Racing Integrity Regulation 2016

The regulation introduces and elaborates several key concepts that underpin the racing integrity framework. The first is the operational plan audit program, established by section 3. This concept requires the Racing Integrity Commission to embed a suitability audit program within its operational plan. The program must identify categories of licensed animals and participants, the focus of audits, and the number of audits planned per category. This is not merely a scheduling exercise; it creates a dynamic obligation to respond to issues that emerge during auditing. If the Commission finds a suitability issue that falls outside the stated focus, the program for the following financial year must summarise that issue and indicate whether it is addressed. This provision ensures the audit program is adaptive and transparent.

The second concept is the relevant agency for information exchange under section 53A of the Act. Section 3A of the regulation prescribes that each person stated in schedule 1AA is a relevant agency. Schedule 1AA is divided into two parts: Part 1 lists corporations, and Part 2 lists other persons. While the regulation does not reproduce the schedule content, the concept enables the sharing of information between the Commission and those entities for integrity purposes. This is critical for a modern regulatory environment where cooperation with police, racing bodies in other jurisdictions, and financial intelligence units can reveal breaches that would otherwise remain hidden.

The third concept is the prescribed law about racing or betting, found in section 4. The regulation states that each law of another State listed in schedule 1 is a law about racing or betting. This mechanism brings interstate racing offences or conduct under the umbrella of Queensland’s Act, potentially allowing the Commission to take action against a participant who has breached a New South Wales or Victorian racing law, for example. The effect is to prevent regulatory gaps when a participant moves between jurisdictions.

The fourth concept is the approved place for paying and settling particular bets, designated by section 5 as Tattersall’s Club Rooms at 215 Queen Street, Brisbane. This narrows the physical location where certain betting transactions may occur, which may affect bookmakers and punters.

The fifth concept concerns authorised officers. Section 6 expands the pool of persons eligible for appointment as authorised officers to include race day stewards. This leverages the existing expertise of stewards, who are already on the ground at race meetings, to perform enforcement functions.

The sixth concept, added in 2023, relates to livestock slaughter facilities. Section 6A requires the owner of a livestock slaughter facility to keep a record of the colour and sex of each horse that arrives at the facility. Section 6B prescribes the information that must be included in a report about a horse that arrives at the facility: the information given about the horse’s supply under section 210A of the Act, the colour and sex of the horse, and the day of arrival. These provisions create a traceability chain for horses leaving the racing industry, aiming to prevent illegal slaughter or mistreatment.

The seventh concept is the fee unit. Sections 7 and 8 set application fees for racing bookmaker licences in fee units, with a mandatory downward rounding to the nearest dollar. The fee unit value is determined under the Acts Interpretation Act 1954, so the actual dollar amount changes over time. The regulation fixes the number of fee units, not the dollar amount.

The Racing Integrity Regulation 2016 directly and indirectly affects a range of persons and entities within the Queensland racing industry. The most immediate group is racing participants, a term defined in the principal Act but elaborated in the regulation through the audit program. Participants include trainers, jockeys, drivers, bookmakers, and other licensed individuals whose suitability to hold a licence is audited under section 3. The regulation imposes no direct obligations on participants themselves, but the audit program creates a mechanism for the Commission to review their continued fitness, which may lead to licence suspension or cancellation if issues are identified.

Applicants for a racing bookmaker licence are directly affected by Part 3. An individual must pay 2,609 fee units, and a corporation must pay 7,505 fee units. This differential reflects the higher regulatory burden and risk associated with corporate bookmaking operations. The rounding provision in section 8 means applicants pay slightly less than the raw multiplication would produce, but they must calculate the correct amount at the time of application.

Licensed animals, primarily horses, are also affected. The audit program must include categories of licensed animals, so thoroughbreds, standardbreds, and greyhounds may be subject to suitability audits. Additionally, horses that are sent to a livestock slaughter facility after leaving racing are caught by sections 6A and 6B. The owner of that facility must record the colour and sex of each arriving horse and prepare a report containing specified information. This affects abattoirs and knackeries that handle horses, potentially including small private operators.

