Chapter 2Key issues
2.1This chapter outlines the key issues raised by submitters and witnesses on the Customs Legislation Amendment (Commercial Greyhound Export and Import Prohibition) Bill 2021 (the bill).
2.2The committee heard from a wide range of stakeholders, including animal welfare groups, greyhound racing industry bodies, and government departments. While most witnesses expressed support for the welfare and protection of greyhounds, a number argued that the measures contained in the bill may not be the most effective vehicle to address the concerns raised throughout the inquiry.
Support for the bill
2.3The committee received a significant number of submissions from organisations and individuals in support of the bill.
2.4While the bill also seeks to prohibit the import of greyhounds (Part 2), and establishes a mechanism to prevent the circumvention of the bill’s provisions (Part 3), evidence to the committee primarily focused on Part 1 of the bill—the prohibition of greyhounds and greyhound reproductive materials for export. This chapter therefore focuses on that evidence.
Animal welfare concerns
2.5A large number of participants in the inquiry provided evidence highlighting animal welfare concerns within the greyhound racing industry. While many of these details are beyond the scope of this report, a number of key animal welfare concerns regarding export and import were apparent, including:
export of greyhounds to countries with inadequate animal welfare regulations;
insufficient traceability and regulation of exported greyhounds; and
overbreeding and oversupply of greyhounds, and its impact on rehoming efforts.
Export to countries of concern
2.6Animal welfare groups welcomed the bill and its intent to prohibit the export of greyhounds, and greyhound reproductive materials, to countries with a demonstrable lack of animal welfare regulations.
2.7In support of the bill, several submitters drew attention to the treatment of greyhounds in the now shut down Canindrome, based in Macau, a race track that received a ‘large volume’ of Australian greyhounds—particularly those that underperformed in the Australian racing industry. Animal welfare organisation, Coalition for the Protection of Greyhounds (CPG) asserted that ‘383 underperforming greyhounds were killed by Macau Canidrome staff in 2011’.
2.8In response to the animal cruelty practised at this facility, Greyhounds Australasia banned the export of Australian greyhounds to Macau in 2014.
2.9Investigations into the treatment of Australian greyhounds in other countries have also resulted in industry bans, meaning members of Greyhounds Australasia will not be granted a passport for commercial export to those countries. However, animal welfare groups were critical of the ability to enforce these bans. GREY2K USA Worldwide reflected:
… [the ban] was unenforceable as the government refused to codify the restriction. As a result, 590 greyhounds were exported to Macau in the two years after the country was blacklisted.
Perceived regulatory limitations
2.10The proposal to ban the export of greyhounds was supported by a number of individuals and organisations. Many indicated the bill would help address perceived loopholes that allow export of greyhounds to banned countries.
2.11Animals Australia asserted that greyhound industry participants continue to traffic greyhounds to countries of concern by ‘circumventing racing industry processes, exporting without seeking a Greyhounds Australasia passport, or sending dogs first to countries that are considered ‘safe’… before having them rerouted elsewhere’.
2.12Animals Australia further noted there are no provisions in the Greyhounds Australasia Rules which ‘expressly prohibit the issuance of passports for the exportation of greyhounds to destinations where greyhound racing is “unregulated”’. Current measures that regulate the export of Australian greyhounds to banned countries were criticised as insufficient and ineffective due to inadequate enforcement and penalties.
2.13Animal Liberation further criticised the self-regulation of greyhound welfare standards, claiming:
… the oversight, management and enforcement of all animal welfare laws and standards is the responsibility of the government, rather than member-based industry bodies where inherent commercial interests and conflicts of interest are evident and take priority.
2.14Greyhounds Australasia acknowledged that ‘in the past there have been limitations [to] the Greyhounds Australasia Passport and Export rules’.
2.15While concerns were raised by a number of submitters over self-regulation of animal welfare in the greyhound racing industry, the committee heard that a number of jurisdictions engage with independent regulators. For example, Greyhound Racing Victoria said that, while ‘[t]here is a strong culture of voluntary compliance across the sport and the overwhelming majority of greyhound racing participants comply with the Rules’, animal welfare standards are actively monitored by the Greyhound Racing Integrity Unit, and upheld by the independent Victorian Racing Tribunal.
2.16Animals Australia summarised a view held by animal welfare groups, that:
… the total prohibition of commercial greyhound export is urgently required. That is, the ongoing multi-level failures of industry self-regulation and insufficient protections in Commonwealth legislation demonstrate that no degree of policy and legislative reform would be sufficient to address the long-standing issues associated with greyhound exports. The only effective legislative mechanism to address concerns for the welfare of exported greyhounds is to prohibit the commercial export of greyhounds (as per the current Bill).
