Cover image courtesy of Ashlea Brennan
In February 2019, eight months before the ABC's devastating 7.30 report on the mistreatment of racehorses in a Queensland abattoir, the feasibility of a National Horse Traceability Register was put forward by the Senate. The idea was to inquire about the benefits of a national register (aside industry-based registers) that would assist with animal welfare, biosecurity and integrity in the trade of horses.
The purpose of such a scheme was to trace an animal over its lifetime, but it wasn’t without obstacles.
Were horses considered livestock or companion animals, and how many horses were there in Australia in the first place?
The committee hearing the inquiry, which published its findings in November 2019, discovered that estimates put the horse population at up to 1.8 million, but it wasn’t a hard fact. Equestrian groups could only reveal the number of registered members, while the Australian Stud Book had 1.2 million current and historical records.
Nevertheless, there was significant support across the horse community for a national traceability scheme, with Racing Australia declaring that it would ‘eliminate the gap that exists within its existing traceability regime’.
Cracking on at HQ
Fast forward two years and a national register is still in a political pipeline. However, Racing Australia cracked on and next month, from May 1, its new traceability rules will come into effect.
Their purpose is to enhance and broaden the traceability of racehorses throughout their lives, or during the time they are in the jurisdiction of the racing industry or relevant industry participants. It is expected that horse status and movements will be better tracked and, as a result, more positive welfare outcomes will occur.
"It is expected that horse status and movements will be better tracked and, as a result, more positive welfare outcomes will occur."
Myles Foreman is the CEO of Racing Australia, and said the new rules were a significant step forward.
“Our participants love their thoroughbreds, and we are giving them the tools to provide updates and information that supports a horse’s wellbeing,” he said. “With more regular and detailed reporting of a horse’s status and movements, Racing Australia and the Principal Racing Authorities (PRAs) will have greater transparency than ever before. We are confident the new rules will help deliver enhanced welfare outcomes for our horses.”
Myles Foreman | Image courtesy of Racing Australia
By the book
The May 1 traceability rules affect breeding horses, unnamed horses not registered to race, named horses that are registered to race, retired horses, access to property and breach of traceability regulations.
They require industry participants to notify Racing Australia of things like change of ownership and location, retirement from racing or breeding, death and, finally, status update (notifying Racing Australia of a horse’s circumstances if that horse has had no activity registered for six consecutive months).
The new rules have very specific timelines within which participants must notify Racing Australia.
For example, a breeder must notify the Australian Stud Book of a horse’s death within 48 hours of the event, and lodge a Mare Return and Foal Ownership Declaration within 30 days of a foaling. Trainers are obligated to lodge a Stable Return immediately upon a named horse entering or leaving a yard, and owners of racing horses must lodge any transfers of ownership, or retirement decisions, within seven days of such a decision.
Under the new rules a breeder must notify the Australian Stud Book of a horse’s death within 48 hours of the event, and lodge a Mare Return and Foal Ownership Declaration within 30 days of a foaling
The new rules allow stewards to access properties for the purpose of assessing and observing the health and conditions of a horse on welfare grounds, and to bring along anyone that may assist in examining the health and welfare of a horse.
And, should industry participants breach the traceability rules, Racing Australia has made provisions for their restriction by way of either the Stud Book, a PRA or Racing Australia itself, and this includes inability of individuals to race and breed, or the withholding of prizemoney, including bonus schemes.
Uneasy origins
The genesis of traceability rules in Australia goes back quite a way, in particular to the doorstep of Arrowfield’s John Messara.
“Back in 2016, the proposal to introduce traceability rules was met with fierce opposition from breeders,” Messara said. “It was led by the Thoroughbred Breeders Association (TBA), who believed they would be subject to constant scrutiny by the stewards, and that it was some sort of power grab by Racing Australia and myself.”
Messara described it as a sorry chapter in the history of the TBA, which he said charged on with a high-profile campaign against any traceability.
“All I can say now is that we were right to withstand their opposition in 2016.”