The Racing Integrity Commission itself is affected as the body responsible for including the audit program in its operational plan and for responding to issues identified during auditing. The Commission also relies on the designation of relevant agencies under section 3A to exchange information effectively.

Race day stewards are affected by section 6, which allows the commissioner to appoint them as authorised officers. This expands their powers and responsibilities beyond traditional race-day duties, giving them authority to investigate breaches, enter premises, and seize evidence under the Act.

The Tattersall’s Club is affected by section 5, which designates its rooms as an approved place for paying and settling particular bets. This may bring regulatory scrutiny to those premises and impose an obligation on the Club to ensure compliance with the Act when bets are settled there.

Interstate racing authorities are indirectly affected because section 4 prescribes their laws as laws about racing or betting. This means a participant who breaches a law in another State may face consequences in Queensland, affecting how interstate bodies cooperate with the Queensland Commission.

Lastly, the regulation affects the general public and animal welfare advocates indirectly. The livestock slaughter facility provisions give the public (through reports) some information about the fate of racehorses, though the regulation only prescribes colour, sex, and supply information, not broader welfare indicators.

The regulation imposes several specific duties and, by extension, creates correlative rights for those subject to or benefiting from those duties. The primary duty falls on the Racing Integrity Commission under section 3. The Commission must ensure that its operational plan includes a program to audit the suitability of licensed animals and participants. This is not a discretionary option; the regulation uses mandatory language. The program must specify categories, focus, and planned number of audits. Furthermore, if an audit uncovers a suitability issue outside the stated focus, the Commission has a duty to include a summary of that issue in the next financial year’s program and state whether it is addressed. This duty creates a feedback loop, ensuring that audit findings shape future planning.

The Commission also has a duty under section 3A to recognise the persons listed in schedule 1AA as relevant agencies for information exchange. This duty is implicit: the regulation prescribes those agencies, so the Commission must treat them as such. Failure to do so could undermine the information-sharing framework in the Act.

A significant duty is imposed on the owner of a livestock slaughter facility by section 6A. That owner must keep a record of the colour and sex of each horse that arrives at the facility. This duty is ongoing and applies to every horse. The section does not specify the format or retention period, so the owner must determine a reasonable system. Under section 6B, the owner must also prepare a report about each horse, containing the information given about its supply under section 210A of the Act, the colour and sex, and the day of arrival. The regulation does not state to whom this report must be given; it says only that these matters are prescribed for a report under section 210C(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. Reference to the Act would clarify the recipient, likely the Commission. This is a critical gap for compliance: the regulation imposes a duty to include certain content, but the reporting obligation itself arises from the Act.

No duties are imposed on licensed animals or participants by the regulation itself. However, the audit program duty of the Commission implies that participants and animals must submit to auditing. The regulation creates no right to be free from auditing; rather, it ensures the Commission plans for audits systematically.

Applicants for a racing bookmaker licence have a duty to pay the prescribed fee under section 7. The right is correlative: upon payment, the Commission must consider the application. The regulation does not set a refund right if the application is refused.

Race day stewards have no duties under the regulation, but they gain a right to be appointed as authorised officers by the commissioner under section 6. This right is at the commissioner’s discretion; the regulation does not require appointment.

The Tattersall’s Club has the benefit of being the only approved place under section 5 for paying and settling particular bets. This may confer a commercial advantage, but it also carries an implied duty to allow those transactions to occur on its premises and possibly to cooperate with regulatory oversight.

Interstate racing authorities and the agencies listed in schedule 1AA have no duties under the regulation, but they gain the right to receive and exchange information with the Commission.

Overall, the regulation places most duties on institutional actors (the Commission and slaughter facility owners) rather than on individual participants. The rights created are largely procedural: to be included in an audit program, to have information exchanged, to have fees processed correctly, and to have stewards potentially appointed as authorised officers.

The Racing Integrity Regulation 2016 does not itself create any penalty provisions or prescribe maximum fines. Instead, enforcement of the duties it imposes is achieved through the Racing Integrity Act 2016. The regulation operates by specifying details for provisions of the Act that themselves carry penalties. For example, the duty under section 6A to keep a record of colour and sex of each horse at a livestock slaughter facility is made for section 210B(1)(d) of the Act. The Act likely creates an offence for failing to keep that record, with a penalty set in the Act. Similarly, the reporting requirements under section 6B feed into section 210C of the Act, which likely imposes penalties for non-compliance. The regulation does not state those penalties, so a practitioner must cross-refer to the principal Act.

