same time for independently judging whether the animals it uses are being adequately protected, the animals it relies upon to generate income. That is why the Greens have consistently called for an independent animal welfare authority. These are not hypothetical concerns. We know that there are huge rates of animal harm, death and injury within these industries. GRV’s own 2024–‍25 figures record 43 racing fatalities and 450 dogs euthanised.

This bill also does not seriously address gambling harm, which is rife within these industries. There is no gambling harm prevention objective imposed on the racing controlling bodies. There is no statutory harm minimisation plan, no requirement for public health expertise on their boards and no requirement linking their substantial public funding to independently measured reductions in gambling harm. Commercial growth is built into this system, but preventing the harm generated by that growth is not. The new Racing Integrity Commission may provide some useful additional oversight, but oversight without enforcement has its limits. Auditing, investigating and making recommendations only work if those recommendations produce consequences when the controlling bodies refuse to act.

The Greens support genuinely independent integrity regulation. We support transparency and accountability. This bill leaves fundamental conflicts in place. It gives racing bodies greater commercial autonomy without imposing corresponding duties to prevent gambling harm or providing for genuinely independent animal welfare regulation. Extraordinarily, it moves publicly supported organisations out of the public sector precisely because they want greater freedom from public sector rules. The Greens take a different view than the government. We think if public money is involved, public accountability should increase and not decrease. Ultimately, rather than continue to subsidise these industries that are built around gambling and animal exploitation, that money should be spent on things Victorians actually need. For those reasons, the Greens will be opposing this bill.

 Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (15:47): Just a few brief words on the Racing Legislation Amendment (Entity Governance and Other Matters) Bill 2026. I know our lead speaker in the house Mrs McArthur has put the position of the Liberals and Nationals, but I do just want to reference a few comments in relation to us moving amendments to omit clauses 7 to 10 in part 3 of the bill, and I seek the support of the house for that. I know that our shadow minister Tim Bull and the Minister for Racing have had multiple conversations, and I think both of them have probably had very deep conversations with various stakeholders and sectors. I would appreciate if there could be some collegiality in respect of this debate that supports not only racing and the continuation of the three codes – thoroughbred racing, harness racing and greyhound racing – but ensures that there is integrity in the system as well as animal welfare. It is a really important thing.

I certainly heard Mrs McArthur speak about the length and breadth of the impacts and influences that racing has, but also how it stimulates and encourages our communities, whether it be in a group 1 in downtown Melbourne or whether it happens to be in Eastern Victoria Region – the greyhounds at Traralgon, the racetrack at Traralgon, the greyhounds at Sale, the racetrack at Sale, the country race clubs, the picnic races up at Hinnomunjie, the various Easter activities and indeed the March operation down at Stony Creek, which has been a regular feature for me for well over a decade. These sorts of experiences are really important. I know that many of the trainers and owners view these beautiful animals, whether they be horses or dogs, quite often as part of the family. They have a great passion not only for racing but also for animal welfare and the health and wellbeing of their animals.

There are trainers, without a doubt – I know there was a local trainer down at Sandy Point who had some really good wins a little while ago, and he has been a long-term identity down in the region. When I was attending school, I think he might have been the janitor, if we called it that then. This is where with some of these activities, the racing experiences, very grassroots people really support them, enjoy them and they are part of their life. It can be trainers; it can be stud farms supporting local economies. It can be transport operators; veterinarians, as we heard in a discussion earlier this week on a motion supporting veterinarians; farriers and feed merchants; and hospitality venues and volunteers who give up their time. Another that springs to my mind happens to be the Dumbalk CFA, and a shout-out to all their fantastic crew. They sit and work the gates at the football club, but they also support the activities at Stony Creek. We always hand over some money for our fantastic CFAs.

My point here is that there is a stimulation of activity, of social experience, but also of those regional clubs or economies – and it is really important – in Sale, Moe, Warragul, Bairnsdale, Stony Creek and Cranbourne. The Woolamai Cup is also a place to go. It is the most magnificent location and a great experience, particularly in the summer, as long as you get there early and get your shade hat on. These are really important things. Then of course we go up to those group 1 events: the Melbourne Cup, the Cox Plate, the Caulfield Cup, the Australian Cup, the Newmarket Handicap, the Lightning Stakes – the list goes on and on. But to my point, integrity is really important. Participation is important, animal welfare is vital and we support the restructuring of the greyhound industry and harness industry. These are really vitally important parts of our communities.

Finally, as I may or may not have more time to speak on this in the future, I come from a racing family. Indeed, my grandfather’s cousin was Bill Collins, the Accurate One. The story is that growing up around Trafalgar many, many years ago, he used to call marbles racing down the upturned table. He really honed his skills on anything that he could, but that was the passion. The Collins family ran ponies as well as racehorses. Now it has changed, and the Baths certainly do not do that these days, but it is very connected to country, connected to the communities and the towns that many Australians and Victorians grew up in.

I thank Tim McCurdy for putting forward these amendments. They are very simple amendments, just omitting some of the introduction: clauses 7 to 10 in part 3. And with that, I wish the bill a speedy passage.

 Georgie PURCELL (Northern Victoria) (15:53): I rise to speak on this Racing Legislation Amendment (Entity Governance and Other Matters) Bill 2026. I want to state from the outset that I will be opposing it, not necessarily because it is the worst bill but just because I think the only legislation that we should be passing through this place in relation to racing industries is shutting them down or at least defunding them.

To begin, I want to tell a story. On 23 March 2023 a dog called Max Nipper collapsed and died after his race at Warragul, with an autopsy to be conducted. On 24 March 2023, the very next day, the Victorian Racing Tribunal found Danny Macdonald guilty of administering a banned product on 29 May 2022, which was meloxicam, to a greyhound – none other than Max Nipper. There is a loophole in the racing rules which allows participants to continue to participate until their hearing date, even if the case they are before the VRT for is for cruelty or for doping, as it was in this instance. Due to the VRT backlog, this can be up to and over a year in many circumstances and of course has worsened over time, depending on circumstances. So just to recap: a dog died on the track, and the next day the trainer was before the VRT for a doping incident a year earlier on the same dog. I found it highly suspicious that the hearing was conducted the day after his death, and the VRT stated in their decision that they accept that the meloxicam probably arose from the use of a gel used to track the dog in respect of an injury, probably a fungal condition. One of my favourite things about the Victorian Racing Tribunal is the colourful excuses that they accept. We have had a dog test positive for cocaine after someone gave them a pat as they walked down the street, and certainly just recently a trainer had his penalty reduced for sending me sexist abuse because he was ‘of good character’.

On 24 August 2023 Greyhound Racing Victoria refused to provide the autopsy, when it was requested, to the Coalition for the Protection of Greyhounds, so I lodged an FOI to obtain it, as I often do. Then on 16 November 2023 GRV gave the decision to not disclose the autopsy, and they claimed it would ‘hinder, impede, damage, undermine or derogate from the proper or appropriate administration of the law’, that the information is confidential and that disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. Of course on 20 November 2023, four days after that decision, I requested a review of this decision. On 19 December 2024 the commissioner ruled in my favour and said that GRV had to disclose the autopsy, as disclosure would not be contrary to the public interest, and said:

I consider there is a public interest in the agency being transparent about how it handles its investigations into greyhound deaths.

The commissioner refuted GRV’s claims in their reasoning to not give me the documents. Then on 23 December 2024 GRV submitted an application for review of the decision, and on 30 December 2024 I found out that GRV was taking me to VCAT. This was a significant period of time when I simply wanted to know why a dog that had tested positive for a prohibited substance subsequently died on the track. Of course this is, I believe, a tactic by the greyhound racing industry to draw out the interest so that by the time I get my hands on those documents enough time has passed for people not to care about it. And of course what a surprise: on 4 March 2024 we had a directions hearing, and then on 6 May 2025 GRV withdrew its application and they released the autopsy report. I of course got the documents that I requested but almost a year and a half later.

What I found most interesting about this particular case was that GRV, despite having their own in-house counsel and legal team, actually retained specialist FOI lawyers to deal with the case. So I lodged an FOI to find out how much they spent on FOI lawyers, and of course they rejected that as well and that case is still ongoing. But I speak about that because, at the time, GRV were actually running at a loss and had recently only survived the year due to an emergency support payment from the government to get them by. Yet we see them using taxpayer funds to fight a member of Parliament through various different processes to hide whatever is going on to those animals in these industries.

I tell this story for a point: because this legislation, it seems unintentionally, will result in GRV no longer being able to be FOI-ed. When Racing Victoria moved to a similar structure to this, the government specifically put them in the Freedom of Information Act 1982, but that is not the case for the new entities in this legislation. I will be pursuing this further in committee, and I am hopeful that we can get a commitment on what is seemingly an oversight from the government and, ideally, from the opposition, so that no matter who comes into government, we will not have even more secrecy from our racing industries than we already do.

Over the years we have heard the racing industries talk about just how much they love their animals. We hear that they love their dogs and they love their horses. But we also recently saw GRV, one of the entities in this legislation, cut –

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.

Jaclyn SYMES: Pursuant to standing order 4.08, I declare the sitting to be extended by up to 1 hour.

Georgie PURCELL: We saw one of the entities in this piece of legislation, GRV, cut welfare jobs in order to save money, while telling us that they love their animals. I can go through many of the reasons why I think racing is bad. I talk about it in here all of the time: the gambling culture, alcoholism, consumerism and the fact that family violence incidents increase on major race days, putting crisis services through the roof.

We can change the laws as much as we want to, but it is clear that animal racing has had its time. We only need to look around the world, particularly when it comes to greyhound racing, to see that in action. In fact just earlier this week we had a chartered flight of dogs arrive here in Australia from New Zealand, where they have recently shut down the racing industry. Australia refuses to get with the times like everyone else and insists on continuing this blood sport in our country. We have seen Tasmania do the right thing, but unfortunately we have Labor pushing up against that ban. As a result of Australia’s refusal to listen to the people who do not want to see dogs die for gambling profits, we are receiving the animals from the industries as they close. We are having trainers move here. It is incredibly shameful that we have become known as the place to come to if you want to continue to race dogs, as other countries say this has had its time.

I was looking at some of the comments from the lower house debate, where speakers lined up to talk about this bill, and we heard some great comments about self-regulation and social licences. One member described the racing industry as sexy, another called it terrific, and someone else called it an industry that cares so much about the dogs. Yet I stand in here every single sitting week and read out the injuries and the deaths and the destruction that have happened since the last sitting week in the greyhound racing industry, and there do not seem to be many members of Parliament, besides those on the crossbench, who want to hear the truth about what is happening behind closed doors or on a live stream at a racetrack. I will talk about live streams soon, because you could be forgiven for not knowing about them as it is another form of secrecy and a cutting of transparency that the industry has recently started engaging with – the editing and cutting of race footage before they upload it back online after a death or injury.