Traceability of greyhounds
2.17The bill would require exporters to keep ongoing records of greyhounds to monitor and regulate greyhound wellbeing, increase accountability, and encourage transparency.
2.18A number of submitters identified a need for traceability systems to prevent unauthorised export of greyhounds to countries of concern. Animals Australia asserted that a number of dogs who were exported overseas to race were ‘erroneously listed on industry systems as ‘retired’’, while Free the Hounds claimed to have identified three Australian greyhounds for sale on a Chinese racing website, despite industry bans. Free the Hounds argued this misrepresentation demonstrates that existing policies, practices, and legislation ‘have failed to protect greyhounds’, and that ‘animals will continue to suffer unnecessary and preventable mistreatment so long as greyhound export is permitted’.
2.19Animal Liberation claimed that, to date, no major stakeholders (including government, industry and regulators such as the Greyhound Welfare & Integrity Commission (GWIC)) have been able to demonstrate accurate or fully transparent whole-of-life tracking of Australian greyhounds within Australia, or in overseas destinations.
2.20On this matter, the department acknowledged that traceability systems would be a key adjunct to any system of regulation, but clarified:
There isn’t a traceability system globally that would allow this. You would need international agreements around such or at least bilateral agreements with certain countries. Furthermore, lifetime traceability of an animal such as a dog would be very difficult. You would have to have global resources dedicated to it.
2.21Greyhounds Australasia acknowledged the significance of whole-of-life greyhound tracking and described a number of initiatives currently in development across jurisdictions. For example, the NSW Government granted the GWIC $3.59 million to develop and implement an e-Tracking system (e-trac) to help monitor the location and welfare of all greyhounds registered in NSW. Similarly, in March 2023, the Victorian State Government and Greyhound Racing Victoria committed to the installation of enhanced traceability of greyhounds in Victoria, via a digital tracking system.
2.22At a national level, Greyhounds Australasia acknowledged the department’s use of an electronic system for livestock export—the Tracking Animal Certification for Export (TRACE) system—which assists the department to manage the application and approval processes for all livestock exported from Australia.
2.23Greyhounds Australasia submitted that it would support extending the commercial export licensing process currently employed for livestock export to the commercial export of non-livestock animals, including greyhounds. Greyhounds Australasia further noted its commitment to ‘ongoing work with Government via the Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) to establish formal arrangements to prohibit [banned] exports and rule contraventions’.
Overbreeding and strain on rehoming programs
2.24In recent years, the greyhound racing industry and non-government organisations have established a number of rehoming programs to transition greyhounds out of the racing industry, and reduce the numbers of ex-racing greyhounds subject to euthanasia.
2.25While a number of programs are facilitated within Australia, the committee heard that the volume of greyhounds bred for the racing industry has resulted in international rehoming efforts to countries including New Zealand and the United States. CPG raised concerns that the national rate of greyhound breeding far exceeds the racing industry’s capacity to rehome them through official adoption programs. Witnesses were concerned that community greyhound rescues are struggling to cope with the influx of dogs from the racing industry.
2.26A number of submitters posited that the benefits of rehoming programs are not sufficient to offset the risks incurred by broader greyhound racing and greyhound exports. Some raised concerns that an excess of racing greyhounds has prompted racing industries to look ‘at overseas markets to dispose of redundant animals’, rather than restricting greyhound breeding to a rate proportional to the ability to rehome.
2.27In its support for the bill, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), noted its opposition to greyhound export and import. The RSPCA also noted ‘significant risks associated with the transport of greyhounds ... overseas’, including stress, fear, anxiety and discomfort.
2.28In contrast, Greyhounds Australasia argued the sustainability of the greyhound racing industry relies on effective rehoming strategies for retired greyhounds. Greyhounds Australasia noted this includes rehoming that occurs through recognised export schemes with rigorous governance protocols.
2.29GWIC agreed, stating that rehoming retired greyhounds, including exports via ‘recognised schemes with rigorous governance protocols’, is ‘essential to the sustainability of the greyhound racing industry’.
Opposition to the bill
2.30The committee also considered evidence opposing the bill. Those opposed to the bill argued that:
existing measures are proportional and appropriate for the current risk to greyhounds;
the prohibition of greyhound export and import, including reproductive materials, will adversely impact the greyhound racing industry; and
the legislative mechanism chosen is not the most appropriate.
