I wish this were shorter, but it is what it is. That said, if you just want the TL;DR, read the sentence in the last paragraph, which seems somewhat apropos the punk side of cypherpunks. Here is Australia, the Liberal party is the conservative/ less debt/ rational economic and self responsibility type party, where Labour, our other 'main' national party almost invariably increases national debt, raises taxes, increases handouts. Both parties are still well funded by the corporates of course... ----- Forwarded message ----- Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 18:51:42 +1000 From: Gil May Subject: From the NSW Hansard: Peter Phelps on greyhound racing *From the NSW Hansard: Hon Peter Phelps on greyhound racing* Posted on 7:06 pm, August 11, 2016 http://catallaxyfiles.com/2016/08/11/from-the-nsw-hansard-peter-phelps-on-gr... by Sinclair Davidson http://catallaxyfiles.com/author/sinclair-davidson/ *The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS (17:43): *When we arrive in this place as parliamentarians we always hope that we will be able to promote good policy which is also good politics. Occasionally we have to promote good policy which is bad politics. Two things that spring to mind immediately are the GST and the leasing of poles and wires. Sometimes we have to promote things which are bad policy and good politics—the inevitable elements of pork-barrelling that happen because, quite frankly, winning elections is important. Occasionally we have legislation and regulation that comes before us which is both bad policy and bad politics. Bad policy I will go into later but, in my view, this legislation is bad politics. The sort of people who get energised by animal rights activism will never vote for us; they have The Greens and the Animal Justice Party to cater to their needs—and there is nothing wrong with that. Some people have asked me how I can support a bill that is supported by The Greens and is it not axiomatically bad that the Coalition would be supporting something The Greens support? My answer to that is no, and my mind turns back to the very significant reforms we did in relation to campaign finance in this State. Too often, between the Coalition, The Greens and the Animal Justice Party it is a zero-sum game: we cannot assist them without hurting our own base. I contrast their peculiar and occasionally bizarre policy prescriptions with those held by the large number of people in marginal seats that the Liberal Party hold on the peri-urban fringe of Sydney—that great swathe which we have taken from Putney to Picton and which we hold quite proudly—because there was a period of time when we resonated with what might be called the aspirational voters, the blue-collar conservatives who decided, with the election of the Howard Government, that they would give the Liberals a chance. We say, “Oh, don’t worry about them. Greyhound racing is just a hobby; they will move on from that.” That is not true for three reasons. First, we would not apply the “Oh, it is just a hobby; they will move on” if we were to ban rugby league. If we were to ban rugby league people would not say, “Oh, we will just move on from that. We will take up an interest in rugby union or the AFL.” Secondly, it is not true because, more so than rugby league, greyhound racing is a participation sport. There is an investment of time and capital in the sport by the owners, the breeders and the trainers; it becomes part of their personae: “I am a greyhound racer”, “I am a greyhound owner”, “I am a greyhound trainer”—it is inextricably linked with what they are. Thirdly, the “Oh, it’s just a hobby; they will move on” is fundamentally disproved by what happened to a large number of our voters subsequent to the 1996 gun law changes. Anyone who worked for a Coalition member in a marginal seat after the 1996 gun law changes knows what happened: they never forget. One wag once said that in politics friends come and go but enemies remain forever. The visceral nature of the gun owners, who 20 years ago were chagrined at the Howard Government, remains, to a large extent, true today. For that reason I think this is bad politics. I also think it is bad policy. I have read the McHugh report and there are some terrible stories in it. But is this industry so irredeemable that it must be banned? If the 12 apostolic saints came down from heaven and we appointed them to the board of Greyhound Racing Australia, would this industry be so corrupt and unbearably fixable that it must still be banned? The Hon. Mark Pearson said that 10 out of 10 witnesses who were called to the inquiry—nine, actually; one was implicated—said that they used live baiting. I could select 10 former members of Parliament who, if we were to interview them and use their evidence as evidence of a grander theme within New South Wales parliamentarians, we could say are all corrupt. The selective use of 10 out of 10 witnesses who were specifically chosen because they were believed to be dodgy anyway is not a great argument. In fact, McHugh makes that point in the report. He said that what those people said there were ex post facto rationalisations to cover for their own malfeasance in the industry. In fact, he put the element of live baiting at between 10 and 20 per cent as a more realistic figure. The consequences that flow from the inevitable passage of this legislation today are going to be horrendous. Let us look at what this legislation is based on: firstly, the concept that there was illegality, not by a majority, not by everyone, not by a plurality but by a small but significant minority—10 to 20 per cent; that is the illegality—that there was knowledge of it at the highest levels; that it involved injury to animals during racing; and that it involved wastage rates, the polite euphemism for killing off those dogs that cannot run fast enough. There are many instances in our society of unaddressed endemic problems and systemic failure to correct those problems. One