I have heard many comments similar to those on the Outdoor Recreation Victoria Bill 2026 from a number of MPs claiming that this bill is the result of the Silver review. We have some similarities to it here, but certainly this is not what Silver recommended. This claim is certainly misleading, because it would seem that the government has been told to do this in order to save money and to ensure that our services and our regulators are running it in the best possible way. But Silver actually recommended that the government merge the commercial functions of Racing Victoria, Greyhound Racing Victoria and Harness Racing Victoria under the one entity and separate and merge their regulatory functions. This is something that I would have supported, and I am sure many others would have supported, because it would have ensured that regulators are focused only on regulatory activities rather than also providing commercial racing. This is the second piece of legislation where we have seen, I guess, a colourful extension to what Silver recommended, resulting in a model that is arguably worse and can create conflicts of interest and expose bodies to regulatory capture.

It is completely unacceptable that Victoria’s racing bodies are charged with the promotion of racing while being given the responsibility to regulate it – something again that I have been speaking about in here consistently. When this is the case we know – history shows – that it is the animals that ultimately pay the price, because the same body that is responsible for their welfare is also responsible for ensuring that the industry maintains good public perception. It is incredibly disappointing that the actual recommendation from Silver is not the piece of legislation here before us today.

The greyhound racing industry often talk about the fact that they are transparent and have the highest welfare standards and that deaths and injuries are going down. But as of GRV’s last annual report, they had their highest kill rate in four years. In fact 450 dogs were killed, and that is 28 more than the year prior. Part of the reason that we know this is because, as members may recall, in 2024 I moved and passed a motion in this place that required GRV to be more transparent in its reporting, because what we quickly learned is that the figures being presented to us were not actually the reality of the racing industry. For those who are not familiar, a dog death is only considered a dog death while racing if that dog dies then and there on the racetrack. If a dog breaks their leg and leaves the racetrack and is euthanised an hour later, that is not a racing death. If a dog sustains another injury and the owner tries to rehabilitate it and they die a week later, that is not a racing death. We knew that we had to extend the period in which this data was captured and recorded – which was within 10 days of a race, training or trial – to be reclassified and included in this data. Certainly what we have found with the many amazing volunteers who track these dogs and see their outcomes is that there are actually far more dogs who are dying from racing related injuries, just not on the racetrack. And then we will hear the racing industry say, ‘Deaths are going down.’ It is incredibly misleading; in fact it is completely cooking the books, because they are only talking about the ones that die then and there and they are not including those that still die as a result of racing.

As we move forward in this debate, I am sure we will hear many members talk about just how great these industries are. They receive taxpayer funds, and at the very least they should be accountable to the public and this information should be available to them. This is why it is so concerning to see that the freedom-of-information requests will not be included in this legislation, especially since so many people like me have relied on this information in order to expose the truth, tell the real story, hold the industry to account and ultimately achieve greater welfare outcomes. That is something that has been of significant concern to stakeholders who have reached out to me wanting a guarantee that this will be something agreed on by all parties who could potentially form government by the time these entities have fully formed.

This bill makes some changes to the racing integrity commissioner, which I do want to briefly speak about, for a more streamlined and strengthened structure to address systemic integrity issues. The role of the integrity commissioner is important, particularly for an industry like racing, which is riddled with integrity problems. The current commissioner is Terrie Benfield, and Ms Benfield has been in the role for a bit over a year now. Prior to that, she spent nine years at Greyhound Racing Victoria as general counsel and strategic adviser to the board and CEO. She particularly stands in contrast with the last several integrity commissioners whose backgrounds were in integrity and oversight in other sporting agencies. There seems to be a theme of regulators and oversight agencies having direct ties to what they are expected to regulate and oversee. Again, this is something we spoke about consistently in the ORV debate. It is concerning to see that this is becoming a bit of a trend and is part of the reason why so many Victorians are losing faith and trust in the racing bodies and the words that they say to the people of Victoria.

I am not claiming at all any kind of wrongdoing on the commissioner’s part. While attempting to get an understanding of this bill, the commissioner was very generous with her time to my office. But again, that is coincidental for the person that could go into that role. When the industry self-regulates and the person charged with ensuring integrity systems and policies are adequate was a year ago an influential part of developing those systems and policies, it is no wonder that nothing changes when it comes to welfare, integrity and all of the many things that are making so many Victorians turn away from animal racing.

This bill shifts GRV and HRV to be not-for-profits. The irony is on their own they actually could not earn a profit even if they wanted to. We have seen that in Tasmania, where there is a big public debate about the fact that greyhound racing is going to be banned. Concerningly, as was the case in New South Wales, but actually shamefully, we are seeing the Labor opposition fight against that legislation while the government attempts to do the right thing by the dogs in Tasmania. They have seen the writing on the wall and acknowledge that dog racing has had its time. Nobody wants to see animals die for gambling profits. But that actually came about not because the government committed to banning greyhound racing but because they just said, ‘We’re just going to stop giving them taxpayer money,’ which seems pretty reasonable. Let them stand on their own two feet. I know that is a view that Mr Limbrick has. It is not necessarily any sort of ethical view on the racing industry, but if they think that they have a social licence or a belonging or a place in our state, they can get by themselves. Certainly that is something that I agree with. As Ms Copsey said, we have so many services that desperately need funding that are not receiving that, yet the racing industry is continuously gifted taxpayer funds. In fact over recent years we have seen a number of Treasurer’s advances or emergency support payments given to these racing industries on top of their usual public funding. Both of these entities in this legislation have actually recorded deficits in the past few years and both require heavy subsidisation by the government. GRV alone will actually cost the state half a billion dollars to run over the next decade.

I have said a lot about greyhound racing, although I am aware that this bill also has changes in relation to Racing Victoria for the thoroughbreds and of course harness racing as well. Certainly while over the past term of Parliament I have had a lot more focus in the greyhound racing space, the horseracing space is no stranger to me either. In fact when I was 19 or 20 years old I started volunteering for the Coalition for the Protection of Racehorses as part of the campaign to end jumps racing in Victoria. Now I am here as a member of Parliament at 34 years old, and Victoria is shamefully the only state in the entire country that continues racing horses over hurdles at breakneck speed, which is actually 20 times more dangerous than flat racing. We have seen South Australia end it, which was the only other state in recent years, and Victoria is hanging on for dear life. It is one of the most appalling forms of racing. Over the time I have seen horses with dangling broken legs and broken necks. In fact a few weeks ago a horse fell over a jump and landed with such force that they died on impact. Yet the government has continued to insist on, I would say, keeping jumps racing, but it seems more like they do not want to ask Racing Victoria to do something. Racing Victoria have to decide to do it on their own, which I think really shows the relationship between the government and our racing industries. They say they are there to regulate them, but they are actually there to be their friend. If Racing Victoria decided they wanted to do something – ‘Hey, free tickets.’ I will never forget when my former boss first got elected here. One of the first things that came in the mail was a Racing Victoria membership, which of course we sent back and said, ‘Never write to us again.’ However, it just really demonstrates that cosy relationship, because the government should be there to tell the racing industry when something is no longer in line with community expectations or the views of Victorians and it is time to legislate away from it.

In fact a couple of years ago I stood with the former Minister for Racing Rob Hulls, who joined me in a press conference to say jumps racing must end. It was after the most deadly day we have had of jumps racing in our state, where three horses died at the one meet and two jockeys were seriously injured. Racing Victoria of course, because the government did not want to do anything, said ‘We’ll have a review.’ They had that review. Of course the review came back and they said, ‘No, we’re just going to make some changes to the jumps.’ That is what happens every time they have a review. They put the jumps up. They put the jumps down. They make them collapsible. They make them brushes. Nothing works – the horses still die, they still get injured – and we go through this debate every single season. In fact I think the jumps racing season has just ended or is about to end this weekend, and we have seen a number of horses die. Importantly, I should say a number of those horses who have died have not died on the track in races; they have died in training and trials, so – much like what I was talking about with greyhounds – they do not count towards the statistics for the jumps racing season. It is incredibly deceiving.

The reason I want to talk about jumps racing is because it is a really clear example of how the racing codes have just become completely out of touch with so many Victorians, particularly younger generations, because they will not even do the bare minimum and ban jumps racing like everywhere else in the country. They will not act on the whip. They will not even have whip-free trials. We look around the world and see there are countries that have completely banned the whip, and yet we have one of the most public displays of animal cruelty happening in stadiums and on racetracks with spectators watching on, when if you did that same thing to a cat or a dog you would be facing charges under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986. Yet it is just part of how things are done in the racing industry.

We continuously have legislation come through this place that is designed in a way to help the industry or to make their lives easier, and we do not see any legislation that actually addresses the very many welfare concerns, including the fact that we do not have legislated retirement plans in any of the codes – not in thoroughbreds, not in harness racing and certainly not in the dogs. GAP, the Greyhound Adoption Program, which is a rehoming program for racing greyhounds in our state, has a 12- to 18-‍month waitlist. When we asked for something to be done about that – say, a breeding cap; if you cannot get your dogs into the rehoming program, maybe you should not breed so many puppies – they said, ‘No, no, no, no, no. We’re going to ask trainers to pay $3000 to get in instead, so they can jump the queue and we can make money off it.’ What that has resulted in is that only the people who can afford to get into GAP – they jump the queue and pay to do it. Otherwise trainers are left with the choice of waiting 12 to 18 months to get their spot.

What comes with that is an animal that is a commodity and is no longer viable. They have to spend the money to keep them alive, often in racing kennel conditions – and ironically, a lot of those would actually not be allowed as soon as an animal is no longer deemed a racing animal – and they fall into this grey area of transition between the racing industry and going into a home. What often happens in that case is one of the wonderful community greyhound rescue groups around the state, such as Gumtree Greys, Greyt Greys or Amazing Greys, gets a call from the trainer, and on the other end of the line they say, ‘Well, if you don’t take this dog, I don’t know what’s going to happen to them.’ It is actually the community rescue groups who are picking up the pieces instead of the industry’s own programs that receive substantial government funding, which is taxpayer money. Yet these groups that operate on donations and are run by volunteers are rehoming more dogs than the industry that claims to love them.