Proportionality of the bill
2.31 Industry stakeholders acknowledged and expressed support for efforts to ‘promote and protect the welfare of greyhounds’ exported to countries or jurisdictions with questionable animal welfare standards. However, several submitters suggested the extent of the problem was minimal.
2.32Data provided by the department identifies New Zealand as the primary importer of Australian greyhounds, accounting for over 50 per cent of greyhounds exported between 2019 and 2023. New Zealand was followed by the United States of America, and Canada, while less than 1 per cent were exported to China.
2.33The department noted many of these exports are ‘understood to be the result of a Greyhounds Australasia program to rehome retired greyhounds into a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) support program in the US’.
2.34Greyhounds Australasia asserted there are no inherent animal welfare risks associated with the export of greyhounds to jurisdictions with ‘comparable regulatory frameworks [to] Australia’, such as New Zealand. Therefore, Greyhounds Australasia concluded the proposed uniform prohibition of greyhound exports and imports, as proposed, is disproportionate.
2.35Greyhound Racing Victoria submitted that the proportion of greyhounds exported to ‘at-risk’ countries represents less than 0.002 per cent of the Victorian Greyhound population. Further data also suggests that 70 per cent of greyhounds exported in 2022 were for companion purposes, rather than commercial export.
2.36Industry representatives concluded the bill is ‘a disproportionate response to welfare concerns’ about the export of a small number of commercial greyhounds, to only a select number of countries.
2.37Some submitters to the inquiry also questioned the necessity of the bill given pre-existing measures. For example, Greyhound Racing Victoria dismissed the need for legislation as ‘[t]here are existing and other feasible options capable of addressing the problem to a similar or greater degree as the proposed Bill’.
2.38Greyhounds Australasia endorsed the existing passport scheme, describing it as ‘more efficient and more effective’ than measures proposed by the bill.
2.39The department reflected on additional requirements that would be necessary to meet the intended purpose of the bill, noting that enforcing any export requirements would ‘pose significant challenges’:
There is currently no regulatory power to control the use of greyhounds once they have been exported to another country, irrespective of any assertions made by the exporter. To do this would require the development of a legislated framework, which for example may require licencing of any individuals intending to export a greyhound or greyhound reproductive material and requiring the licenced exporter to develop an assurance system to ensure any exported greyhounds, or progeny derived from exported reproductive material, were not used for breeding, racing or any other commercial purpose. The assurance system would need to be independently audited by competent auditors to verify its ongoing compliance with the framework’s requirements.
Impact on the greyhound racing industry
2.40While industry stakeholders generally expressed support for greyhound welfare measures, the majority noted the importance of balancing the risk of export to unregulated countries, with an appropriate level of consideration for impacts on the greyhound racing industry.
2.41Submitters raised a number of concerns, including the risk to industry growth and sustainability, damage to trade partner relationships, and the risk to greyhound health caused by restricted breeding pools.
Industry growth and sustainability
2.42GWIC was concerned that the bill would impose ‘unnecessary constraints on trade which may inhibit growth of the greyhound racing industry both in Australia and overseas’.
2.43Similarly, GWIC noted that uniform prohibitions on the export and import of greyhounds, and any reproductive material of a greyhound—such as those proposed in the bill—would ‘unnecessarily restrict trade and thereby risk damaging the industry’.
2.44These concerns were raised by Greyhound Racing Victoria, which submitted that the bill would adversely impact the Victorian economy, particularly in regional centres, which benefit from the industry:
According to an IER [Independent Expert Review] report undertaken in April 2022, the Victorian greyhound racing industry contributed approximately $0.5 billion in economic impact to the Victorian economy with approximately 35% of that in the regional economy. More than 4,700 FTE jobs were also created.
2.45Greyhounds Australasia was concerned that international trade relationships would be compromised should the bill be passed. Greyhounds Australasia stated it ‘considers the Bill fails to adequately recognise and protect the long‑standing trade and regulatory relationship between Australia and its key trading partner of New Zealand’.
2.46Greyhounds Australasia further speculated there would be detrimental effects to the New Zealand greyhound breeding industry, ‘which is reliant on the import of Australian greyhound frozen semen, (reproductive material) for the diversity and improvement of the genetic pool of greyhounds in NZ’.
Diversity across greyhound breeding
2.47A number of submitters opposing the bill claimed that prohibiting the export and import of greyhound reproductive materials:
… threatens to adversely impact on the welfare of future greyhounds within the industry as, from a population quality and welfare perspective, maintaining a healthy, greyhound population is essential, and the importation of reproductive material is an important part of avoiding a narrowing of genetic diversity and its associated risks.