The audit program duty under section 3 is directed at the Commission, not at participants. Non-compliance by the Commission would not attract a criminal penalty; rather, it might be enforceable through administrative law remedies such as judicial review for failure to perform a statutory duty. The Commissioner is a statutory officer, and a failure to include an audit program in the operational plan could be challenged by a person with sufficient interest.

The fee provisions in sections 7 and 8 do not carry penalties for non-payment; the consequence is simply that an application cannot proceed without the correct fee. If an applicant underpays, the application may be invalid. The rounding rule is mandatory and could affect the legal validity of a fee demand if the Commission wrongly rounds up instead of down.

Enforcement of the information exchange provisions under section 3A and schedule 1AA would rely on the Act’s provisions regarding use and disclosure of information. Unauthorised disclosure by an officer could attract penalties under the Act.

The appointment of race day stewards as authorised officers under section 6 gives those stewards enforcement powers under the Act, including powers of entry, search, seizure, and requiring information. Their conduct would be governed by the Act and the regulation does not impose additional constraints. Misuse of those powers could lead to disciplinary action under stewards’ codes or criminal charges for misconduct.

The approved place designation under section 5 does not itself carry penalties, but if betting transactions occur at a place that is not approved, that could be an offence under the Act.

The prescribed laws about racing or betting under section 4 may have a penalty-enhancing effect. If a participant breaches an interstate law, that breach may be treated as a breach of the Queensland Act, attracting Queensland penalties. This extraterritorial operation depends on the interaction between the regulation and the Act.

In summary, the regulation itself is penalty-neutral, but it is the key that unlocks penalty provisions in the Act. Enforcement responsibility lies with the Racing Integrity Commission and its authorised officers. The 2023 amendments indicate a growing enforcement focus on the fate of racehorses after leaving the industry, likely with significant penalties for non-compliant slaughter facility owners. Without seeing the Act, one cannot state the exact penalty amounts, but the regulation’s requirements are clearly designed to support prosecution for record-keeping and reporting failures.

The Regulation expressly incorporates and interacts with several other instruments. First and foremost, it is made under and operates subject to the Racing Integrity Act 2016 (Qld). Every provision references a specific section of the Act. For example, section 3 refers to section 53(2) of the Act, and section 3A refers to section 53A(5). The regulation cannot be read in isolation; it is a subordinate instrument that fills in details left open by the Act. Any amendment to the Act’s section numbering would require corresponding changes to the regulation.

The regulation also interacts with the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld). Section 8 of the regulation expressly invokes section 48C(3) of that Act for rounding fee amounts downwards to the nearest dollar. This means the standard rounding rules in the Interpretation Act apply, and the regulation merely confirms that rounding is downwards, not upwards or using standard mathematical rounding. The Interpretation Act also governs how fee units are valued; the regulation does not set the dollar value of a fee unit, so that value fluctuates as the Interpretation Act prescribes.

Section 4 of the regulation interacts with the laws of other States concerning racing or betting. Schedule 1 (not reproduced in the source) lists those laws. This creates an incorporation by reference of the interstate legislation as it exists from time to time, unless the regulation specifies otherwise. The effect is that a person’s conduct in Queensland that would be a breach of a listed interstate law may be treated as a breach of the Queensland Act. This raises potential constitutional issues about extraterritorial operation and comity, but the regulation does not address those.

The livestock slaughter provisions in sections 6A and 6B interact with the Biosecurity Act 2014 (Qld) or any local government regulations governing abattoirs, though not explicitly. The colour and sex record requirement may overlap with existing identification requirements under those laws. The regulation does not purport to override other legislation, so a facility owner must comply with both the Racing Integrity Regulation and any applicable biosecurity or food safety laws.

The approved place for paying and settling bets under section 5 interacts with the licensing and venue provisions of the Act. Only Tattersall’s Club Rooms are approved. This may interact with the Liquor Act 1992 (Qld) if betting occurs on licensed premises, but the regulation does not address that.