We look at bills like this when we do not have a breeding cap or a proper retirement plan in greyhound racing, and we look at horseracing. We all saw that distressing vision at knackeries and abattoirs across the country. Many years ago, when I was around 22 or 23 years old, I actually helped obtain some footage of a knackery, which has now closed down, just out of Melbourne. Up until that moment Racing Victoria had consistently told us, ‘There’s just no way that racehorses get slaughtered. It’s just not true.’ We were like, ‘Well, you breed a lot, and you’re not really telling us where they’re going.’ They just told us everything was fine, and of course we knew that was not the case. We got this vision of a broodmare that was on a stud breeding horses for the racing industry. It was absolutely horrific. It was on the 7.30 Report along with vision of other horses, and then of course we saw it again four years later. The industry said, ‘No, there’s really nothing to see here. We’ve got it under control.’ We have consistently asked for a retirement plan for this industry that has so much money – it has an unbelievable amount of money, the horse racing industry; it probably spends more on the rose gardens at Flemington than it does on an actual retirement plan.

Their solution was to implement a program where, instead of sending their horse to a knackery or an abattoir, because that is a bad look for the racing industry, the trainers could call someone out and get their horse euthanised on the property, and Racing Victoria would help them do that. And then of course, much like the greyhound racing industry, when I asked for some information on the data from that program or some more information on the horses that have been euthanised through that program, they said that they could not give it to us for privacy reasons. Again, this bill is not necessarily the worst bill ever, but we are continuously doing things that benefit or potentially make things easier for racing industries, and yet we are not seeing any legislation come through this place that is addressing the really clear problems that exist within the three racing codes in our state.

I know that the opposition are moving amendments to remove part 3 of the bill, which sets out the functions and powers of Racing Victoria. This came at the eleventh hour, after what I presume was pretty intense lobbying from parts of the racing industry, who, as usual, seem to be pretty terrified about having clearly defined rules and powers. I find this interesting because every time – in fact I will probably open my phone after doing this and someone will have sent me an email saying, ‘Racing is the most regulated industry in our country.’ Well, this was going to put the regulations in the legislation and the racing industry are freaking out about it, and now it seems that this is going to be repealed, with the government’s support, which I find quite ironic because the bill establishes the functions and the powers and the structures to show that what they say is actually true and that they are potentially highly regulated. I do not agree with that, but it is putting it in legislation.

I found a quote when I was researching what is potentially going to happen here. It is:

There is an increasing public focus on the care and welfare of racing Thoroughbreds. The Social Licence which enables racing to continue in Australia is highly dependent on primary consideration for the welfare of the horse. Commitment to horse welfare by racing regulators is constantly being questioned by the community. The public will not accept any perceived or real mistreatment of a racing thoroughbred. Racing Victoria Limited (RVL) always takes its’ responsibility for the care of racing thoroughbreds very seriously. Horse welfare is considered an essential part of all current procedures and future planning.

And yet whoever it is that has pushed for this does not want to see that actually put in legislation.

I do also have some amendments. I do not have long left, so I ask that they are circulated now. I have 40 seconds on the clock, so I will speak to these amendments more when I move them. But these are some amendments that I believe will address some of the transparency measures or potential governance issues or conflicts of interest. It would be disappointing to not see the government or opposition support them if they go on a unity ticket on actually repealing some things that could restore whatever faith is left in racing bodies, and we can explore that later on in the debate. I will also be seeking strong assurances on the ability to FOI these entities, because that is an incredibly important part of the transparency of animal racing.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) incorporated the following:

I speak in support of the Racing Legislation Amendment Bill 2026, a Bill that strengthens the governance, integrity and long-term sustainability of one of Victoria’s most important industries. And of course, particularly important in regional Victoria.

Racing is far more than a sporting pursuit. It is an industry that supports tens of thousands of jobs, underpins regional economies, brings communities together and contributes billions of dollars to Victoria’s prosperity.

Racing now contributes a record $5.54 billion to Victoria’s economy, an increase of almost 18 per cent since the last report.

It supports more than 33,400 full-time equivalent jobs, with almost half of that economic impact flowing directly to regional Victoria.

Direct expenditure has reached $3.9 billion, with around 65 per cent occurring in regional communities.

These are remarkable figures that reinforce what those of us representing regional electorates already know, racing is an economic powerhouse for country Victoria.

Behind those numbers are trainers, stable staff, jockeys, drivers, breeders, veterinarians, farriers, transport operators, hospitality workers, volunteers and countless small businesses whose livelihoods depend on a strong and sustainable racing industry.

The Bill recognises that continued success relies on maintaining public confidence in the industry’s governance and integrity by delivering three key reforms.

Firstly, it establishes the Racing Integrity Commission Victoria, bringing together the functions of the existing Racing Integrity Commissioner and the Victorian Racing Integrity Board.

Secondly, it enables Greyhound Racing Victoria and Harness Racing Victoria to become public companies limited by guarantee, providing governance structures that are more contemporary, efficient and sustainable.

Finally, it makes consequential amendments to ensure these reforms operate effectively, including amendments relating to the Australian Grand Prix Corporation.

The centrepiece of this legislation is undoubtedly the establishment of the new Racing Integrity Commission Victoria.

Integrity is the foundation upon which every successful sporting competition is built.

Without public confidence in the fairness and transparency of racing, the industry’s reputation and future are placed at risk.

Victoria has benefited from two independent integrity oversight bodies for many years.

The Racing Integrity Commissioner and the Victorian Racing Integrity Board.

Both have performed valuable roles in protecting the integrity of racing.

However, over time it has become clear that the responsibilities of these organisations have increasingly overlapped.

That duplication has created unnecessary complexity, confusion for participants and additional administrative burdens for racing’s controlling bodies.

This Bill addresses those issues through a carefully considered reform.

It does not weaken integrity oversight.

It strengthens it.

The new Integrity Commission will preserve all the important integrity protections currently provided while creating a simpler and more effective framework.

Importantly, the Government has rejected calls to transfer all racing integrity services into a standalone government agency.

Instead, it has listened to industry, recognised where efficiencies can be achieved and developed a model that maintains strong independent oversight while reducing duplication.

It is worth noting that this work commenced well before the recommendations of the Silver Review.

These reforms are not about cutting costs.

They are about improving governance and supporting efficient accountability.

The new Integrity Commission will continue to oversee the Racing Integrity Commissioner while also assuming the advisory and monitoring functions previously undertaken by the Victorian Racing Integrity Board.

It will continue providing advice to racing controlling bodies on integrity matters, monitor integrity trends across the industry and consider disciplinary matters involving senior integrity staff.

Importantly, it will also become the body responsible for considering complaints regarding the Racing Integrity Commissioner.

That creates stronger accountability and appropriate oversight of the Commissioner’s powers.

This mirrors arrangements already in place for many other independent integrity bodies across Victoria, including IBAC, the Victorian Ombudsman, the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office and Victoria Police oversight arrangements.

The Racing Integrity Commissioner will continue to perform their existing investigative functions, while also serving as Chief Executive Officer of the new Commission.

Their audit powers will be expanded to allow greater examination of integrity policies, procedures and performance across the racing codes.

The Commissioner will also gain additional powers to investigate complaints raised internally by senior integrity officials within racing organisations.

Collectively, these reforms deliver a more streamlined system with stronger checks and balances.

The second major reform within this Bill modernises the governance arrangements for Harness Racing Victoria and Greyhound Racing Victoria.

Both organisations will become public companies limited by guarantee.

This provides a governance model better suited to the increasingly commercial environment in which they operate.

It offers greater flexibility, improved corporate governance and the ability to respond more effectively to future challenges.

These reforms are expected to reduce unnecessary ongoing administrative costs, allowing greater focus on growing participation, improving facilities and supporting racing participants.

As someone who represents Western Victoria, I see first-hand the value racing brings to regional communities.

Few events demonstrate that more clearly than the Warrnambool May Racing Carnival in my home town.

Each year the carnival attracts visitors from across Australia and beyond, filling accommodation, restaurants, cafes and local businesses throughout the south-west.

The carnival has become one of regional Victoria’s premier sporting and tourism events.

This year’s carnival generated an estimated $14.3 million for the local and regional economy.

That economic activity flows directly into local businesses and supports jobs throughout Warrnambool and surrounding communities.

The Labor Government continues to back that success.

This year the Government invested $45,000 to upgrade facilities at the Warrnambool Racing Club, delivering improved and safer access to the judges’ tower ahead of the carnival.

A further $20,000 from the Regional Racing Events Fund supported entertainment and temporary event infrastructure, helping ensure the carnival remains one of Australia’s premier regional racing events.

The Government also invested $15,000 to support the Warrnambool Greyhound Cup, recognising the important contribution that greyhound racing also makes to the local economy.

These relatively modest investments often combine with club contributions and generate enormous returns in local communities.

They support local employment.

They attract tourism.

They strengthen local businesses.

And they showcase regional Victoria to visitors from across the country.

The Warrnambool Racing Carnival is much more than three days of racing.

It is part of the identity of the south-west.

It brings families together and celebrates the many volunteers whose hard work makes these events possible.

It also demonstrates the important role that racing clubs continue to play as community organisations.

In conclusion it’s clear that for communities like Warrnambool, and right across regional Victoria, racing is far more than a sport.

It is a major economic driver, a source of local jobs and an important part of community and economic life.

The reforms in this Bill will help ensure the industry remains strong, trusted and sustainable for many years to come.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) incorporated the following:

President, I rise today to contribute to the debate on the Racing Legislation Amendment (Entity Governance and Other Matters) Bill 2026.

Before I begin my remarks, I would like to thank my good friend in the other place, the Minister for Racing, for the work he is doing to ensure that the Victorian racing Industry can be sustainable and can continue to operate with integrity.

The reforms contained within this bill would improve upon the existing integrity frameworks currently in place within the Victorian Racing Industry to strengthen the industry and to help to maintain public trust in it.

We are very lucky to have such a strong racing industry in this state: it makes a significant contribution to cultural life in Victoria, as well as a contribution to our economy.

We rely on the racing industry to support more than 34,500 full-time equivalent jobs, to deliver more than half a billion dollars in annual tax revenue, and a $4.7 billion-dollar annual contribution to our state’s economy.

As with any large sector in the economy, with such large amounts of money and so many jobs at stake, ensuring that integrity and oversight systems are up to scratch and fit for purpose is essential.

People who work in the racing industry rely on integrity and oversight to ensure that their industry can remain strong and that they can know that their jobs are secure.

One way that this bill seeks to do this is through the creation of the Racing Integrity Commission Victoria, an amalgamation of the existing powers and functions of the Racing Integrity Commissioner and the Victorian Racing Integrity Board.

Such measures as reducing the number of public boards and bodies by amalgamating their powers into fewer, larger public bodies were recommended by the Silver Review.

Commissioned by the Victorian Government and carried out by Helen Silver AO, the Silver Review made recommendations for how we could create a more sustainable public sector without compromising on regulatory oversight or service delivery.

While this bill covers matters which are related to the Silver Review, it is primarily about strengthening integrity oversight in racing rather than creating savings for government.

The Silver Review made recommendations for how improvements could be made across the public sector.