could look at cycling and talk about endemic doping and systemic failure to reject such doping. One could look at the endemic corruption occasioned by subcontinental bookmaking in cricket. One could go back to rugby league and say, “Look at the incidence of alcohol abuse, drug use, match fixing, steroid use, sexual abuse and domestic violence.” More importantly, one could say there is also an endemic and systemic problem in relation to the practice of overpaying players, conveniently breaching the salary cap, but no-one is suggesting that rugby league be banned. On a closer level one could say that the problem is evidenced in the live export trade in sheep and cattle, including the tactics used by animal rights activists, could lead to calls for the banning of the live sheep and cattle trade. In fact, the Coalition rightly slammed the Gillard Government when it called for a temporary closure of the live sheep and cattle trade industry. Perhaps the greatest threat we face is from the direct analogy and that is horseracing. Is there illegality? Is there knowledge of illegality? Is there injury to animals and are there wastage rates? The answer is yes, exercise-induced pulmonary haemorrhaging. Researchers at the University of Melbourne have shown that 56 per cent of racehorses have blood in their windpipes and 90 per cent have blood deeper in their lungs. Are there deaths in racing? Yes, famously Red Cadeaux in the 2015 Melbourne Cup and the year prior to that Admire Rakti and Araldo. Indeed, the Coalition for the Protection of Racehorses gives a figure which indicates that Australia-wide 127 horses died on Australian racetracks and thousands more have disappeared from the sport in the calendar year 2015. I note that the Coalition for the Protection of Racehorses has the somewhat revealing and pointed website*horseracingkills.com http://horseracingkills.com*, which gives an indication of exactly how objective it is in that regard. If people are agitated about a 30 per cent rate of muscular and ligamentary damage in greyhounds, imagine how they will feel if they get vision of blood pouring out of a racehorse’s nostrils? Are there incidences of doping? Yes. A quick Google search will show allegations of doping with erythropoietin [EPO], cobalt chloride to produce EPO, caffeine, xenon gas and formaldehyde, the practice of stomach tubing and even today the old practice of gingering a horse. Indeed, in talking about wastage, when a thoroughbred destined for racing is born in Australia its chances of being a successful racehorse are slim. It is estimated that only 300 out of every 1,000 foals produced will ever start a race. That means of 13,000 thoroughbred foals born each year in Australia alone, approximately 9,000 will be considered useless and thousands will end up at the knackers. Of the horses that do race, one Australian study found that approximately 40 per cent earned no money at all and only 13 per cent earned money to cover costs. These figures did not include the initial purchase price. Dr Paul O’Callahan, Chief Veterinary Steward of the Victorian Racing Club, stated that less than 2 per cent of horses actually earn their keep. Ariella Hayek in 2004 in her study “Epidemiology of horses leaving the racing and breeding industries” noted: Of the twenty knackeries that participated … three plants processed 200 or more horses per month. Plants that processed larger numbers of horses tended to process younger horses. The managers of these plants suggested these horses tended to be sold to the slaughterhouse as a result of economic difficulties … [and] also reported slaughtering large numbers of racehorses … Given the low market value for ex-racehorses, the high costs of care and level of experience required, it is likely that if this large number of horses did not enter slaughterhouses, they would be prone to conditions in which their welfare would be a cause of concern. I am not suggesting that the horseracing industry should be abolished but the same sorts of arguments that are being made today for the abolition of the greyhound racing industry can and will be made and are in fact currently being made by animal rights activists to shut down the trotting and horseracing industries. Animals are property; they are not persons and the mere fact of sentience does not grant one comparable rights to humans. But that is not the view of animal rights activists. Selective culling is vital for breeding. That is why 95 per cent of male calves are castrated and sold for meat. When one is using the coercive power of the State to ban an entire industry that is a pretty big decision to make. I want to quote one paragraph from the report. Paragraph 1.114 states: It would be surprising if these failings of the industry had not destroyed the community’s trust in the industry. Moreover, these failings have occurred in a context where greyhounds in NSW are now primarily, almost exclusively, bred for commercial purposes to race for prize money and to create gambling opportunities. The reality is that, for many, perhaps most, of those who participate in the industry – whether as punters, breeders, owners or trainers, greyhounds are commercial commodities, not animals to be cherished and loved. Let me take that paragraph and just change a couple of words to show the hysterical temper of this report: It would be surprising if these failings of the industry had not destroyed the community’s trust in the industry. Moreover, these failings have occurred in a context where beef cattle in NSW are now primarily, almost exclusively, bred for commercial purposes – to be killed and sold for food. The reality is that, for many, perhaps most, of those who participate in the industry – whether as … breeders or owners … beef cattle are commercial commodities, not animals to be cherished and loved. It is ridiculous and it is applying a double standard; it is a “How much is that doggie in the window?” moralising. Nobody is calling for