In Australia, animal racing is regulated in each of the different states and territories via respective state or territory acts of parliament. There is variation in the number of racing codes operating in each Australian state/territory and in the regulatory models employed. Most states/territories conduct all three codes of racing (greyhound, harness and thoroughbred), with separate racing codes each being controlled via a split regulatory body model (with separate control bodies responsible for the integrity and commercial functions) being pre-dominant). Three states of Australia operate under a tri-code regulatory model, where all three codes of racing are regulated by either a single regulatory entity or by split regulatory bodies. Queensland, the largest of the tri-code racing regulatory body states, operates a split regulatory body model, with an integrity arm that is separate from the commercial body, while both Western Australia and Tasmania operate as single entity, tri-code regulatory bodies. Unlike the five states of Australia, where all three codes of racing are conducted, the two Australian territories only have two codes of racing operating in each (harness and thoroughbred racing in the Australian Capital Territory, and greyhound and thoroughbred racing in the Northern Territory).
This paper will explore the advantages and drawbacks of each model of racing regulation with a focus on the tri-code model, as experienced through the eyes of a veterinary racing regulator.