This included the reform of our public entities, among recommendations relating to other areas as well.

These are important parts of the Carroll Labor Government’s work in sticking to Victoria’s fiscal strategy, in respecting taxpayer’s dollars, and in continuing to deliver on the things that matter most to Victorians.

President, the Carroll Labor government remains committed to entities reform and is making changes to how our public bodies function across all portfolios and all areas of government.

In this case, it is two entities which both oversee the racing industry, and which are each responsible for similar functions, though nuanced differences do exist between them.

I would, however, like to take the time to emphasise that, while the Silver Review did recommend amalgamating these entities overseeing integrity in the racing industry, the decision to do so was actually taken before the review was announced.

This is because, while improving the fiscal sustainability of the public sector is important, these measures are primarily about creating greater clarity and reducing confusion relating to the responsibilities of each regulator.

When rules and responsibilities are unclear, the integrity of the industry can be put at greater risk.

It makes compliance more difficult, and it gives the regulators a mandate which is less clear.

President, this bill is consistent with the spirit and the recommendations of the Silver Review, which set out ways the government could make the public sector more sustainable.

However, even if these fiscal considerations had not been a factor, this bill would still be well worth passing due to the reforms which it contains helping to create a stronger integrity system in the racing industry, among other measures.

To explain the situation as it currently stands, and the similar functions of each of the bodies:

Currently, the office of the Racing Integrity Commissioner has the powers to audit integrity systems, to hear complaints about integrity matters, as well as broad inquiry powers.

This all comes as part of a role which exists to provide the industry, the government, and the broader public with the assurance that the industry is operating with integrity, and to investigate instances where standards of integrity were not upheld.

The Victorian Racing Integrity Board exists to oversee and advise on the functioning of integrity systems across Racing Victoria, Greyhound Racing Victoria, and Harness Racing Victoria.

This includes working with the various racing codes to review and advise on how integrity systems can be improved and what work can be done to better uphold the principles of integrity which these sports rely on.

By amalgamating and combining the powers of the office of the Racing Integrity Commissioner and the Victorian Racing Integrity Board, we are reducing public sector duplication of functions and increasing clarity for the industry as to which powers lie where.

It is true that these two boards have operated side by side successfully over recent years.

Nevertheless, we have judged that a more efficient system, a more rigorous system, and a fairer system can be achieved through bringing these functions under the umbrella of a new body, the Racing Integrity Commission Victoria.

Under the new Commission, while the actual functions of protecting integrity in racing will remain the function of the racing bodies, new powers will be given to enable the commission to better enforce integrity matters.

This includes greater auditing powers and broadening the commission’s ability to investigate integrity-related complaints.

The bill also requires that the racing industry’s controlling bodies must submit an annual integrity plan which can be audited by the Integrity Commission.

The Racing Integrity Commissioner will also undertake the duties of Chief Executive Officer of the Integrity Commission and will be required to consult with the Integrity Commission before utilising audit functions.

Another important area of reform being driven forward by this bill relates to the status of the governing bodies in the racing industry.

Currently, Racing Victoria is constituted as a public company limited by guarantee.

This has been the case since 2001.

This change was put into legislation back in 2001 so that Racing Victoria could function as an independent and accountable body to oversee and manage thoroughbred racing in this state.

This model has, altogether, been largely successful and is therefore, something worth replicating.

Greyhound Racing Victoria and Harness Racing Victoria, on the other hand, are not currently constituted as public companies limited by guarantee.

Instead, they are currently administered by statutory entities.

This bill would standardise the administrative and legal structures of Greyhound Racing Victoria and Harness Racing Victoria according to the model currently used by Racing Victoria.

Importantly, these new bodies will carry out the same functions as the existing statutory entities.

They will regulate their industries, they will write the rules of participation in their industries, they will uphold the integrity of their industries, and they will manage the commercial side of their industries.

Further, provisions are included within this bill to ensure that the transition from statutory entity to public company limited by guarantee is smooth and orderly.

This means that the existing assets, agreements, rules, practices, and board decisions of Greyhound Racing Victoria and Harness Racing Victoria will be carried over and will still apply under the new companies.

This will include all staff being carried over and retained on their existing pay and conditions.

President, these industries provide significant employment in regional Victoria, and we need to ensure that its model is fit for purpose.

Standardising the legal structures of Greyhound Racing Victoria and Harness Racing Victoria will allow them more flexibility to operate in response to their commercial environment, whilst also ensuring stronger accountability and transparency.

In doing so, this will create a more rational, simpler to manage system of racing industry governing bodies.

On top of the changes which this bill is making to governance, oversight, and integrity in the racing industry, through the changes being made to Greyhound Racing Victoria and Harness Racing Victoria, significant reforms are being made to the Victorian Racing Tribunal.

This will expand the eligibility criteria for who is able to sit on the tribunal to include other types of highly qualified legal professionals.

This will ensure that we can keep the tribunal functioning and that it does no need to be constrained by these strict criteria for who can serve as a deputy chairperson.

This bill proposes that former and reserve judicial officer from other jurisdictions should also be considered eligible to be appointed as a deputy chairperson.

It also would remove the requirement that all deputy chairpersons must be former or reserve judicial officers with extensive knowledge of a specific racing code.

Under the new arrangements, the tribunal would require that at least one deputy chair be a judicial officer, current or former, with the other deputy chairs being lawyers with at least 15 years of experience and knowledge about racing.

There are a number of considerations to make when assessing whether or not to make these sorts of reforms to the Victorian Racing Tribunal.

We need to ensure that those who sit on the tribunal are adequately qualified, and this bill does maintain very high standards who may find themselves being appointed to the position of deputy chairperson.

In this way, it is important to emphasise that these reforms are expanding the eligibility criteria rather than watering it down.

It is also critical that the tribunal be able to address integrity and disciplinary matters and appeals to stewards’ decisions in a manner which is timely.

If these matters cannot be addressed in a timely manner, we risk the tribunal losing its authority and reputation within the industry and the enforcement of integrity standards being left weaker and less effective.

Another area covered within this bill are proposed amendments to the Australian Grand Prix Act 1994.

These amendments relate to the Australian Grand Prix Corporation’s ability to host motor sport and other types of events.

This bill would expand the Australian Grand Prix Corporation’s power to supporting facilities, services, and activities at motorsport events, to ensure that the experience can be as fulfilling and accessible as possible for fans of the sport.

It gives greater powers to the AGPC as relates to their ability to charge admission fees to events.

It also gives the AGPC greater rights as relates to advertising, sponsorship, and licencing.

The purpose of these reforms is to ensure that Victoria remains a competitive and attractive location where motor sport events can be hosted.

The Grand Prix has been one of the great major events in this state since 1996.

It gives locals a great race to look forward to each year.

It gave our economy a significant, $323.9 million-dollar, boost to Victoria’s GSP in 2025, more than $3 for every one dollar invested by the state government.

It also helps to support our tourism industry, putting Victoria on the map for interstate and international visitors.

This helps to support more than 1,600 full-time equivalent jobs directly impacted by the Grand Prix.

President, Melbourne is the sporting capital of Australia.

Hosting the Grand Prix in Melbourne is about the important contribution which motorsport makes to our proud sporting culture.

It is also about the economic benefit which these sorts of major events create: more jobs and more economic growth.

By maximising and improving Melbourne’s viability as a host city for the Grand Prix, we are maximising and improving the Grand Prix’s ability to deliver economic benefit to our state.

It isn’t just the Grand Prix which contributes to our state’s sporting culture and tourism sector, it is our whole major events calendar which is making that contribution.

Keeping an event like the Grand Prix in Melbourne shows the world, shows business, and shows organisations looking for a host city for one of their events that Victoria is open for business.

In this way, keeping the Grand Prix in Melbourne helps to maintain our image as a great place to host a major event, whether it be a major sporting event, a major concert, or a major cultural event.

It also is a signal to business that Victoria’s tourism industry is something worth investing in, because they can be confident that our major events calendar is here to stay.

When we give business the confidence to make these investments, we see a further impact on job creation and economic growth.

Overall, this bill introduces a handful of smart, pragmatic reforms to how our racing industries govern themselves.

We are amalgamating the powers and the functions of the Office of the Racing Integrity Commissioner and the Victorian Racing Integrity Board in order to action the recommendations of the Silver Review.

This will reduce state government duplication, saving the state money while maintaining the same high levels of governance and oversight.

We are modernising the legal structures of Greyhound Racing Victoria and Harness Racing Victoria, standardising them and bringing them into line with the structure already used by Racing Victoria.

We are introducing minor modernisations to the Victorian Racing Tribunal to ensure that the tribunal is fit and able to undertake its legal duties.

We are also introducing modernising amendments to the Australian Grand Prix Act 1994 to ensure that Victoria can continue to be an attractive and competitive location for hosting major events.

These changes are about keeping our industries strong, keeping our sporting culture strong, and keeping our sporting economies strong here in Victoria as well.

That is what this bill is about, that is what we propose to do.

Therefore, I commend the bill to the chamber.

 Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Finance, Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Government Services) (16:23): I thank everyone that has contributed to this really important debate on the Racing Legislation Amendment (Entity Governance and Other Matters) Bill 2026. From the outset I do want to acknowledge the work of Minister Carbines’s office and his management and his work with stakeholders to come up with a bill that is focused on improving governance, trust and integrity across the sector. I want to acknowledge the shadow minister Mr McCurdy and also the Leader of the Opposition in this place Mrs McArthur for their work in working collaboratively to ensure that this bill continues the success of our racing industries.

We do have a highly successful industry, and we have heard in the debate about the economic contribution of billions of dollars to the state of Victoria, not just to Melbourne, not citycentric, but across the regions too – that was highlighted by Mrs McArthur, and she nods to that statement – and about the thousands of participants, employees and volunteers that directly work in this sector or directly seek enjoyment in this sector, which does provide a lot of important moments for many people. It is a highlight, going to the races. It is a family affair. But the key to success is that social licence and trust in this industry, and that is why effective and efficient integrity and governance structures are important for that success. We were the first jurisdiction to establish a racing integrity commissioner in 2010; most states have subsequently followed our lead. The commissioner provides vital independent oversight of the delivery of integrity assurance by the racing controlling bodies. The Victorian Racing Integrity Board was established to strengthen integrity oversight by ensuring commercial considerations did not negatively impact the integrity delivery, and this bill before us builds on that work.

