Non Raceday Inquiry Written Decision dated 31 December 2021 – Glen Harvey

EVIDENCE:

Introduction

[1] This penalty decision deals with an Information (No A16408) filed against the Licenced Class A Thoroughbred Trainer, Glen Harvey (“the Respondent”) who has admitted breaching New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (NZTR) Rule 802(1).  The charge relates to the Respondent’s  attendance at the race meeting held on 16 November 2021 at Arawa Park, Rotorua, in breach of NZTR COVID-19 Protocols.

Determination on the papers

[2] With the consent of the parties, the Adjudicative Committee (“the Committee”) made its determination as to penalty ‘on the papers’.

[3] The Committee was provided with and perused the relevant documents including Information Number A16408, the summary of facts and penalty submissions.

PARTICULARS OF THE CHARGE:

[4] Mr M Clement, The Chief Executive RIB authorised the filing of charge on 26 November 2021.

[5] Information Number A16408 alleges that:

On Tuesday the 16^th day of November 2021, as a result of a complaint made at the Racing Rotorua race meeting held at Arawa Park. Glen Harvey a Licensed Class A Trainer was on course and failed to comply with NZTR notice subject to government defined “COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020” regarding alert level 3 movement controls by leaving his residence in the Waikato District level 3 and travelled to the Rotorua area level 2.

THE RULES:

[6] The relevant Rules are as follows:

Rule 802 (1) provides that a person commits a breach of these Rules who:

(a) acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any provision of these Rules or any Regulations made thereunder, or any policy, notice, direction, instruction, guideline, restriction, requirement or condition given, made or imposed under these Rules.

NZTR Protocols and Directive

The NZTR Directive of  August 2021 requires industry stakeholders and participants to comply with not only the racing codes covid plans and policy, but also relevant government regulations.  This is made clear in the Directive – Covid-19 – Alert Level 3 which provides at page 3:

• This directive has the effect of NZTR Rules of Racing and is binding on PCBU’s (as defined by the Health & Safety at Work Act, including racing clubs, racing officials (including RIB) and Trainers (and employees and contractors) and Jockeys.
• This directive is subject to any government regulations or requirements as relevant to COVID-19 Alert Level 3.

PENALTY PROVISIONS:

[7] The relevant penalty provisions are as follows:

Rule 803(1) provides that:

A person who, or body or other entity which, commits or is deemed to have committed a breach of these Rules or any of them for which a penalty is not provided elsewhere in these Rules shall be liable to:

1. be disqualified for a period not exceeding 12 months; and/or
2. be suspended from holding or obtaining a Licence for a period not exceeding 12 months. If a Licence is renewed during a term of suspension, then the suspension shall continue to apply to the renewed Licence; and/or
3. a fine not exceeding $20,000.00

THE PLEA:

[8] The charge is admitted by the Respondent.

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

The facts of this matter are summarised as follows:

[9] The Respondent in this matter, Glen John Harvey, is the holder of a Class A Trainers License issued by New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (NZTR).

[10] His usual place of residence in Ohaupo, Waikato District.

[11] On 17 August 2021 the NZ Government announced a new COVID-19 community outbreak in New Zealand. This outbreak has since been confirmed aS being of the Delta variant.

[12] As a result of the  outbreak a Public Health Response (Alert Level  Requirement) Order (No 9) 2021 was issued which came in effect at 11:59pm on 17 August 2021.

[13] The orders were made due to the significant health risk COVID-19 is to the New  Zealand Community.

[14] On the 7  October 2021 the Government announced that Hamilton, Raglan, Cambridge, and some northern Waikato areas will move to Covid Alert Level 3 due to positive cases in these areas.  Shortly thereafter NZTR issued an updated COVID-19 Directive on their website.  This notice is attached at Appendix A. NZTR protocols set out requirements for training and racing under Levels 3 and 4 (refer COVID-19 Emergency Regulations – Alert L3 dated August 2021).

