Mr. Brendan Gleeson:

We propose to provide extensive policing-type powers for authorised officers. These are exercisable where there is a risk of disease, a risk to the welfare of a greyhound or a breach of the racing code. The powers do not extend to entering a domestic dwelling other than with the consent of the owner. This is because this kind of power is only exercisable through the use of a search warrant, and the use of a search warrant is only appropriate where there are criminal offences. The use of these powers is possible for breaches of the racing code because participants in racing are subjected to the rules of racing and the jurisdiction of the control committee under head 18. The point here is that we have very extensive powers which extend through the next few heads, and it may be worth reading down through these powers. They refer to entering and inspecting, at all reasonable times, any land or premises where a record relating to a greyhound is present or where equipment or machinery used in connection with a greyhound is present. It is proposed to grant authorised officers the power to "examine a greyhound animal feed, equipment, machinery or other thing"; to require the name and address of a person; to inspect vehicles, equipment, machinery, etc.; to require a person to provide them with such assistance as they need and copies of records; to take, without making a payment, samples from a greyhound animal feed, water, equipment or machinery; and to restrain a greyhound.

Page 29 outlines what the authorised officer can do where there is a risk of disease, a risk to the welfare of a greyhound or a breach of the racing code. The committee will note that the authorised officer can search land or a premises, search a vehicle, equipment or machinery, require a person in charge or in control of the vehicle to refrain from moving it, give information regarding its place, seize and detain animal feed, and remove equipment or machinery. The proposed subsection (5) states, "An authorised officer shall not enter, except with the consent of the occupier, a private dwelling."

I wish to explain something about this, and I hope I explain it adequately because it is a little complicated. There are offences under this Act which are criminal offences, and in those circumstances it is possible to seek a warrant to search a domestic dwelling. We have provided that breaches of the doping provisions are breaches of the racing code. In those circumstances, we have all these extensive powers for authorised officers but we do not have the power to get a search warrant or enter a person's home. Why did we put these doping provisions under the racing code rather than the criminal provisions? As well as being an industry, this is a sport, and we want a system that allows for the reasonably quick administration of justice in circumstances in which there are breaches of the racing code. We felt that this was best achieved by providing that these provisions regarding doping are breaches of the racing code and should go to the control committee and be appealed to the appeals committee, and we will make reasonably quick decisions then as to whether a sanction is applicable. These provisions were included for the sake of speedy resolutions to such matters. Because we are dealing with a sport, we decided these should be breaches of the racing code and not offences. There are offences under the legislation, but these are not offences, and we think that is a very good thing. That is the advantage of this idea. We provided that these be administrative sanctions. The disadvantage is that one cannot get a search warrant or enter a person's home. We have thought about this because it is a significant enough issue and we felt that this was still the right way to go, that is, that we give authorised officers extensive powers and that where we find a problem, there is reasonably quick administration of the case and an administrative sanction applied. The administrative sanctions are significant. They are equivalent to what one would get in a district court. However, we do not want to have to go through the courts system every time an adverse finding is made in respect of doping, for example, because we feel this would result in interminable delays, to be honest. That is why we have made these provisions and why I draw the committee's attention to the provision in the proposed subsection (5).

What we are talking about is the administration of the racing code and racing sanctions rather than the criminal offences. If we decided these are to be criminal offences, we could get a search warrant and search somebody's house but then every offence would have to go through the courts system. That is an issue that requires some reflection but I wanted to draw it to the members' attention.