The important core function of the Victorian Racing Integrity Board will now be carried out by a newly established Racing Integrity Commission, which will incorporate the statutory Office of the Racing Integrity Commissioner. The commission’s existing powers will remain largely unchanged but will be expanded to include a power to investigate a complaint by a senior member of an integrity staff of a controlling body in relation to integrity matters. This is a key power which ensures that commercial considerations do not negatively impact integrity delivery. The introduction of the integrity commission board will ensure the commission’s performance also has appropriate oversight. We know that a focus of this bill is also on Harness Racing Victoria and Greyhound Racing Victoria, and we are transitioning those bodies from statutory entities to companies limited by guarantee. This will better align the structure of these bodies with the nature of the regulatory functions that they exercise. It is also important that the new bodies will operate in a manner that reflects the government’s policy settings and is in line with community expectations, and that is why we will maintain the minister’s power of appointing the board of these new bodies. This will provide the necessary assurance that they continue to adhere to best practice in government policy and community expectations and will be subject to government scrutiny as required.

I do note the contributions of all members, and I want to in particular single out Ms Purcell. I know she is quite passionate on these matters. Although we might not agree on many aspects of this industry, I do understand her concerns about transparency. She raised it in her conclusion in relation to matters about the importance of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and for it to be applied to bodies that perform a public function. These new bodies will continue that public function. Racing Victoria is a company limited by guarantee that is prescribed in the FOI regulations. It is the intention, I can confirm, that when this body commences on 1 July the government will ensure they are prescribed under the FOI regulations as soon as practicable after they come into being so that they are covered by FOI. I think that is really crucial, and that is the way Racing Victoria set it up so it will be consistent across the different racing sectors. Additionally, the bill sets out specific requirements for the constitution of these companies, but the core objectives of each are essential to the proper management of their respective industries and the governance framework they will adopt. Once adopted, any special resolution to modify or repeal the constitution of one of the new companies must be notified to the minister, who must cause a copy of that proposed amendment to be laid before each house of Parliament. I think that is also crucial to that public accountability piece.

But in the interests of being succinct as we go into committee, it is important to state that social licence is crucial to the success of Victoria’s racing industry, and that is what this bill is about: ensuring that the robust governance and integrity arrangements that we have are further strengthened to provide the necessary oversight for this industry. These are practical improvements to ensure that the racing industry, being such a big part of our economy and a big part of our visitor economy in particular and major events calendar for our state and our city, has the appropriate guardrails in place. I think this modernisation of the governance is key to maintaining people’s trust and making sure that they continue to run successfully, as they have historically. These changes will ensure that Victorian racing continues to set the benchmark on integrity and governance. And on that note, I commend the bill to the house.

Council divided on motion:

Clause 1 (16:36)

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, to start off with, why did the government not implement the recommendation from the Silver review and choose a different model for the racing entities?

Enver ERDOGAN: I will note that the Silver review, Ms Purcell, was a DPC project but not necessarily from the Department of Premier and Cabinet. It was not an initiative of the portfolio minister in the development of this bill. Therefore I do not believe it is necessarily in scope for this legislation, but I am happy to get clarity on that.

Georgie PURCELL: The government has said it is an acquittal of the Silver review.

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Purcell, I am advised that the work to amalgamate those bodies was already being worked on before the Silver review, but of course it is broadly in line with what the Silver review said in terms of consolidating a lot of entities and regulators. In fact the decision, or that path, was being considered before the Silver review.

Georgie PURCELL: Sorry, Minister, this has made me potentially more confused. The government said themselves following the independent review of the Victorian public service, commonly known as the Silver review, that the Victorian government implemented targeted structural and legislative changes to its racing entities to streamline public services. Just for clarification, this is not a result or an acquittal of the Silver review – this was a decision made by the government before the Silver review?

Enver ERDOGAN: For clarity, from my understanding – and I will seek further advice if I misspeak – the work was already underway. This work to amalgamate these two entities was underway before the Silver review. Of course the Silver review, I guess you could say, pushed along some of this work that was happening in the background around consolidation, but this particular work was underway before the Silver review.

Georgie PURCELL: I am still not sure it makes total sense. That is in contradiction to what the government said in relation to this bill. But that is fine; I am not trying to catch you out, Minister.

Enver ERDOGAN: No, it is good. I am trying to get clarity, I am telling you now, to get to the truth.

Georgie PURCELL: Apologies, this is one of the ones that I did not flag, but just to get an understanding: why not the recommendation from the Silver review to have one regulatory body for the three racing codes instead of three individual entities?

Enver ERDOGAN: Good question, Ms Purcell. From what I understand, and I am familiar with that recommendation, the issue here was that from a policy perspective there was concern that it would be highly complex to merge the three and also potentially more costly. Obviously, the goal of Silver was to find opportunities for savings and efficiencies. There was broader policy concern that it might be more complex and potentially more costly. Therefore the existing structure where the codes pay for that – a similar structure to what we have got now – we thought it was best to keep.

Georgie PURCELL: You led into my next question: potentially more costly or definitely more costly? Did the government confirm this, or was it just a vibe?

Enver ERDOGAN: I am advised that it would have been more costly. Not potentially – it would have been more costly.

Georgie PURCELL: Just to clarify: it would have been more costly to have one racing regulator for the three codes, as opposed to the three entities of Racing Victoria (RV), Harness Racing Victoria (HRV) and Greyhound Racing Victoria (GRV) operating separately?

Enver ERDOGAN: To the government, yes, because currently the codes pay for that function.

Georgie PURCELL: Can I see that information? Can you take that on notice?

Enver ERDOGAN: I will take that on notice and see what information we can provide in relation to those matters.

Georgie PURCELL: I am just genuinely interested because I think it is a good model to regulate, of course taking the promotional powers away, but we have canvassed that extensively in here in recent times. Can the minister confirm – you did mention this in your sum-up, but just out of an abundance of caution – that these new entities will be declared a prescribed authority in the FOI regulations to ensure GRV and HRV will continue to be subject to FOI as they are now?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes, I can confirm that is the intention of government and a commitment. For the record, it is a commitment of government that the bill provides that the transition from the current Greyhound Racing Victoria and Harness Racing Victoria to the successor companies will occur no later than 1 July 2028. As part of that transition process the government will ensure that the Greyhound Racing Victoria and Harness Racing Victoria successor entities are prescribed under the FOI regulations as soon as practicable after the new bodies come into existence. That is a government commitment.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I appreciate that commitment. It is a big risk to take that our racing codes might not be FOI-able if you do not come back into government. Has any consideration been put into that or other protections to ensure transparency in the racing industry?

Enver ERDOGAN: Racing Victoria is governed that way currently, so I think it is bringing them into line. Hopefully there is no change of government, but if there is, I am sure, looking at the Leader of the Opposition in this place, that they would want to have that consistency. It is a quality assurance mechanism. They are ultimately doing public functions, and therefore that FOI oversight is an important one, and that is why we have got it in Racing Victoria. I would expect that if there is a change of government, they would also bring this into fruition.

Georgie PURCELL: Given that this bill will also facilitate the transfer of property to GRV and HRV, how does the government justify the handing over of publicly owned assets on top of the tens of millions that taxpayers already provide to racing each year?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think there may be a bit of a misunderstanding. My understanding is that the assets in question have previously been purchased by Greyhound Racing Victoria and Harness Racing Victoria using revenue generated by the racing industry, so they are the existing owners. These bodies receive grant funding and a share of wagering taxes but are not base funded by the government at all. Our view is that we are just transferring over their existing assets.

Georgie PURCELL: On government funding, since that was raised, what does the government give to the racing codes? How many times in the past few years have the bodies received an emergency support payment or Treasurer’s advance, and if so, how much and to who?

Enver ERDOGAN: I do not have that level of detail. I am wary of talking about funding because, as you would appreciate, the funding and decisions are matters for the Treasurer. Some of the tax settings that I know have been raised in debate are better questions for the Treasurer. I do not have that level of detail before me.

Georgie PURCELL: I am not sure that is totally correct. The Treasurer is certainly not the one who has been there at the events where funding has been granted to the industry. I am not sure I accept that as a reason to not answer it. I am happy for it to be taken on notice, otherwise I can ask it in a different way.

Enver ERDOGAN: Like many industries, there was some support during the pandemic, but I know that the industry is quite sustainable in terms of its practices and the revenue it generates. I might go to the box.

Georgie PURCELL: Can I clarify quickly? I am aware of pandemic funding, so perhaps just since this term of Parliament.

Enver ERDOGAN: Okay, yes.

I understand that the codes do share in their annual reports the government grants they receive, but I am happy to take it on notice so it can be answered more fulsomely by the minister.

Georgie PURCELL: Just for clarification, grants, yes, but I do not think they publish Treasurer’s advances or emergency support payments, so more clarity on that would be great.

Enver ERDOGAN: I will take those two on notice.

Georgie PURCELL: What consultation was undertaken in the development of this bill?

Enver ERDOGAN: The consultation in relation to the development of the bill was with the bodies to which the amendments apply, namely Greyhound Racing Victoria, Harness Racing Victoria, Racing Victoria, the Victorian Racing Tribunal, the Racing Integrity Commissioner and the Victorian Racing Integrity Board. I understand that is where the consultation was focused.

Georgie PURCELL: Did the minister consult with any animal protection organisations, such as Animals Australia, the Australian Alliance for Animals, the Coalition for the Protection of Greyhounds, the Coalition for the Protection of Racehorses or the RSPCA, during the development of this legislation?

Enver ERDOGAN: The answer to that, Ms Purcell, is no. I think the minister was of the view that the bill deals with the entity and governance structures of the existing bodies and that each of these bodies will continue to perform the same substantive role, and therefore the consultation was limited to the bodies directly affected.

Georgie PURCELL: Can the minister guarantee that Greyhound Racing Victoria and Harness Racing Victoria will continue to publish their annual reports online?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes. Under the Corporations Act 2001, Commonwealth legislation, they are required to publish annual reports.

Georgie PURCELL: This bill means that they will not be required to table those reports in Parliament, which is an important transparency measure. However, I believe the minister can direct them to do that. Will the minister direct them to table them in Parliament?

Enver ERDOGAN: I will need to take that question on notice about whether we will be able to.

Ms Purcell, I understand the minister’s remit will retain the power to direct them to publish their reports but not necessarily to table them in Parliament.

Georgie PURCELL: Can the government table it in Parliament themselves?

Enver ERDOGAN: I will need to take that one on notice. I think we are getting a bit into the technical details.

Georgie PURCELL: That would be great if we could get an answer on if the government will still table it. Minister, will GRV continue to publish the data recently agreed to as a result of a motion that passed in this place in October 2024 that allowed for more transparency in greyhound racing?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes.

Georgie PURCELL: Will the Minister for Racing continue to have the ability to direct GRV and HRV to include anything further in their annual reports?