Circumstances of breach

[15] On Tuesday 16 November 2021, the Respondent attended the Racing Rotorua race meeting held at Arawa Park.

[16] The Respondent travelled from his Ohaupo address which at that time was in Alert Level 3 to the Rotorua area which at that time was in Alert Level 2.

[17] The Respondent was approached by a Stipendiary Steward questioned as to what he was doing at the races. He said that he moved out of his address on the evening of the 6 October 2021 and moved to an area in Alert Level 2.

[18] The Respondent was told that ‘under Government and NZTR Level 3 protocols that you are in a  lockdown and are not permitted to be here which is a Level 2 area’.

[19] The matter was then referred to a Racing Investigator for further enquiries to be made and on Thursday 18 November 2021 the Respondent was further spoken to.  In explanation to the Racing Investigator, the Respondent, reiterated his previous statement that he moved out of his Level 3 restricted area on 6 October 2021 and relocated to a Level 2 restricted area. He said that he slept in his vehicle during that period.  He said that his usual workday would start at 3.00am when he would travel back to his home for work and that at 10.30pm he would return to a Level 2 restricted area to again sleep in his vehicle. He said he carried on in this routine from Monday through to Sunday.  He further stated that he was not aware he had to notify NZTR of his Level 2 relocation address and that he did not see why he had to notify them because it was only a temporary move.  He could offer no named locations or roadside locations where he slept in his car, nor did he supply any witness details to corroborate or confirm his assertions.

[20] It is the position of the Racing Integrity Board that the explanations offered by the Respondent regarding his actions, (i.e., 41 consecutive nights in his car),  to be self-serving and at best dubious. He appears to be retrospectively applying the finer points of the rules and protocols to avoid blame and justify his non-compliance with the NZTR notices.

[21] The Government and NZTR expect all citizens and participants affected by the Alert Level Restrictions to obey the protocols put in places to protect everyone from being infected or spreading the COVID-19 virus and its variants. The virus has caused a worldwide epidemic and everyone must comply with protocols put in place to protect us.

[22] The Respondent has been involved in the Thoroughbred Racing Industry all his adult life and has not previously breached the Rules.

Note:

In addition, the NZTR website also contains up to date policy and practice relating to Covid-19.  Refer Policy Directives (Emergency Regs) of 29 October 2021 COVID-19 EMERGENCY REGULATIONS – ALERT LEVEL 2 and August 2021 COVID-19 EMERGENCY REGULATIONS – ALERT LEVEL 3.

REASON FOR DECISION:

[23] As the charge is admitted it is deemed to be proved.

SUBMISSIONS FOR PENALTY:

Penalty Submission – Applicant

Mr Westerlund, on behalf of the  Applicant, provided Penalty Submissions.  These are summarised as follows:

[24] The Respondent is a Licensed Class A Trainer and Owner under the New Zealand Rules of Thoroughbred Racing.

[25] The Respondent has admitted the breaches of the Rules in relation to the incident at the Racing Rotorua meeting held at Arawa Park on Tuesday 16 November 2021.  The details of the Respondent’s offending are contained in the Summary of Facts.

The three sentencing principles relevant to this case are:

1. Penalties are designed to punish the offender for his/her wrongdoing. They are not meant to be retributive in the sense the punishment is disproportionate to the offence, but the offender must be met with a punishment.
2. In a racing context it is extremely important that a penalty has the effect of deterring others from committing similar offences.
3. A penalty should also reflect the disapproval of the Committee for the type of offending in question.

Precedents

[26] The Penalty Guidelines do not provide a starting point for breaches of this nature. Instead, penalties are fact dependent, and it is up to the Committee on the day to weigh up all the facts and submissions in arriving at a fitting penalty.

[27] This is the second COVID-19 breach, within any of the three Racing Codes, that has come before a Tribunal and that there are no precedent decisions within New Zealand. However, there have been a number of cases dealt with within the Australian racing jurisdictions.  Notably the suspension of an Australian leading jockey – Jamie Kah and others.