2.48The Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) raised strong objections to the provisions of the bill, noting a ban on reproductive materials was ‘likely to lead to the destruction of the greyhound breed as we know it by legislating for forced inbreeding’.
2.49The AVA noted a lack of diversity has been linked to ‘[d]eleterious traits such as Progressive Retinal Atrophy and cryptorchidism (undescended testicles)’. Previously, the greyhound racing industry has faced issues where ‘a limited number of popular sires have dominated breeding in their respective eras and relative inbreeding ensued’.
2.50Contrary to this view, the RSPCA said there is ‘no evidence to indicate’ that there is currently a ‘threat to the genetic diversity due to inherited conditions which pose animal welfare risks’.
2.51The committee heard that the greyhound racing industry in Australia has benefited from importation of new breeding lines, and that the prohibition of reproductive materials would likely ‘disproportionately impact on the ability of the industry to operate into the long term if a breeding population is not able to be maintained’.
Appropriateness of the proposed mechanism
2.52As noted in Chapter 1, the bill seeks to amend the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations 1958 and the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 (Customs Regulations), which function to ‘prohibit the importation and exportation of certain goods that pose a safety risk to the Australian community or environment’.
2.53Government witnesses questioned whether the Customs Regulations were an appropriate vehicle to address the intent of the bill. Greyhounds do not pose an inherent safety risk to the Australian community, and would be at odds with other goods regulated under the Customs Regulations. Both the department and Australian Border Force (ABF) representatives argued that customs laws are not the most appropriate mechanism in this instance.
2.54GWIC posited that ‘existing measures are adequate to mitigate any biosecurity and animal welfare risks associated with export and import of greyhound reproductive material’.
2.55Officials also raised concerns about the operational requirements of enforcing the provisions contained in the bill. The department explained:
It would also require a change to the department’s role to enable certification of greyhounds by breed in addition to its current role to issue export permits and health certificates that assures the animal meets the importing country requirements. This may require additional testing by the exporter and/or development of expertise and additional resources by Australian regulatory authorities to examine dog breeds and determine if the purposes for which dogs are being imported or exported are lawful or not by one or more Government agencies.
2.56Similarly, the Department of Home Affairs was concerned that proposed amendments would be ‘impractical and resource intensive’ for ABF officers to enforce at borders:
The ABF does not have the expertise, or resources, available to examine and determine the genetic makeup of specific dog breeds. Managing and implementing a border control for greyhounds, that are not deemed a threat to the community, would take away resources from higher priority border threats, such as revenue evasion, illicit drugs, illegal weapons, and other goods that could be harmful to the Australian community.
2.57The departments agreed that given the bill permits import and export of ‘pet’ greyhounds, there is little to prevent such greyhounds from being ‘sold or used for commercial racing, regardless of any assurances provided by the exporter’. The departments questioned whether the proposed amendments would successfully bring about the intent of the bill.
2.58Any attempt to regulate in this area would need to have support of states and territories, which have responsibility for animal welfare. The department submitted that it presented a ‘proposal to regulate greyhound exports’ to state and territory agriculture ministers at a meeting in May 2016:
The proposal recommended the states and territories legislate to recognise a greyhound passport scheme which would then become a requirement of the federal legislation in place at that time (the Export Control (Animals) Orders 2004 (the order)).
Jurisdictions did not support the proposal and it did not proceed.
Committee view
2.59The committee thanks all organisations and individuals for their engagement with the inquiry, and acknowledges the heartfelt concerns of many for the welfare of greyhounds.
2.60A number of existing mechanisms—including the Greyhounds Australasia passport scheme, jurisdictional governing bodies, codes of conduct, and independent tribunals—are in place across Australia, and play a role in monitoring and regulating the export of greyhounds.
2.61While previous proposals for a legislated national passport scheme have not progressed, the committee notes that Greyhounds Australasia, industry bodies, and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry maintain avenues of communication. In particular, recent attempts to improve data sharing of pre‑export information to strengthen export compliance are encouraging and demonstrate a commitment to the continued regulation of the industry.
2.62The committee understands that enactment of the provisions in this bill would place administrative obligations on government departments that are not equipped with the expertise or resources to meet the objectives of the bill.
2.63Further, the committee agrees that the Customs Regulations are not the most appropriate mechanism to address issues concerning import and export of greyhounds, and greyhound reproductive material.
2.64The committee recommends that the Senate does not pass the bill.
Senator Glenn Sterle
Chair