Enver ERDOGAN: In short, yes, and the companies will also have to meet extensive reporting obligations, as in the Corporations Act; that is for not-for-profit public companies limited by guarantee. And there is a whole section, section 300B, in the Corporations Act which states that each company’s annual director’s report must contain a description of the short- and long-term objectives, set out their strategy, set out their principal activities, state how those activities assisted in achieving their objectives and also have some key performance measures in there as indicated. Racing Victoria is a not-for-profit public company limited by guarantee and each year publishes its annual report and presentation on its website. The expectation is that Greyhound Racing Victoria and Harness Racing Victoria will have to publish their reports in that similar fashion.

Georgie PURCELL: How will the government ensure that GRV or HRV as corporations provide the public with information about deaths, injuries, breeding rates, rehoming rates, monitoring and compliance actions and disciplinary actions?

Enver ERDOGAN: The minister will continue to appoint the board and will require them to publish that information that they provide currently.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, if GRV or HRV decide to reduce the amount of public information they provide, how will the Victorian government compel GRV or HRV to continue to publish this information?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think ultimately it will be the minister that appoints the governance board; therefore you could say if they were not publishing reports, the government has stated it is a clear expectation that they do, and I think we know what happens to boards that effectively do not align their values with the government – the board would be replaced.

Georgie PURCELL: If GRV or HRV decide to water down guidelines and local racing rules, how will the minister or the Victorian government stop them from doing so?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think ultimately these are independent entities, but the minister, having the power to appoint the board, would obviously be setting expectations. Usually when the government and the minister set expectations for such a public entity, the entity will take that on board, especially when social licence is so crucial. I do not see this industry trying to hide this data; I know there is a lot of scepticism by some. I think it is in their own interest, for their social licence, to publish and report this information.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, I appreciate that, let us say, information, but my question was about racing rules. These are the rules that apply to the different codes. I actually talk a lot about their own rules for self-regulation. I often speak about the fact that greyhounds are governed by a code of practice and the rules of racing when they are racing and then when they are dogs in a home they are under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986. So my question is: what powers does the government have if any of these entities changes their rules of racing?

Enver ERDOGAN: As it stands, they are responsible for the rules of racing. Therefore this bill does not change that dynamic; they will still be responsible for setting their own rules independently. But as I stated in responding to earlier questions, if something did not pass the community’s interests, I think it would be in the sector’s own interest to do something or change the rules in a way that affects their social licence.

Georgie PURCELL: That is absolutely correct, but there is an amendment that would remove part 3, which makes the rules of racing part of the legislation. That would mean that they presumably cannot just change them themselves or set them themselves. So my question is: in the event that part 3 is struck out of the legislation, what power will the government have to intervene if they do change their rules of racing?

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.

Enver ERDOGAN: Pursuant to standing order 4.08, I declare that the sitting be extended by up to 1 further hour.

Ms Purcell, currently Racing Victoria have powers to make their own rules, and the government does not see that it is that controversial – we are just putting it into the act expressly, but they already have these powers.

Georgie PURCELL: I understand they already have these powers, and perhaps I am interpreting this wrongly, but by putting them in legislation, which might not be the case pending an amendment we will vote on soon, could they still change them without the legislation changing?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes, they could.

Georgie PURCELL: Am I correct, though, that only through legislation will these rules apply to every participant in the racing industry?

Enver ERDOGAN: No.

Georgie PURCELL: It is my understanding – in fact I think in something I read from the government – that it changed in the legislation who was subject to the rules of racing. Can you clarify the purpose of putting the rules of racing binding on certain persons?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think it was just to clarify Racing Victoria’s existing powers and functions. That was the goal, not to change the status quo.

Georgie PURCELL: Just to completely clarify: the rules of racing are binding on all participants of all three codes, regardless of if they are in the legislation or not?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes.

Georgie PURCELL: That is very helpful. Minister, regulatory models that place responsibility on the regulator to both look after the commercial interests of the regulated sector and monitor and enforce compliance are avoided in other areas of government regulation. What assurances can the Victorian government provide to Victorians that under the proposed legislation GRV will become a more effective regulator of greyhound racing?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think that it will be the role of the racing commissioner to ensure that there is no undue commercial influence in terms of its functions, but also I think this is about creating a broader power. It will be up to the new racing commissioner to ensure that it demonstrates how it operates and to make sure that it can operate impartially.

Georgie PURCELL: The proposed legislation further facilitates commercial and marketing aspects of GRV’s responsibilities. What mechanisms does the Victorian government have to prevent GRV from favouring commercial considerations over regulatory considerations?

Enver ERDOGAN: That will be the responsibility of the racing commissioner. It will be their job to make sure that these commercial interests do not stray from their proper purpose.

Georgie PURCELL: What does the minister consider to be the necessary skills and experience for board membership in Harness Racing Victoria and Greyhound Racing Victoria?

Enver ERDOGAN: That is a really good question. As minister, there are a large number of boards and committees I appoint to, and the skills matrix needed for each board will vary. It will vary depending on the state of the entity. If it is a new entity, you might need different skills. If it is a developed industry, you might need a different set of skills. The skills and experience required for the board will vary from time to time to maintain flexibility, but the appointment process will include consultation with the entity chair about the organisation’s and board’s needs.

Consideration should also be given to the skills that are required on the board versus the skills that are required in an executive team. I think there is no hard and fast rule. It depends on where the entity is at, what their needs are and what their challenges are. We see that from time to time with changes in boards. You might bring in a subject matter expert, an industry expert. Sometimes you just need someone that is focused on the performance of the board at that time. It is really hard to say and to gaze into the future of what these entities will need in the longer term.

Georgie PURCELL: I just want to go back to your previous response, because I do have an amendment in relation to this. You stated that it would be a matter for the racing integrity commissioner to ensure that GRV is not favouring commercial considerations over regulatory considerations. In my second-reading speech I spoke about the fact that the racing integrity commissioner – who is a lovely person and very helpful, and I do not suggest any wrongdoing in any way – was the general counsel for Greyhound Racing Victoria for nine years and then went into a role as the racing integrity commissioner. I have an amendment that puts a time limit between these kinds of roles – from operating within the industry to then taking on such a role. What is the government doing to avoid these conflicts of interest? Why aren’t there currently any protections in the legislation? And further, how can you be confident that they are not going to favour commercial considerations over regulatory considerations if these protections are not in place?

Enver ERDOGAN: This legislation introduces a board. The racing integrity commissioner is expected to act independently of the board in the conduct of inquiries. However, they must be accountable to the board in terms of ensuring the exercise of its functions. There is a board that this commissioner will report to: a five-person board. The work of that board will be to hold the commissioner to account for their duties.

Georgie PURCELL: I understand the accountability to the board and the expectation, but how can the minister be confident, without anything specifically in the legislation, of avoiding those considerations? We canvassed this in Outdoor Recreation Victoria, actually, where we had protection in the commercial fishing industry and then not in the commercial game hunting industry. There was a period of time in which you could be in the commercial industry and then on the board, for example. But none of those exist in this. I understand the expectations of the people who take on these roles, but how can you be confident, and what is there to ensure that?

Enver ERDOGAN: I understand that the board appointments in particular would be subject to cabinet processes, which do have robust probity measures in place. Therefore if people did have any commercial vested interests, I think they would be found or would have to be declared through that process, so I think there is that integrity. Obviously the people that carry out these roles understand that they need to act properly. Like many roles, they are positions of trust. If someone does the wrong thing, then yes, they will probably get caught out, to be frank. You gave an example of someone with general counsel experience. People in the legal profession have an added duty to the court to act responsibly, especially when it comes to matters of trust.

Georgie PURCELL: I appreciate the explanation. The other area I am keen to know more about, noting that those measures will be in place, is why there is not a time period between the two, but in the interest of time we can canvass that when we come to my amendment. Beyond the examples listed in the bill, what is included under the racing integrity commissioner’s function of conducting racing integrity related audits?

Enver ERDOGAN: The bill does not provide an exhaustive list of examples, so as to not unnecessarily narrow the scope of the matters which can be audited by the racing integrity commissioner. We have deliberately kept it broad. The examples provided in proposed new section 37FA(1) of the Racing Act 1958 make it clear that there is an expectation that the commissioner may audit matters related to animal welfare policies, procedures and plans. This is, in our view, a broader power than the current section 37BA, which limits the racing integrity commissioner to auditing matters relating to animal welfare systems and processes to the extent that they relate to integrity in racing. An example is animal welfare policies, procedures and plans, so they can audit those as well. That is just one example in the bill, but we have not created an exhaustive list. If the commissioner thinks that something else is crucial to look at, they should have all the powers.

Georgie PURCELL: Just to get it absolutely confirmed in Hansard, can you confirm that animal welfare related audits and inquiries will continue to be included?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes.

Georgie PURCELL: Does this include policies regarding gambling harm reduction – the integrity commissioner?

Enver ERDOGAN: In relation to gambling harm reduction or integrity relating to gambling, we have the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission. It does not fall within this bill.

Georgie PURCELL: Why does the racing integrity commissioner not publish reports on all inquiries conducted by them?

Enver ERDOGAN: I feel this is a question best addressed to the independent Office of the Racing Integrity Commissioner. It is probably a question that should be directed to the racing integrity commissioner.

Georgie PURCELL: Why has the commissioner not published a report since 2023?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think it is similar to my answer to the previous question. I think this is a question for the racing integrity commissioner, and we should be directing this question to them.

Georgie PURCELL: Is it concerning to the government that the commission rarely publishes its reports? We have just had an in-depth conversation about the faith and trust being put in them. Does the government have any power to? I am presuming not. Are you concerned, and are you going to do anything about it?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes, Ms Purcell. It is important and we do value public reporting. I think the more public reporting, the better in this space. Nonetheless this is an independent office of the integrity commissioner and there are no powers to compel them to report that information.

Georgie PURCELL: Is it appropriate to be moving forward with this process? We have just had a long discussion about the importance of the racing integrity commissioner and their work and why all these decisions are made surrounding racing. Is it concerning to the minister that they are not publishing their reports or have not published a report for three years?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think we would welcome more public reporting. I think that goes for a whole bunch of agencies. The more public reporting and the more information in the public domain, the better.

Georgie PURCELL: I am going to try and move through these quickly. I am aware we have to vote at 6 to extend, if we get there. To confirm: there will be no changes to the whole-of-life tracking of greyhounds and what is reported under that as a result of this?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes, I can confirm there will be no change.

Georgie PURCELL: Will Greyhound Racing Victoria continue, as a general rule, to publish footage of greyhound deaths and injuries, given that Victoria is currently the only state to continue doing so?

Enver ERDOGAN: I do not believe there is anything in this bill that would change the existing arrangements, but that would be a matter for Greyhound Racing Victoria.

Georgie PURCELL: Apologies, Minister, I am aware it is not in the bill. I can rephrase my question. If Greyhound Racing Victoria was to go the same way as other states and start removing the race replays where a dog is killed or injured, would the minister have the power to intervene to stop them doing that?