Mitigating factors

[28] That the Respondent has admitted the breach at the first opportunity.

[29] That the Respondent has a blemish free record.

Aggravating factors

[30] That the Respondent has been involved in the Racing Industry for some time and knows the importance of conducting himself in a professional manner and maintaining the integrity of racing.

[31] That Alert Levels were issued by the NZ Government to avoid significant health risks to the New Zealand Community. By breaching these Rules, he has potentially put himself, his family, and colleagues at risk.

[32] That flagrant disregard of the NZTR protocols is detrimental to the Industry.

Conclusion         

[33] The RIB is mindful of the Appeals Tribunal ruling In RIU v Lawson – the Appeals Tribunal at [25] commented:

Proceedings under the Rules of Harness Racing, as is the position in all cases involving professional disciplines, are designed not simply to punish the transgressor, but crucially are to protect the profession/public/industry/and those who are to deal with the profession.  Disciplinary sanctions are designed for some important different purposes, and although guidance can be gained from the criminal jurisdiction, there are broader considerations.

The Harness and Thoroughbred racing “industry ” is a profession where key participants are required to be licensed in order to practice in various ways within that sphere. Comprehensive rules of practice, behaviour, procedure, and the like are set down in extensive detail in the Rules which govern the codes and behaviour. As with most professions, a careful internal disciplinary and regulatory process is set up.

Those who practice within professions (whether law, accountancy, medicine, teaching, real estate, and the like) are subject to sanctions for breaches of standards of conduct or rules designed to protect members of the profession as well as the public. Such sanctions can at the highest end include removal from a profession for serious breaches of professional rules and standards involving dishonest or immoral conduct. Such behaviour if unchecked may greatly harm the reputation of the profession and “bring it into disrepute” – that is, the public loses.

[34] The decision marks a clear shift in the approach in imposing sanctions for a breach of Racing Rules and correctly brings a disciplinary approach.

[35] The RIB does not consider the Respondent to be a habitual offender and nor to be a person of low moral character that he would bring the Thoroughbred Racing Code to ‘disrepute’ should he remain in this profession.

[36] The RIB believes however that breaches of the Rules should be penalised and that such behaviour cannot be condoned, and a penalty is sought to prevent any future occurrences or similar incidents from happening to safeguard the integrity of racing and its’ participants.

[37] In his submission the Respondent  stated “I was well aware as others were, that other Trainers and staff had done the same”.  To date the RIB received a complaint regarding Mr Harvey and one other party. The other matter is under consideration. There are no other outstanding complaints.

[38] Taking all the facts into consideration the RIB believes that this breach can be dealt with by way of a monetary penalty.

Penalty submissions – Respondent

[39] The Respondent provided the following written submission:

“At the time I entered my horses, I was of the understanding that the Covid Alert Levels would be changed by that day.  Unfortunately, they did not change until midnight the day of the races.

It was the first time I had entered runners outside of the Cambridge Synthetic track because of the Covid restrictions.

I had just lost one of my biggest Owners and was under pressure from others for my reluctance to race the horses at other tracks I was unable to attend because of the Covid restrictions.

I entered 3 horses but once I realised the restrictions had not been changed my Owners of BRIX insisted that she was to be scratched and not start without me in attendance.  I had major ownership in the other 2 runners.

 I then tried 4 different people to look after the horses at the races and none of these people I trusted could do this for me.  I was really concerned because of the Rogerson horses being mixed up and the wrong horses starting plus I and other trainers were well aware of the number of horses that had been injured in the tie-up stalls because of the lack of people to care for them on the race days as they were not being looked after properly. 

There simply weren’t enough people available at the meetings to take care of all of these horses being sent to the races as they would have been by their own trainers and stable staff.

As it was only going to be 10 hours before the restrictions were to be changed to a lower alert level, I thought in the best interests of my horses that I would look after them myself. I was well aware as others were, that other trainers and staff had done the same.  I am really ‘hands on’ with my horses and go back to the stables myself every night to top waters and rug up in the evenings, not my staff.