The designation of race day stewards as authorised officers under section 6 interacts with the criminal procedure rules governing authorised officers under the Act and possibly the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) if stewards exercise police-like powers. The regulation does not exempt stewards from those procedural safeguards.

Schedule 1AA lists relevant agencies for information exchange. This interacts with privacy laws, such as the Information Privacy Act 2009 (Qld), and possibly the Commonwealth Privacy Act 1988 if those agencies hold personal information. The exchange of information under the Act may be subject to those privacy protections unless the Act overrides them. The regulation does not address that tension.

Finally, the fee provisions interact with the State’s financial administration legislation. The payment of fees to the Commission is governed by the Financial Accountability Act 2009 and the regulation does not modify those requirements.

In practice, any person or entity subject to the regulation must consider multiple layers of law. The regulation is not a stand-alone code; it is a fine-tuning mechanism within a broader statutory framework. Legal advice on compliance must always start with the principal Act, then the regulation, then any other applicable state or commonwealth laws.

The Racing Integrity Regulation 2016 has been amended four times since its commencement on 1 July 2016. The original instrument was made as subordinate legislation and published as SL 2016 No. 80 (presumably, though the source does not state the initial number). The first amendment occurred in 2019 by SL 2019 No. 84, which inserted section 3A dealing with relevant agencies for exchange of information and added schedule 1AA. This was a substantive addition that expanded the regulation’s scope to include an information-sharing framework, likely in response to the need for better coordination between the Commission and other bodies such as the Queensland Police Service, Racing Queensland, or interstate counterparts.

The second amendment was by the Racing Integrity and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2020, Act No. 23 of 2020, section 69, schedule 1, part 1. This amendment changed section 3A again. The source notation reads “amd 2020 Act No. 23 s 69 sch 1 pt 1”. This indicates that the amendment was made by an Act of Parliament, not a further regulation, suggesting the Legislature itself intervened to modify the list of relevant agencies or the operation of section 3A. The exact nature of the change is not apparent from the source, but it may have added or removed agencies from schedule 1AA.

The third amendment was by SL 2022 No. 65, which made significant changes to the fee provisions. It substituted the entirety of section 7 (application fee for racing bookmaker licence) and inserted section 8 (rounding of amounts expressed as numbers of fee units). The previous fee amounts were replaced with the current 2,609 fee units for individuals and 7,505 fee units for corporations. The insertion of section 8 was important because it clarified the rounding direction as downward. Previously, the regulation may not have specified rounding at all, leaving the method uncertain. This amendment likely responded to a need to adjust fees to current economic levels and to avoid disputes over rounding.

The fourth amendment was by SL 2023 No. 150, which inserted sections 6A and 6B regarding livestock slaughter facilities. These were entirely new provisions reflecting a policy shift toward ensuring traceability of racehorses after they leave the racing industry. The amendment added record-keeping and reporting obligations for owners of livestock slaughter facilities. The source does not indicate any associated schedule changes, so the amendment was limited to those two sections.

The amendment history reveals that the regulation has evolved from a relatively simple instrument dealing with operational plans, prescribed laws, and fees into one that also addresses information exchange and horse slaughter traceability. The amendments have been spaced roughly two to three years apart, suggesting ongoing regulatory development. The use of both regulation-form amendments (SL) and Act-form amendments (Act No. 23 of 2020) indicates that some changes required primary legislation, possibly because they affected the Act’s definitional framework or required parliamentary approval for designating agencies. Future amendments might include updates to the fee amounts, changes to schedule 1 (prescribed laws), or further elaboration of the slaughter facility obligations.

The source text of the Racing Integrity Regulation 2016 does not reference any litigation history. No cases are mentioned in the regulation itself, and the legislation is not of a type that typically generates extensive judicial interpretation. The regulation is a subordinate instrument that prescribes details; most legal challenges would be directed at the principal Act or at decisions made by the Racing Integrity Commission under that Act, rather than at the regulation directly.