Enver ERDOGAN: The minister obviously appoints the board and would set their expectations accordingly. But ultimately, it is obviously for the body. Usually a lot of agencies and a lot of public bodies do have a statement of expectations. Therefore I would be really surprised, especially in the industry which you have identified whose social licence is core to their success, if they went down that path.

Georgie PURCELL: Just to confirm: if the greyhound racing industry is removing race footage, that is something that the government would have concerns about?

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes, I think we would, because our support for the sector is based on that social licence – on the trust and integrity of the sector. And so of course if they went down that path, I think that many in government would be very concerned.

Georgie PURCELL: Just while we are on this, potentially we could resolve an issue. We recently reported a practice called tail lifting on greyhounds across Victoria. That is when animals’ tails are lifted, and it is a form of rough handling as they are put into the boxes before a race. We received a response from GRV that it is not encouraged or approved and that they would be undertaking training and speaking to participants. Following that we continued to capture tail lifting and reported it again. Now GRV no longer shows the boxing footage. We can only presume it is because they do not want us to keep capturing it. Is there the ability to have a conversation with GRV about this practice, given the comments you have just made about the expectations on them in relation to their social licence and the public duties they undertake?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Purcell, if you have got information or concerns, I am happy for you to forward them on to the minister’s office. I am wary of commenting about unverified allegations in this chamber. But if you have got concerns, put them in writing for the minister’s office. I am always happy to follow up.

Georgie PURCELL: We are certainly not trying to catch anyone out. I am just hoping we can resolve it, given those comments. We are actually trying to resolve it. It has been an ongoing issue, and I just noted that the minister stated the importance of ensuring that race footage is not removed. Would the minister be able to have a conversation with GRV to ensure that image of a whole race is not edited?

Enver ERDOGAN: We are kind of going off the scope of the bill and more into a specific incident, but I think in relation to that specific incident, what I can commit to is if you forward that information to the minister’s office, I am sure they will look at it and consider it. But I do not want to get into individual cases today if that is possible.

Georgie PURCELL: It is certainly not an individual case; it is a routine practice. Every single race in Victoria now no longer shows the boxing footage. I just thought I might take the opportunity, given the comments prior. I have to say it does not give me faith in the strength of the prior comments. But certainly if there is a commitment for us to send that through to the Minister for Racing’s office for it to be actioned, I would be more than happy to do that.

Minister, in most Australian states greyhound racing bodies publish quarterly greyhound welfare reports. Why doesn’t this occur in Victoria?

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Purcell, I understand this is one of your amendments, but I think that is a matter for Greyhound Racing Victoria to consider. Again, it is an issue that the minister’s office is happy to take up with them and raise with them. But we do not support your amendment in this regard.

Georgie PURCELL: I understand the government does not want to legislate, as per my amendment, to have a quarterly reporting requirement, but will the government direct GRV to do so, in line with other states?

Enver ERDOGAN: No, we will not be directing them to do that, but we are happy to have a conversation with them about their reporting mechanisms, as the minister does from time to time.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, can I receive a commitment then to being updated on the outcome of that conversation? I was hopeful that perhaps we could at least reach some sort of resolution on quarterly reporting.

Enver ERDOGAN: Yes, I am happy to take it on note and, when the minister next has the discussion, or the minister’s office does, to give you an update on how those discussions in relation to that matter on quarterly reporting go.

Georgie PURCELL: I just have a couple of questions in relation to stewards. Are racing stewards required to undergo training in animal welfare, race integrity, governance or enforcement?

Enver ERDOGAN: I am informed that stewards do undertake training, and some of that training involves animal welfare concerns as well.

Georgie PURCELL: Are there any qualifications or experience required to become a racing steward, or is it training undertaken with the industry?

Enver ERDOGAN: I understand it varies between the codes, but there is what I would call certificate-level training.

Georgie PURCELL: Does the minister or the government have any input in how stewards penalties are determined?

Enver ERDOGAN: No.

Georgie PURCELL: In the event that stewards penalties were deemed to be consistently unsatisfactory or unsatisfactory in a specific circumstance, is there any ability for the minister to intervene and provide that feedback?

Enver ERDOGAN: Not specific intervention into an individual incident, no. If there was an individual incident, no. Giving feedback, the minister could always set the expectations with the appropriate bodies. But intervening on an individual judgement or decision, no.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, that leads me to my next question, and I mean this intentionally. We often hear from racing participants and racing codes and racing industry representatives that it is the most highly regulated sporting code or has the best animal welfare standards, as is often said to me, in comparison to cats and dogs at home. Does the government agree with those statements, given there is no ability to intervene on the penalties for the rules of racing?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Minister, I am not sure this is in the scope of the bill, but it is up to you if you answer.

Enver ERDOGAN: I do not believe it is in the scope of the bill, but more broadly, there are a whole range of independent bodies that are broadly public facing. It just would not be appropriate for government to get involved in every single decision. A lot of those bodies have their own mechanisms for dispute resolution and for disciplinary proceedings, and that is appropriate. Ultimately, I think the government sets broader policy frameworks and the minister sets broad expectations, but a lot of industries self-regulate and are able to successfully implement their procedures.

Georgie PURCELL: Just in relation to the comments on scope, the reason for my questions is there are clauses of the bill in relation to racing rules and to stewards, so I am just seeking some more information in relation to their relationship with the government, because it has previously been unclear. But just to clarify, is it the government’s position that self-regulation is a better form of regulation than, say, animal protection laws?

Enver ERDOGAN: I think we are getting outside the scope. I think it just depends on the sector, but more so this is not about and/or. I think it is clear that a lot of industries have both. There are broad laws and there are specific laws. It is not possible to set legislation for every minute detail. Some of those are made through not even laws but regulations and even at a subject level – by-laws, for example, in a local government setting.

Georgie PURCELL: I understand that. This is often what happens when I talk about this. I am genuinely trying to get answers, so I will just move to where I am trying to get to. Racing animals are first and foremost subject to a code of practice and rules of racing, and that tends to be where any sorts of investigations or penalties or anything in breach of those is considered first. This can be taken on notice, but I do believe it is relevant to this legislation given it talks extensively about welfare. Every time I talk about racing codes being self-regulated, the response is the animals are subject to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. How many times has the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act been used instead of racing rules on any of the three codes?

Enver ERDOGAN: Thank you, Ms Purcell, for your question and your passion on these issues. That one I will take on notice, because I know that it will not be on hand with the advisers.

Georgie PURCELL: Minister, if I can just give some clarification for that. Recently we could not work out the reasoning behind a VRT case where a trainer went through the VRT because she left her dogs exercising on a treadmill and they strangled to death. Instead of going through the courts under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, that went through the Victorian Racing Tribunal. There was another case coincidentally of greyhounds strangling to death on treadmills, and that one went through the Magistrates’ Court. We are just trying to get an understanding of how it is determined to apply what rules or legislation instead of the rules, but I am happy for that to be taken on notice.

Enver ERDOGAN: I might take that one on notice.

Georgie PURCELL: I have a couple of questions on the opposition amendments, so I am happy to leave it there to try to whip through.

Clause agreed to; clauses 2 to 6 agreed to.

Part heading preceding clause 7 and clauses 7 to 10 (17:33)

Bev McARTHUR: I move:

1.   Part heading preceding clause 7, omit this heading.

I am moving this amendment, which removes clauses 7 to 10, comprising part 3 of the bill. Part 3 largely sought to place Racing Victoria’s existing functions and powers on a more explicit statutory footing, including its rule-making, regulatory and enforcement functions. Metropolitan racing clubs raised questions with us about the way those provisions were framed and how they might operate in practice, and we consider it appropriate to convey those concerns to the government.

I want to thank the shadow minister Tim McCurdy, Minister Erdogan, Minister Carbines and the government for engaging very constructively with us and the industry on this issue and for the work they have done to look at this amendment. The effect of these amendments is simply to remove part 3 and leave the existing arrangements governing Racing Victoria in place. I commend the amendments to the house and hope the government, as foreshadowed, and other members, will support them.

Enver ERDOGAN: I thank Mrs McArthur for that explanation in relation to these provisions. The government will be supporting this amendment, although we do believe that the original intent was just to clarify Racing Victoria’s existing powers and functions, and we did not see anything necessarily controversial. But we understand some stakeholders did have concerns, and we have taken them on board. I also want to thank, obviously, Mr Carbines in the other place, Shadow Minister McCurdy and Mrs McArthur for coming to a practical resolution, because I think this is an important piece of work that we are able to deal with. We have agreed to those amendments and we can move forward.

Georgie PURCELL: I have some questions on these amendments. Mrs McArthur, what stakeholders requested the removal of these sections of the bill?

Bev McARTHUR: Major stakeholders requested some changes. I am not privy to them all. The shadow minister managed that.

Georgie PURCELL: Did this come from any of the three? Did it come from HRV, RV or GRV? Did it come from people with financial interests or industry participants? Is there any guidance as to what column they fall into?

Bev McARTHUR: Ms Purcell, can I just assure you that these amendments will ensure a balanced approach to racing industry governance across all three racing codes and will ensure integrity remains paramount in the racing industry. This will give all participant clubs and Racing Victoria the ability to work in harmony. We want to ensure that the industry, particularly with animal welfare, is at the forefront. It is a very good amendment, Ms Purcell. I urge you to get on board.

Georgie PURCELL: Mrs McArthur, I hope you know I am not trying to surprise you with this. I have genuine questions. I am just keen to know how animal welfare is at the forefront when it is removing a section of the bill that actually legislates the rules of racing and who is bound by them.

Enver Erdogan interjected.

Georgie PURCELL: I was going to say: if the minister wants to assist.

Enver Erdogan: No, no. It is Mrs McArthur’s amendment. Let her do her work.

Bev McARTHUR: Ms Purcell, these changes will ensure that animal welfare is at the forefront and the industry goes from strength to strength.

Georgie PURCELL: My question is: how? I am hearing words, but not how.

Bev McARTHUR: Because we will have all the settings in place to ensure that it happens.

Enver ERDOGAN: Just to assist Ms Purcell, I think Mrs McArthur’s perspective – I do not want to put words in Mrs McArthur’s mouth – is that she believes the industry has best practice already in place. By removing this section there is no confusion of any potential change. They continue their good practice going forward. I think that is Mrs McArthur’s perspective.

Bev McArthur: Well said, Minister.

Georgie PURCELL: I am happy for this to go to either of you. If best practice is already in place, then what is wrong with legislating it?

Bev McARTHUR: If best practice is in place, this change ensures it.

Georgie PURCELL: It literally does the opposite. It is taking it out.

Bev McARTHUR: Believe us. Trust us. We are from the government. We are here to help.