I now have a partner and we are expecting our first child in June.  Financially it is a really tough business and I am just trying to do the best I can for my family and my owners.  My parents were against me training as they said it was not only uneconomically viable but also mentally harrowing, however they have supported me regardless in my desire to do this anyway, as it is all I have ever wanted to do.

So, when I was approached by the stipendiary stewards and questioned, I was really panicked and did not think clearly and a give a straight and reasonable answer to the questions asked. 

For this I am truly sorry.  I was trying so hard to not say the wrong thing, and by doing this, I have done the wrong thing.  I didn’t go to the races that day with the intention of breaking any rules or regulations.  I was just trying to do my job to the best of my ability and the best interests of my horses and other owners”.

REASON FOR PENALTY:

Determination of Penalty starting point

[40] The Respondent is liable to any sanction available within the penalty provisions, set at paragraph 7, which are evaluated on a fact dependent basis.

The penalty starting point is at the discretion of the Committee after consideration of the various relevant factors. Such discretion is broad and encompasses, but is not limited to the following issues:

• The need to hold the Respondent accountable and denounce hIs conduct.
• The need to protect the wider interests of the Thoroughbred Racing Industry (specifically).
• The need to ensure that the racing industry is committed to ensuring all participants are kept safe from the impacts and risks associated with actual or potential transmission of Covid-19.

[41] In evaluating penalty the Committee has weighed up and had due regard for the following matters: (1) the particular facts of the breach including its seriousness; (2) the gravity of the Respondent’s offending and hIs level of culpability; (3) the Respondent’s personal circumstances; (4) the desirability for consistency so to as ensure the penalty imposed is not too dissimilar to like cases; and (5) to ensure that public trust and confidence in the integrity of Racing is preserved.

[42] In addition to the above considerations, there is now one precedent case in New Zealand (RIB v Hewetson). In Hewetson, this same Adjudicative Committee established as a starting point a fine of $3000.   Whilst this provides a useful starting point, there are points of difference between the two cases that need to be taken into account.

The facts of the breach

[43] The particular facts of the breach, as set in the Summary of Facts (at paragraphs 10 to 23), are not disputed.  However, it is noted that the RIB does not necessarily accept the Respondent’s explanation that over a period of 41 nights, for the most part, he slept in his car in an unknown L2 location.

[44] A breach of this nature falls within the category of a serious racing offence and this must be taken into account when arriving at an appropriate penalty.  Particularly so given the clear messaging in the NZTR COVID-19 policy protocols and supporting directives.

The gravity of the Respondent’s offending and his level of culpability

[45] In his submission the Respondent said that he “didn’t go to the races that day with the intention of breaking any rules or regulations”.  That claim is hard to reconcile with the facts given what was occurring as a result of the disruptive impacts that COVID-19 was having on racing.  It is implausible that a Licensed Trainer would not have been fully aware of those impacts.  The Respondent would or should have known the Rules and requirements, given the significant government and NZTR messaging around COVID-19 protocols. By virtue of attending the race meeting, the Respondent was in breach of the Covid Directive.

[46] Further, it seems that as far back as 6 October, (one day before the level change took effect), the Respondent was scheming to usurp the intent of the COVID-19 Directive or at least find a way to ‘get around’ the requirements of the Directive, by (apparently) shifting from his house and, incredulous as it may seem, sleeping in his car for the best part of 41 nights.  It is therefore hard to accept that the Respondent did not go to the races on the day of the breach with any other intention, but to break the Rules.

[47] It is of further concern that the Respondent when confronted by the Racing Investigator, justified his offending by referring to unnamed racing colleagues who he submitted that “I was well aware as others were, that other trainers and staff had done the same”.  This claim is rejected by the RIB (refer paragraph 38).  There is no evidence before this Committee to support that assertion and on that basis very limited weight can be given to it.  Further, even if they were some elements of truth in the claim, it does not reduce the Respondent’s level of culpability and rather than pointing the finger at others he must accept accountability for his own wrongdoing.

