Written by Grant Sheldon
Last week TDN AusNZ attempted to seek clarification on comments within an 'Industry Notice' that was emailed to participants by Racing NSW from its Chair, Russell Balding. We hear from Grant Sheldon, a 25-year industry participant, who shares his thoughts on the matter.
I was particularly interested in the last section of that article that dealt with equine welfare.
I suspect I am not alone when I raise an eyebrow every time I read race prizemoney details and note how much money participants are contributing to equine welfare, either directly or indirectly. My concern is not the amount of money as I agree it warrants substantial investment. My concern is more around understanding how the investment is being spent. What result metrics are being achieved? And are we getting good strategic returns on our investment? I again suspect I am not alone in feeling this sort of information is not transparent enough. So I was pleased that Oz Wedmore appeared to be asking the right questions. I was however underwhelmed with the lack of information that was provided, apart from the statement that the Racing NSW approach to equine welfare is “second to none”.
I believe the Racing NSW approach to equine welfare very likely is “second to none” when compared to the other states. I suspect that if we are going to continue with a state PRA-based approach to equine welfare then the other states would possibly do well to take a lead from aspects of NSW’s approach. But I also believe there is a better alternative. That being the national approach outlined in the 2021 report: The most important participant: A Framework for Thoroughbred Welfare.
This report was instigated by Thoroughbred Breeders Australia and the list of industry participants that either contributed financially and/or acted in an advisory role and/or provided submissions and/or provided their endorsement of the report includes: AgriFutures, Australian Jockeys Association, Australian Trainers Association, Australian Veterinary Association, Bjorn Baker, Hugh Bowman, Brisbane Turf Club, Matt Cumani, Henry Field, Richard Freedman, Godolphin, Tony Gollan, Duncan Grimley, David and Prue Hayes, John Kelly, Ciaron Maher, Mick Malone, Tony McEvoy, Sheamus Mills, Arthur Mitchell, Caroline Searcy, Segenhoe Stud, Sportsbet, Tabcorp, Olly Tait, Tyreel Stud, Victoria Racing Club, Chris Waller, Gai Waterhouse, Mark Webster, Neil Werrett, Widden Stud and others. In total, over 180 submissions were considered along with over 50 follow up meetings. It is possible that not all of the above parties agree with all of the final report findings. But it is hard to imagine that any of the state PRA-based equine welfare approaches could match this level of consultation and have harnessed the collective wisdom of so many respected industry participants. Participants whom are representative of a large proportion of those contributing to equine welfare through direct and indirect prizemoney deductions. Effectively, this report was created by us, is owned by us and, I suggest, it directs how we would prefer to have our contributions spent.
In addition to being developed through a broad consultative approach, the 2021 report also provides further substantial advantages to the industry. Those that commissioned the report selected the authors wisely: Dr Denis Napthine (former Victorian Liberal Premier, Racing Minister and Vet), Dr Ken Jacobs (40+ year equine vet and former director of Australian Veterinary Association), Dr Bidda Jones (Chief Science and Strategy Officer of RSPCA Australia) and Jack Lake (former senior advisor on agricultural policy to Hawke, Keating and Rudd Governments).
In addition to solid equine veterinary science backing these authors also provide our industry with:
1. Ownership in and a stamp of approval to our welfare framework from the RSPCA, and;
2. A deep understanding of our welfare framework by individuals very well connected to and respected by each of the two major political parties.
Racing is routinely confronted by protestors making claims about how racing is cruel. Much of what they say is factually incorrect. Well done to the team at Kick Up For Racing whom are trying to help address this but at the moment, as an industry, we are not much better than those protestors. They shout, “10,000 racehorses are slaughtered in abattoirs every year,” We shout back, “Says who?” We then shout, “Our welfare practices are second to none.” They shout back “Says who?”
Now contemplate the power of being able to say: “Our equine welfare framework has been designed in conjunction with and is supported by the RSPCA.” If we have the RSPCA on side then any genuine protest about industry level equine welfare is pretty much rendered mute. Otherwise, the detractors of our welfare framework are effectively trying to argue that they know more about animal cruelty with respect to matters such as End of Life than the RSPCA does.
We are fortunate that our industry is strongly supported by both major political parties. But in recent times it has become prevalent for state and federal governments to not hold absolute majorities and to be reliant on minor parties such as the Greens and Animal Justice Party to get legislation passed. Both these minor parties have formal policies calling for all horse racing to be ceased. We should not miss the opportunity to have the words of politically respected Dr Napthine and Jack Lake to lobby each of the major parties and to reinforce that racing is following a welfare framework co-designed and endorsed by the RSPCA. It will help ensure those parties stay strong and stare down any pressure during minor party deal broking.
It is a double-edged sword however. The framework the RSPCA helped us design and the one they are still supporting on their website is now approaching two years old. In those two years it has gone close to nowhere. As outlined above, it has the potential to be an incredibly powerful asset for us. But if it sits on the shelf gathering dust for too much longer, it equally has the potential to be a liability to us. Imagine how much brand damage we would receive if the RSPCA decided to retract their support and replace it with messaging along the lines of: “The racing industry has substantially ignored the equine welfare framework we co-developed with them in good faith. Equine welfare is clearly not a priority for them.”
Last year my mate’s daughter was one of those protestors I mentioned above. My mate has been attending race meetings for over 50 years, is a regular punter and dabbles in horse ownership. The same goes for his father. His daughter’s other grandfather was a thoroughbred metropolitan rails bookmaker. This is not intended as a criticism of my mate’s daughter. She is an adult and is absolutely entitled to express her views. It is just intended to illustrate, in what was to me a very powerful way, that 'the times they are a changin'.
If our industry doesn’t drive that change then some future government will, and we may not like the result. So, if you are reading this as a representative of any of the state PRAs (or as someone in a position of PRA influence), then, on this matter, please put aside your differences and do whatever it takes to progress the national approach to equine welfare that the above report calls for. If that cannot be achieved than at least get around the table to discuss which of the 46 recommendations contained in that report can be progressed in a coordinated state PRA-based approach, if not a national approach. While our generation squabbles, the attractiveness of our industry to our children and grandchildren is becoming more vulnerable.
* Grant Sheldon is a former partner of a global Management and Information Technology Consultancy and holds a Bachelor of Applied Science and a Post-Graduate Diploma in Management.
Please email us at editorial@tdnausnz.com.au if you would like to submit a Letter to the Editor. All submissions will be considered for publication.