Georgie PURCELL: Just one final question: please believe me, these are genuine questions. I actually was not advised of the amendments, otherwise I would have got them sooner. If you think best practice is in place, Mrs McArthur, then why are you not seeking the same for Greyhound Racing Victoria and Harness Racing Victoria?

Bev McARTHUR: This was an issue raised by the flat racing community, and that is what we are responding to.

Georgie PURCELL: For one last time, because I cannot make a decision based on the flat racing community: who is that? Which stakeholders came to you with this request?

Bev McARTHUR: Thank you, Ms Purcell, for asking your own question. The key racing bodies that exist wanted this change.

Georgie PURCELL: Deputy President, I do not know if this is possible, but given that this is the opposition’s amendment and the government said they are supporting it, perhaps the government can tell me who wants this, because it is actually quite a significant change. It removes an entire part of the bill. The opposition, who are moving this amendment, are not actually telling us who requested this. We have been talking about secrecy and transparency this entire debate and have been informed that there is best practice and great oversight, and yet nobody can tell me who wants this entire part of the bill removed. If the government is going to support it, perhaps the government can clarify which stakeholders actually requested this.

Enver ERDOGAN: Ms Purcell, I want to be very clear: this is not a government amendment, and this is not necessarily –

Georgie PURCELL: Why are you supporting it?

Enver ERDOGAN: The reason why we are supporting it is because we believe the rest of the bill has really important stuff that we want to get through, and that is why we are working with the opposition to make sure the rest of the legislation passes. More broadly, this section – the section that the amendment is sought for – already exists in the rules of racing. It already exists in the rules; we are trying to codify it in the legislation. I guess what Mrs McArthur’s amendment will do is remove it from the legislation, but the existing rules of racing will continue as they are currently. In the end, it is to a certain extent that the government are not opposing the amendment, and we are supporting it. Obviously our initial proposal was for us to have it in legislation, but in relation to Mrs McArthur’s amendment, as I said, the government is supporting it because there is a significant piece of work here that we believe that we have agreed to that needs to pass.

Georgie PURCELL: So just to clarify: the government are supporting removing a whole part of their own bill without reason or clarification just to get it through the Parliament?

Enver ERDOGAN: This part of the bill that we are legislating already exists in the rules of racing. We were just codifying it. If it means that we remove this section to ensure the rest of the bill, then the important work continues. We have come to the conclusion that that is a better outcome than the bill potentially lapsing.

Georgie PURCELL: I will just leave it there with the comment that that is not all that part does, but I guess we are taking out an entire part of the bill. I will leave it there.

Katherine COPSEY: The Greens will not be supporting Mrs McArthur’s amendment. We will not be rolling over to the whims of the racing industry, unlike the Carroll government.

Michael GALEA: Mrs McArthur, may I just confirm for the record that you endorse the phrase ‘We’re here from the government. Trust us. We’re here to help’?

Bev McARTHUR: Thank you, Mr Galea, for that question. I can assure you we will be the government. It will be fine.

Georgie PURCELL: I just want to speak on the actual amendment. Now that I have asked my questions I just want to put on record that I will not be supporting this amendment. We have spoken here for many hours now, receiving assurances on transparency and accountability and doing everything we possibly can to stop the secrecy of the racing industry. Yet we have an amendment before us that removes an entire part of a bill, and neither the opposition, who is moving the amendment, nor the government, who is supporting the amendment, can tell us how that came about or who wanted it. Notably, it removes the part of the bill that is in relation to the richest and I would say most powerful code, which is the thoroughbred racing industry. I just want to put it on the record that I find it incredibly concerning that we are ripping out entire sections of bills without explanation or without knowing who is behind that. We know already just how much power and influence gambling industries have over politicians. I think it is absolutely shameful that neither the minister nor the opposition can stand before us and advise who requested this.

Enver ERDOGAN: It is not my amendment.

Georgie PURCELL: Yes, Minister, but you are supporting it, so that means that you agree, essentially. I will leave it there.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the part heading and clauses stand part of the bill. If you support Mrs McArthur’s amendment, vote no to this.

Council divided on part heading and clauses:

Clause 32 (17:52)

Georgie PURCELL: I move:

1.   Clause 32, page 27, line 19, after “is” insert “, or has been within the previous 2 years,”.

2.   Clause 32, page 27, line 22, after “has” insert “, or has had within the previous 2 years,”.

This is an amendment to extend the prohibition on current directors, board members or employees of a controlling body or racing club or those with a proprietary interest in a racing animal from serving as board members of Racing Integrity Commission Victoria and to include those that have been any of those things in the past two years. This would attempt to better address the revolving door of industry participants entering oversight roles. As the bill is currently drafted, all an industry participant would currently have to do to be eligible to serve on the board of the integrity commission is sell their shares or resign their position. This does not sever their ties or potential conflict of interest. It would give assurance – especially, as we have just discussed throughout this debate, given we have not even seen a report from the racing integrity commissioner for three years – that there would be no conflict of interest and that it would not just be a matter for the board to determine.

Katherine COPSEY: The Greens will be supporting this amendment. Cooling-off periods are a sensible and quite widespread practice in trying to maintain good corporate governance. We think this is a very sensible and helpful amendment to the bill, so we will be supporting it.

Enver ERDOGAN: The government will not be supporting this amendment by Ms Purcell.

Bev McARTHUR: The Liberal–Nationals will not be supporting Ms Purcell’s amendments.

Council divided on amendments:

David Limbrick: On a point of order, Deputy President, at the last division the bells only rang for 1 minute, but my understanding was that members had left the chamber before that. I would just like to make that point.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I did ask everybody to stay.

David Limbrick: I was not here in the first place.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Nobody drew my attention to that, Mr Limbrick.

David Limbrick: My understanding was there were two members that left the chamber. I would just like to make that point because I did actually want to vote on that division.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We did ask people to stay. Nobody alerted me to the fact that anyone had left. But when we do ask people to stay, perhaps you should let me know if you are leaving the chamber.

Clause 52 (17:58)

Georgie PURCELL: I move:

3.   Clause 52, page 57, line 24, omit ‘jurisdiction.”.’ and insert “jurisdiction.”.

4.   Clause 52, page 57, after line 24 insert –

‘66I   Greyhound Racing Victoria must publish quarterly reports on greyhound welfare matters

(1) Within 7 days after the end of a quarter, Greyhound Racing Victoria must prepare and publish on its Internet site a report containing the following information in respect of greyhounds registered with Greyhound Racing Victoria –

(a)   the number of greyhounds that have died during a greyhound race in the quarter (if any);

(b)   the number of greyhounds that have died as a result of an injury sustained, or illness suffered, as a result of the greyhound’s involvement in greyhound racing (other than during a greyhound race) in the quarter (if any);

Example

An example of a greyhound’s involvement in greyhound racing is involvement in training or trialling activities.

(c)   the number of greyhounds that have died, other than in the circumstances referred to in paragraphs (a) or (b), in the quarter (if any);

Example

An example of other circumstances in which greyhounds have died is in the kennelling or housing of greyhounds, or by natural causes or general illness.

(d)   the number of greyhounds that have sustained an injury or suffered an illness in the quarter as a result of the greyhound’s involvement in greyhound racing;

(e)   any matter that is the subject of a direction by the Minister under subsection (2).

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(e), the Minister may direct Greyhound Racing Victoria to include in a report under subsection (1) any matter relating to greyhound welfare.

(3) For the purposes of this section, each of the following periods is a quarter –

(a)   the period beginning on 1 January and ending on 31 March;

(b)   the period beginning on 1 April and ending on 30 June;

(c)   the period beginning on 1 July and ending on 30 September;

(d)   the period beginning on 1 October and ending on 31 December.”.’.

This is an amendment that would require Greyhound Racing Victoria to publish quarterly reports on key greyhound welfare information, such as the number of deaths or injuries that occur within the industry. Currently this data is actually collated by volunteers. Many members would have heard me read out those statistics every sitting week when I read in a motion. GRV already collect this information and have it available to them, and they publish it in their annual report. However, not only is quarterly reporting something that would ensure greater transparency and the opportunity for scrutiny, it would actually align us with New South Wales, South Australia, Tasmania and Queensland. This is a measure that I was hopeful that the government would be willing to at least commit to in the committee stage if they were not willing to legislate it. I think it is particularly important given that we have just had an amendment moved showing the power and the influence these industries can have with the entire –

Business interrupted pursuant to standing orders.

Enver ERDOGAN: Pursuant to standing order 4.08, I move:

That the sitting be extended.

Motion agreed to.

Georgie PURCELL: I was just stating that I think any efforts that we can make to ensure the transparency, oversight and accountability of these industries is critically important. We have just seen an entire section of this bill that was brought to the Parliament by the government completely ripped out after lobbying by Racing Victoria, with neither the opposition nor the government able to explain to us who did that lobbying and why faceless people – powerful people within the gambling industry – are dictating government policy. I think at the very least the Victorian people should have access to the animals who are impacted by these decisions and are the ones who ultimately pay the price with their lives for gambling profits.

Enver ERDOGAN: I thank Ms Purcell for her amendment. The government will not be supporting this amendment, but I do take the point in relation to the question that was asked during the committee stage. It is something that I guess the minister’s office will take on board with stakeholders.

Bev McARTHUR: The Liberal–Nationals will not be supporting Ms Purcell’s amendment.

David LIMBRICK: The Libertarian Party will be supporting this amendment. Without casting any view on the ethics of greyhound racing, nevertheless they receive taxpayer funds. This is a transparency measure of data points that are of interest to many in the community. Whilst they receive any sorts of funds, I think that if there are members of the community that are concerned about these things, then they should at least have access to the data, so I will support it.

Katherine COPSEY: The Greens will be supporting this amendment. I thank Ms Purcell for bringing it forward. It is quite worrying that Victoria is behind other jurisdictions when it comes to frequency of reporting. It just bears out that this government are more interested in running a protection racket for the gambling industry than making sure that they are able to be scrutinised for the harm that they are causing to these animals. Quarterly reporting is not onerous, and it would give more timely insight into the ongoing destruction of animals’ lives and the injuries that are caused by this industry. As Ms Purcell said, every sitting week we are here and we hear about further injuries and deaths in the greyhound racing industry. We should have more timely reporting on the impacts of this barbaric sport.

Council divided on amendments:

 Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Finance, Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Government Services) (18:07): I move:

That the report be now adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

 Enver ERDOGAN (Northern Metropolitan – Minister for Finance, Minister for Casino, Gaming and Liquor Regulation, Minister for Government Services) (18:07): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time and do pass.

Council divided on motion:

The PRESIDENT: Pursuant to standing order 14.28, the bill will be returned to the Assembly with a message informing them that the Council have agreed to the bill with amendments.