[48] Despite the considerable effort Clubs and volunteers to provide for the continuance of racing, in his submission the Respondent was critical of the fact that there were not enough people available to care for all the horses at the races.  He submitted that he and other trainers were well aware of the number of horses that had been injured in the tie-up stalls because of the lack of people to care for them on the race days.  It is unfortunate that the Respondent and the other Trainers did not work together to find alternative solutions.  However, this concern does not necessarily mitigate the Respondent’s liability.

The Respondent’s personal circumstances

[49] The Respondent has spent much of his working life working in the Racing Industry.  In his submission he advised that he has a partner and they are expecting their first child in June.  He said that he is finding training financially tough going and he trying to his best for his Owners.

[50] The Respondent has 14 horses in training.   If he was to be disqualified for this breach there would be far reaching consequences for his Owners, his family and the placement of his horses.

[51] The Respondent submitted that he was truly sorry for the breach.

Precedent cases  – the desirability for consistency

[52] As alluded to at paragraph [43] there is now one precedent case in New Zealand (RIB v Hewetson) which established as a starting point a fine of $3000.

[53] There are also a number of reported cases, in Australia and in the United Kingdom.  Some of these are set out below and are helpful for benchmarking purposes albeit they were dealt with in different racing jurisdictions:

29/07/21 – (NSW) Trainer John Sarah breached Covid protocols by attending trackwork at Warwick Farm on 29/07/21 and 30/07/21 when displaying Covid-like symptoms and he and his horses were in a restricted lockdown area.  Later was fond to be positive to Covid-19.  He pleaded guilty, cooperated, had a good record and was suspended for 12 months.

00.08/21 – (NSW) Trainers John Thompson and Craig Carmondy breached Covid protocols and were each fined $18,750.

00/09/21 (NSW) Trainer Anthony Cummings attended 2 race meetings in breach of NSW Racing Covid policy.  Fined $15,000.

08/01/21 – (Ireland) Trainer Brian McMahon took two horses to race meetings outside his restricted area.  He was suspended 3 months and fined 1000 pounds.

00/05/21 – (Ireland) Trainer Jessica Harrington breached Covid guidelines by attending the Grand National meeting which was outside her ~Irish bubble”.  She was fined 3,500 (pound) and prohibited from attending racecourses for 2 weeks.

[54] Also, for comparison purposes it is worth mentioning the now infamous case of the couple (William Willis and Hannah Rawnsley), who fled Auckland, when in lockdown and travelled to Wānaka have now appeared in court and have been sentenced.  Although they were charged in open court under criminal jurisdiction the two significant points about that decision insofar as this matter is concerned are that:  (1) Both Willis, and Rawnsley, pleaded guilty to failing to comply with an order under the Covid-19 Public Health Response Act, which carries a maximum punishment of six months’ prison and a $4000 fine.  Willis was fined $750 and Rawnsley was discharged without conviction and order to donate $500 to a charity within 14 days. (2) Judge Davidson said, according to open-source media reports, that the couple both had clean records and were remorseful. He deemed a conviction would be “an unfair mark against” Rawnsley, with Willis as the leader in the offending.

Fine, Suspension or Disqualification

[55] The penalty options provided by the Rules include a fine not exceeding $20,000 (and/or); 12 months suspension (and/or); 12 months disqualification and as has already been indicated these penalties reflect the serious nature of the offence.

[56] The Respondent, as a Licensed Trainer, is bound by the provisions of Rule (101(1)) which provides that the Rules apply to all matters connected with Racing, and are binding on, all Licensed Persons; any other person working in or about any Racing Stable or Racecourse or care, and all Owners.

[57] If a disqualification was to be imposed it would result in the Respondent being unable a) to train any horse or ride any horse in a Race or be employed in any capacity in connection with the training or racing of horses; and/or (b) enter or go upon any Racecourse or any Training Facility or other place owned or controlled by any Club or by any consortium or other entity of which a Club is a member or in which it is a participant; and/or (c) have an interest in any horse as Owner or Lessee.