Nonetheless, it is possible to infer potential areas of litigation. The fee provisions in sections 7 and 8 could conceivably be challenged if a fee unit calculation error led to an overpayment. However, the regulation directs rounding downwards, so a challenge would likely involve an argument that the Commission applied the wrong value of a fee unit under the Acts Interpretation Act. That would be a question of interpretation of the Acts Interpretation Act, not the regulation itself.

The information exchange provisions could generate litigation if a person whose information was shared alleged that the disclosure was not authorised. The regulation designates relevant agencies, but it does not specify the types of information that may be exchanged. If the exchange exceeds what the Act permits, a person could seek judicial review or sue for breach of privacy. Again, the challenge would focus on the Act’s limitations, not the regulation’s listing.

The livestock slaughter provisions are new (2023) and may be tested. For example, a slaughter facility owner might argue that the regulation is ultra vires because it imposes obligations not contemplated by the Act, or that the record-keeping requirement is unreasonably onerous. The regulation specifies only colour and sex, which is a minimal burden, but a challenge could still arise. No such litigation has been reported in the source.

The operational plan audit program duty could be subject to judicial review if the Commission fails to include a required element. A disgruntled participant whose licence was reviewed under a flawed program might argue that the audit was invalid. The regulation requires the program to state categories, focus, and number of audits. If the Commission omits one of these, the plan may be unlawful, providing grounds for challenge.

No cases from the High Court of Australia or the Queensland Supreme Court concerning this specific regulation are mentioned in the source. It is possible that the regulation has been cited in tribunal decisions of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) regarding licence reviews, but those would not be binding precedent and are not recorded in the source.

In summary, there is no litigation history provided in the source. The regulation appears to have operated without reported judicial scrutiny. Given its administrative nature, this is unsurprising. Most regulatory action occurs through internal decision-making and can be resolved without court proceedings. Practitioners should be aware that while the regulation itself is uncontroversial, its application can give rise to disputes that may end up in QCAT or the Supreme Court, but no such cases are on the public record from the source.

Several provisions in the Racing Integrity Regulation 2016 contain traps for the unwary. First, the fee rounding direction in section 8 is mandatory and operates downwards to the nearest dollar. A person calculating the fee might naturally round to the nearest dollar or upwards. If an applicant pays based on the unrounded amount, they may overpay. The Commission might reject the application if the overpayment is not corrected, or it might hold the surplus. More problematically, if an applicant underpays because they rounded up the fee units calculation, the application could be invalid. The regulation states the amount is rounded downwards, but it does not say what happens if the applicant pays the unrounded amount. The safest approach is to calculate the multiplication, take the floor value, and pay exactly that.

Second, the audit program obligations in section 3 may have a cascading effect. The Commission must include a program that states categories, focus, and number of audits. If the Commission later identifies an issue outside the stated focus, it must include a summary in the next year’s program and state whether it is addressed. This means the Commission cannot simply ignore unanticipated problems; it must publicly document them. A participant or animal subject to auditing based on a new issue might not have been notified because the issue was not in the stated focus. The regulation does not require the Commission to amend the current year’s program mid-year, only to carry the issue forward. This could lead to regulatory lag where a serious suitability concern is not formally audited until the next financial year.

Third, the approved place for paying and settling particular bets is limited to Tattersall’s Club Rooms in Brisbane. No other place is approved. This means that a bookmaker who settles a bet at a racecourse, at their office, or at any other location may be in breach of the Act. The regulation does not define “particular bets”; that term comes from the Act. The narrow geographical designation could catch off-course bookmakers who assume they can settle bets anywhere. The Tattersall’s Club may not be open 24 hours, creating practical difficulties.

Fourth, the livestock slaughter facility record-keeping requirement under section 6A only requires colour and sex. It does not require microchip number, tattoo, brand, or any unique identifier. Two horses of the same colour and sex could be indistinguishable in the records, making traceability weak. A facility owner might believe they are compliant by recording only those two attributes, but if a dispute arises, the record may be insufficient to identify a specific horse. The regulation does not prohibit keeping additional information, but the prescribed minimum is dangerously low.

Fifth, the report under section 6B must include “the information given to the owner about the supply of the horse under section 210A of the Act”. The regulation does not prescribe that information; it only says it must be included. If the supplier fails to give the required information under the Act, the report will be incomplete. The slaughter facility owner could be penalised for an incomplete report, but the failure originated with the supplier. This creates a dependency risk.