the live export trade to be banned for sheep or cattle. I certainly am not—except that actually some people are. The sort of people who enthusiastically support the greyhound ban are exactly the same people who want to shut down the live export trade, shut down horseracing and harness racing and, in many instances, believe that ownership of pets is abhorrent. The precedent that this establishes is very dangerous. In New South Wales we have hunting with hounds. The Sydney Hunt Club exists. Are we going to ban that too? The irony is that greyhounds now could be bred as companion animals and could actually hunt rabbits in the field, but they could not be used for chasing a mechanical hare around a track. The second problem we face—and this is an even more dangerous precedent—is the problem of acknowledging as a conservative Government the concept of a social licence. It is a vague, imprecise method; it is a tool uniformly of the Left. One never hears people say, “Wind farms have lost their social licence” or “the CFMEU has lost its social licence”. We are a party of the rule of law and laws which are rules, not touchy, feely opinions. Social licence is a hammer used by the cultural Left to attack that which is legal but which they dislike—coal, coal seam gas [CSG] and mining—a vague, imprecise tool where any demagogue can claim to be the authentic voice of the people. “So you don’t like something; well let’s ban it.” Why? Because it has lost its social licence. But who determines social licence? Is it just an update of the concept of “the common good” that demagogues and dictators everywhere can use to justify their actions as “the will of the people”? Has hunting with hounds lost its social licence? What about hunting with firearms? What about plain old ownership of firearms? If the only metric in social licensing is 50 per cent plus one, we can ban anything we dislike. For the ideologues of the animal welfare extremists, this is just the thin end of the wedge. Think for a moment: Does this bill encourage or discourage them? Are they going to roll up their swags and go home and say, “That is it; we have fixed all the problems we have”, or are they going to take this as yet another step on their path to ideological purity? This week we had People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals [PETA] calling for Eggs and Bacon Bay in Tasmania to be renamed. These are the sorts of people we are dealing with. Allow me to move briefly into the realm of prophecy. This bill is a rod for our own back, a rod with which we will be beaten in the future by these activists. PETA or some other animal welfare organisation will recruit someone, probably a bright young woman, to go to a trainer, probably one in rural or regional New South Wales. It will not be Gai Waterhouse; it will be some trainer in regional New South Wales—maybe old Cec at Queanbeyan Racecourse. This woman will say, “I really love horses, but I cannot break into the industry. Can you let me in? You do not need to pay me. I just want you to teach me all you know about the industry.” Old Cec, who might be doing it tough, might think, “This is great”, and take her on. Then every day she will come in miked up and with a hidden camera. Cec, who is not a vet—he goes about what he does based on 40 years of experience and what his dad taught him—might have a few folk remedies. He loves horses, but they are not his living. Some will not run, some will go to the knackery, some will bleed from the nostrils and some will have injuries. In the end, the edited tapes will be handed over to *Four Corners *and we will be back here again. The argument I have heard is, “This won’t be applied to the horseracing or harness industry.” Why not? The eye roll from the Hon. Mark Pearson when the Minister started talking about the higher standards of conditions in other forms of racing spoke eloquently about what he really believes about the conditions in those other forms of racing. That eye roll gave the game away. What is the moral precept or the ideological world view that divides racing greyhounds from racing horses? Is it mere numbers? How much wastage is too much? Is it the historical decline of greyhound racing? If we are talking about the historical decline of industries as a rationale for euthanasing them, there are a whole range of non-racing economic industries we could kill off on that basis. Is it simply the number of industry participants—that horseracing is too big to fail? Is it popularity? If it is popularity, that sets a dangerous precedent. Nobody has clearly enunciated exactly why the radical animal liberationists will not use this prohibition as an encouragement, as a propaganda springboard, for their activities in the future. During his contribution, the Hon. Peter Primrose quoted Coalition members at length. What he failed to acknowledge was that there is also dissent within the Labor Party. I will not go into too much detail, but this whole idea that “disunity is death”, that we should remain a Punch and Judy show where we whack each other over the head rather than let a plurality of ideas and a Socratic discourse take place, is, I think, abhorrent. What happens is that we legitimise a system where politicians are absolved from the necessity of thought and consideration of public policy issues. I want to leave everyone with a thought experiment. If the Premier had come out and instead said, “We are not going to ban the industry; we are going to work on a reform package”, who seriously believes there would have been a groundswell in the Coalition parties to then ban the industry? My concern is not that people have strong views on this matter. My concern rather is that we are invoking the full suite of coercive powers of the state, violating freedom of association, freedom of action and ownership of property, based on no strong views whatsoever—a lackadaisical authoritarianism which I cannot and will not support. ----- End forwarded message -----