[58] Given that the Respondent lives and works in a racing establishment; his horses are trained and cared for on the property, a disqualification, if imposed, will have serious consequences not only for him but also for his owners.  Therefore, in the circumstances of this case a penalty including a disqualification would have disproportionate consequences; thus, is not considered a practical option.

[59] A suspension of the Respondent’s Trainers License would also have significant ramifications, including making alternative training arrangement for his horses.  Therefore, a penalty including a suspension would also have disproportionate consequences for not only the Respondent but also his Owners.

[60] Hence, a fine would be the least restrictive penalty in terms of the Respondents offending.

The preservation of public trust and confidence in the integrity of Racing.

[61] The implications of COVID-19 over the past 2 years have reached far and wide across all sectors, businesses and sporting bodies.  The Racing Codes have been in a privileged position, compared to other sporting codes (i.e., NPC Rugby and Netball, for example).  Racing has been able to continue throughout the country, with limited exceptions, due to the Codes having promulgated stringent operating Covid-19 protocols.

[62] For essential reasons the protocols placed a number of restrictions and obligations on License-holders and other Industry participants.  In order for these restrictions to be operationalised many Clubs, Officials, Trainers, Riders, Stable Staff, Trackwork Riders, Owners and others behind the scenes have worked tirelessly and made many sacrifices.

[63] This has enabled the Industry to operate on a model involving a high level of trust, cooperation, goodwill and strict adherence to the required policies and standards. Such has there been a high level of compliance that, to date, there has only been this and one other breach, so far, referred  to be dealt with by way of prosecution.  This is a credit to all involved in the Industry and demonstrates that by dint of hard work and professionalism what can be achieved in such testing times and under exigent circumstances.

[64] Given this background it is important for the preservation of public trust and confidence in the integrity of Racing that a deterrent penalty that denounces the Respondents offending is imposed.

The starting point

[65] In consideration of the above factors, and consistent with the RIB v Hewetson decision a fine of $3000 is the starting point.

Mitigating factors

[66] The Respondent admitted the breach at the first available opportunity.

[67] The Respondent agreed to have the charge(s) dealt with on the papers, thus reducing hearing costs.

[68] The Respondent has a clear record. 

[69] The Respondent said in his submission that he was truly sorry.

Aggravating factors

[70] The breach is a serious racing offence. Despite the Respondent’s claim to the contrary, i.e., that he had no intention of breaching the protocol, the breach is characterised as being deliberate and calculated act.

[71] The breach placed at risk the hard work and sacrifices made to ensure racing has been able to continue through the various Covid Levels.  Thus, this breach had the potential to compromise the continuance of Racing throughout New Zealand.

Penalty

[72] The Applicant has suggested the matter can be dealt with by way of a monetary penalty but did not offer a submission at to what the RIB deemed would be an appropriate fine.

[73] This case is distinguishable from Hewetson who is an Unlicensed Trackwork Rider, whereas the Respondent is a Licensed Trainer.  Being Licensed is not a right and it comes with many privileges.  As such a higher standard of care and responsibility is expected of a Licensed Trainer, particularly in terms of the health and safety of his racing colleagues and the wider Community.

[74] In keeping with the core principle behind the Covid Directive, the Respondent as a Trainer, is expected to demonstrate leadership and appropriate self-management to ensure that the required standards are met. On this occasion the Respondent’s actions fell below the requisite standards.

[75] After weighing up the circumstances of the breach; consideration various submissions and the mitigating and aggravating factors personal to the Respondent a fine of $2700 is imposed.  This represents a $300 (10%) downward adjustment to the starting point in consideration of his guilty plea, good record and for agreeing to having the matter dealt with on the papers.

CONCLUSIONS:

[76] The Respondent is fined $2700.

Costs

[77] Because this matter was dealt with ‘on the papers’ there will be no order as to costs.

