Canterbury Branch Meeting Report January 2023
One of the biggest turnouts for a Branch Committee meeting for several years, recently met with RIB Chief Executive Mike Clement and HRNZ Racing Manager Catherine McDonald. Also attending on zoom were Jay Abernethy, Bret Gray and Peter Ferguson.
Mike outlined the purpose behind the current stable inspections being carried out, that being to ensure the new Horse Care Regulations, which were considered minimum standards, were being complied with, and advise trainers on how to make any necessary changes. While the RIB has no powers under the Animal Welfare Act, their authority comes from the Racing Industry Act, and the racing rules. Basic requirements included treatment logs, medicine cabinet contents, water quality and fencing, and up to date records of horses on the property. Travel times for longer float trips were under review due to issues with practicality. Improvement notices issued were not to penalise, but to educate and ensure compliance. Unification was important to counter the threats to the Industry from outside organisations, who were looking for excuses to act negatively. However, harness racing was in a very different, and much better, situation to the greyhounds. With reference to the McGrath case, the HRNZ Rules currently permit a disqualified person to agist horses and transport them, providing they do not set foot in a stabling area. The Trainers & Drivers Assn., RIB and HRNZ will work together to determine whether the rules should be changed to clarify the meaning of disqualification. Mike advised that he would be contacting McGrath to outline what he is allowed to do. Catherine advised that a Rules Sub-Committee would be considering any changes to the Rules on this matter, taking into account how much leniency should be given to disqualified persons after a certain period of time, and what form that should take. Another alternative could be the establishment of an independent body to judge on these issues.
The police investigation of Operation Inca is still ongoing, despite many of the cases having been dropped. This could continue for another year and was out of the RIB’s control. The RIB has requested access to the police information, however a decision on this is still awaited, and could take considerable time. Discussion took place over the information and it’s accuracy. This would need to be decided either in a court or an RIB hearing.
A decision on the challenge to the RIB appeal structure by S. Wigg was still awaited. Delays in some recent appeals were a result of awaiting this judgement, along with availability of personnel over the Christmas period.
Peter Ferguson spoke at length on issues surrounding whip use, outlining the concerns of himself and others, which included too much interpretation of the Rules, and inconsistency and variables in penalties, particularly when compared to Australia. This had created an unhealthy ‘us and them’ situation. Mike Clement spoke of the need for a strategy that everyone can understand on the future of the whip and it’s use, and undertook to investigate claims of differing interpretation by personnel, and consistency. He advised that 65 signatures formed the basis of a petition on whip use to the Government which is now before a Select Committee, so there was a strong need for caution on the matter. Jay Abernethy suggested that consideration should be given to how whip use looks, and also questioned the effect of some penalties on drivers in various areas. Mark Jones suggested that the word ‘whip’ be removed from Stewards Reports and replaced by a Rule number. John Morrison felt that penalties for whip use should not be as harsh as those for careless driving. Peter Ferguson brought up the length of a 6 months threshold time or 200 drives for repeat offences, which he considered excessive, and a change would alleviate some of the ill-feeling. Mike advised he would look into the matter. Catherine advised that while harness racing was far ahead of the greyhounds in animal welfare issues, there was still need to be on the front foot, as we would be the next code to come under scrutiny.
In response to a question on whether Junior drivers should receive lesser penalties, Mike responded that while it was not beneficial to discourage young drivers, a balance was needed between current standards and improving those of yesteryear, and it was reasonable to expect that penalties should take into account the effects large fines would have on careers and personal circumstances.
In response to a question regarding removing the option of a fine from the careless driving Rules in the new Penalty Guide, Mike advised that the RIB was the sole author of the Penalty Guide, however it was considered to be only a starting point to be used by Adjudicative Committees. It was considered that a suspension was a proper deterrent, as opposed to a driver simply paying a fine and it having little effect. If a licence-holder breach the rules, there is no perfect way to allocate a penalty to affect everyone the in the same way, similar to a speeding fine.
Catherine advised that consultation with HRNZ solicitor Chris Lange and the Trainers & Drivers would take place regarding celebratory gestures, to draw up a rule on this matter.
Pete Cook