Sixth, the appointment of race day stewards as authorised officers under section 6 is permissive (“may appoint”), not mandatory. A steward might assume they have enforcement powers, but they must wait for a formal appointment. If a steward acts without appointment, they could be personally liable.

Seventh, the prescribed laws of other States in schedule 1 are not listed in the source. If a practitioner overlooks the schedule, they may miss that a particular interstate rule applies in Queensland. The schedule must be consulted regularly as it may be amended.

Eighth, the information exchange agencies in schedule 1AA include both corporations and other persons. The regulation does not limit the purpose for which information can be exchanged beyond the Act. A participant’s personal information could be shared with a private corporation listed in the schedule, which might raise commercial concerns.

Finally, the regulation commenced on 1 July 2016, but subsequent amendments have differing commencement dates. For example, sections 6A and 6B were inserted in 2023. A person relying on an older version of the regulation might be non-compliant.

Compliance with the Racing Integrity Regulation 2016 depends on the entity’s role. For the Racing Integrity Commission, the primary compliance obligation is to ensure that the operational plan required under section 53 of the Act includes a suitability audit program that meets the requirements of section 3. The Commission must draft the program to identify the categories of licensed animals (thoroughbreds, standardbreds, greyhounds) and licensed participants (trainers, jockeys, drivers, bookmakers) that will be audited, state the focus of each audit (for example, financial probity, animal welfare, or compliance with racing rules), and specify the planned number of audits for each category. This program must be included in the operational plan for each financial year. If during the year an audit identifies a suitability issue outside the stated focus, the Commission must include a summary of that issue in the next year’s program and state whether the program addresses it. Practically, this means maintaining an issue log during auditing and preparing a forward-looking compliance narrative. The Commission must also update the list of relevant agencies under section 3A by reviewing schedule 1AA and ensuring that any new agencies are recognised for information exchange.

For owners of livestock slaughter facilities, compliance involves record-keeping and reporting. Upon arrival of each horse, the owner must record the colour and sex. A simple register or spreadsheet is sufficient, but it must be maintained and potentially produced on request. The owner must also prepare a report for each horse that includes the information given by the supplier under section 210A of the Act (which would typically include details of the horse’s identity and ownership history), plus colour, sex, and day of arrival. The report must be provided to the Commission or as required by section 210C of the Act. The owner should verify that the supplier has provided the required information; if not, the owner should request it immediately. Keeping copies of supply information, colour/sex records, and reports for at least the period prescribed by the Act is advisable.

For applicants for a racing bookmaker licence, compliance is straightforward: calculate the application fee using the current value of a fee unit (determined under the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 to be a certain dollar amount), multiply by 2,609 for an individual or 7,505 for a corporation, then round the result downwards to the nearest dollar. Pay that amount with the application. The rounding direction is mandatory; do not round up even if the cents exceed 50. If uncertain about the fee unit value, the applicant should check the Queensland Government Gazette or the Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel website.

For race day stewards who wish to be appointed as authorised officers, the path is to seek appointment by the commissioner under section 6. Once appointed, they must familiarise themselves with the powers and duties under the Act and any applicable code of conduct. They must not assume they have enforcement authority until the appointment is formally made.

For betting operators and others involved in settling bets, compliance means ensuring that any paying or settling of particular bets occurs only at Tattersall’s Club Rooms at 215 Queen Street, Brisbane. No other location is approved. If the bet is not a “particular bet” as defined in the Act, the restriction may not apply, but it is safer to assume it does.

For participants subject to the suitability audit program, there is no direct compliance step under the regulation, but they should cooperate with Commission auditors and maintain their records and conduct to pass suitability checks.

General compliance advice: maintain copies of the regulation as amended, keep abreast of schedule changes, and when in doubt about record content, err on the side of including more information rather than less, especially for slaughter facility records where the prescribed minimum is low. Any person relying on the regulation should also read the relevant provisions of the Racing Integrity Act 2016 to understand penalty provisions and procedural obligations. The regulation is a tool, not a standalone code.