G R Jones (Chair)

 

 

Appendix A

NZTR COVID-19 Latest Updates

NZTR

3 October 2021

The Government announced this afternoon that Hamilton, Raglan, and some northern Waikato areas will move to Covid Alert Level 3 at 11.59pm tonight for five days due to positive cases in these areas.

NZTR and TAB NZ have met today to discuss the logistical issues regarding the conduct of racing over the next week given the change in alert levels and impacts this may have on our racing program including movement of staff and participants.  Both parties are working through a number of scenarios and further information will be provided in the next 24 hours.

Trainers, Jockeys, other licence-holders, or owners subject to government defined Alert Level 3 movement controls may not leave the area to attend race or trial meetings, or training activities.  Horses may be floated to meetings, provided that arrangements for care and handling have been made.

NZTR would like to re-iterate the Government messages around the importance of vaccinations to protect ourselves and the industry going forward.

7 October 2021

As at Thursday 7 October 4:00pm

Earlier this afternoon, the New Zealand Government announced that additional areas of the Waikato region will move to Alert Level 3 at 11:59pm tonight (Thursday), with this to be reviewed on Monday 11 October.

Notably, this new Waikato Alert Level 3 area now encompasses Cambridge, but not Matamata.

Impact on race meetings and trials

• The Taupo trials, scheduled for Friday 8 October, have been postponed, with a new date to be advised in coming days
• The Timaru race meeting, scheduled for Friday 8 October, will proceed as scheduled
• The Matamata race meeting, scheduled for Saturday 9 October, will proceed as scheduled
• The Hawera race meeting, scheduled for Saturday 9 October, will proceed as scheduled
• The Invercargill race meeting, scheduled for Sunday 10 October, will proceed as scheduled

Vaccination certificates

• Earlier in the week, the New Zealand Government announced that vaccination certificates are likely to be key to attending major events from November
• We expect that vaccination certificates will therefore be required to attend our racing events, making it more important than ever that both racing participants and enthusiasts get vaccinated as soon as possible, to ensure that they will both be able to participate in and attend racedays

Permanent relocation

(Following feedback – please note that below is provided as guidance with respect to the current government laws relating to permanent or long-term relocation from within an Alert Level 3 region to an Alert Level 2 region; and does not apply when a person is moving from a Level 2 region to another Level 2 region)

Last week, the Government announced that people inside an Alert Level 3 area could leave that area, in some circumstances, if they were relocating their principal residence on a permanent or long-term basis.

NZTR believes that where a person has genuinely relocated, they ought to be able to participate in thoroughbred racing, but also believes that participants outside Alert Level 3 areas are entitled to some assurance that such participation will be safe.

In striking a balance between those considerations, NZTR has reached the following position.

A person who relocates their primary residence outside of an Alert Level 3 area will be allowed to participate in the industry without restriction, provided the person has:

• Relocated in accordance with the Government’s travel permission – i.e., they have relocated on a permanent or long-term basis because they are starting a new job, attending tertiary education, or have bought or are renting a new principal home or place of residence; and
• Successfully crossed the Alert Level boundaries in accordance with Government requirements – at the time of writing, this includes carrying evidence of their relocation such as a tenancy agreement or utilities bill at their new address, and presenting a negative Covid-19 test within 72 hours of crossing the border; and
• Notified NZTR in writing once they have arrived at their new destination; and
• Before attending a race meeting, notified NZTR that they have either:
  • received at least one vaccination against Covid-19; or
  • been advised that they are medically unable to be vaccinated; or 
  • returned a negative test for Covid-19 since relocating.

NZTR has been advised by the Government that travel for the purpose of relocation is not intended to enable temporary relocation or routine cross-border travel. NZTR’s expectation is that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, a person who has relocated their primary residence out of an Alert Level 3 region will not return to the region while it remains at Alert Level 3.

 

Refer – 29 October 2021 COVID-19 EMERGENCY REGULATIONS – ALERT LEVEL 2

Refer – August 2021 COVID-19 EMERGENCY REGULATIONS – ALERT LEVEL 3