Messara isn’t often off the mark.
In 2019, the Senate inquiry into a national register found, in the wake of the ABC's 7.30 report, that the TBA changed its tune somewhat.
Where it formerly stated it would ‘need to be convinced of the efficacy’ of such a national approach, it later emphasised its support for a register that would ensure ‘every owner of every horse provides a minimum standard of care’.
“They (traceability rules) are absolutely essential if we truly care about our horses, our sport and our industry,” Messara said. “We must be able to demonstrate to the wider world that the status of every Australian thoroughbred is known and updated whenever it changes.”
John Messara
Inconvenient truth
There is no doubt that welfare was a concern before the ABC's 7.30 report aired in October 2019. Messara said that Racing Australia recognised it was becoming unacceptable for an industry to not know the location or status of thoroughbreds in its care.
However, he isn’t caught up in the game of public perception.
“I’m more interested in ensuring that all thoroughbred horses in Australia are accurately recorded and traced, and that they’re properly cared for throughout their lives," he said. “It’s what we do, not just how we appear, that has to be right if we are to remain relevant.”
“I’m more interested in ensuring that all thoroughbred horses in Australia are accurately recorded and traced, and that they’re properly cared for throughout their lives." - John Messara
In other words, it’s vital for the survival of the industry, and the horses within it, that traceability is effective.
And, on the matter of upsetting participants with extensive paperwork or red-tape headaches, Messara is indignant.
“Perhaps the better question to ask is, would it be more inconvenient to deal with external supervision of our industry, or to face growing public disapproval of horse racing and breeding without being able to demonstrate what we’re doing to improve the way we care for our horses?”
Elephant in the room
At its crux, traceability regulation is a good thing. However, one of its biggest hurdles is that it governs the life of a racehorse only while that horse is in the care of an industry participant. Within the realm of Racing Australia’s May 1 rules, an ‘industry participant’ is an owner, breeder, trainer, rider or stable staff.
At the 2019 Senate inquiry, Racing Australia stated that a racing body’s responsibility for horses would not extend beyond that first point of departure from the racing industry, and this was reasonable.
Racing NSW backed this up by emphasising that while retiring horses are forbidden in NSW from going straight to a knackery, or to a saleyard that could result in their sending to a knackery (Rule 114), it lacked the ‘jurisdiction, visibility or control over what happens after that point’.
This has been a frustrating element of racehorse welfare for years. While trainers and breeders often rehome well, and with the best of intentions, they have no control over what subsequent private or equestrian homes do with horses.
While trainers and breeders often rehome well, and with the best of intentions, they have no control over what subsequent private or equestrian homes do with horses.
The ABC's 7.30 report inadvertently flagged an enormous elephant in the room when it went to air with its devastating episode in late 2019 – while the racing industry produces these horses, is it directly responsible for them after they have been rehomed out of racing with due diligence to their immediate welfare?
Racing Australia has attempted to tackle this.
“As I understand it, this new traceability extends the reporting rules beyond retirement and introduces stricter penalties for people who don’t meet their traceability obligations,” Messara said. “They are logical extensions of the original rules.”
National or local?
The original Senate inquiry in 2019 recommended the creation of a national horse traceability working group which would, among other things, decide on a register populated by data from existing industry databases like the Australian Stud Book and Registrar of Racehorses.
It called upon the racing industry to work alongside government to ensure a national approach would bolster all efforts, both in and out of the industry, when it came to welfare.
Naturally, there are concerns about the role of government versus the role of industry in this matter and, if there is any squabbling on that front, Messara is giving it a wide berth.
“I think overall there is quite a lot going on when it comes to welfare in racing,” he said. “Importantly, I believe we should have a national, unified approach to this issue.”
We want your opinion!
Which would you prefer when it comes to traceability in the racing and breeding industries?
| 1. A national approach (like the National Horse Traceability Register) | ||
| 2. An industry approach (governed by existing traceability rules via Racing Australia) |
