Non Raceday Inquiry Written Decision dated 29 December 2021 – Gemma Hewetson

EVIDENCE:

Introduction

[1] This penalty decision deals with an Information (No A16404) filed against Gemma Hewetson (“the Respondent”) alleging she breached 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 Policy / Protocols.  The Respondent is an Owner and Unlicensed Trackwork Rider.

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’. Prior to the hearing the Respondent indicated in writing to the Committee I agree to the penalty being decided on the summary of facts without my attendance and the hearing proceeded on that basis.

[3] The Committee was provided with and perused relevant documents including Information Number A16404, 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 A16404 alleges that:

On the 16th November 2021 at Rotorua, attended the NZTR race meeting at Arawa Park, that  Gemma HEWETSON an Unlicensed Trackwork Rider and licensed Owner, failed to comply with a notice by NZTR subject to government defined “COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020” regarding alert level 3 movement controls by leaving her residence in the Waikato District level 3 and travelled to the Rotorua Area level 2 in breach of New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing Rule 802(1)(a) and is therefore subject to the penalty or penalties which may be imposed pursuant to Rules 803(1) of the said Rules.

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.

Furthermore, at page 5 of the Directive (the Definition Section) it provides:

1.1 For the purpose of this Directive: Meeting means a race or trial meeting, or jumpouts where these are run over set distances; Stable staff means any person working for a licensed trainer, whether paid or unpaid, and includes freelance track-riders.

1.2 Any term used in this Directive shall have the meaning given to it in the Rules of Racing unless the context requires otherwise.

2. Meetings

2.1 Admission to Meetings

(a) Nobody shall be admitted to a racecourse when a Meeting is in progress, except for:

(i) Licensed trainers with horses entered at the Meeting;

(ii) Licensed stable staff employed by trainers with horses entered at the Meeting (including horse float drivers whether the horse float is a trainer’s or a float company), if that employee’s or person’s presence at the racecourse:

NZTR Rules of Racing

In addition to the Directive (as outlined above), Section 101 (1) of the Racing Rules makes clear that the Rules shall apply to all Races, Race Meetings and all matters connected with racing, and shall apply to and be binding on (c) all Licensed Persons; and (d) any other person working in or about any racing stable or Racecourse or care, control or management of horses etc.

The Rules also all apply to and are binding on all Owners.

On that basis there is no doubt whatsoever that the Respondent is captured by the Rules either in her capacity as a part-owner in the horse MORE THAN WORDS or as an unlicensed trackwork rider.

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] During a teleconference on 23 December 2021 the Respondent confirmed:

1. That she admits the breach;
2. That she does not wish to be present at the hearing; and
3. That she consents to the charge being heard ‘on the papers’.

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

The facts of this matter are summarised as follows:

[9] The Respondent, Gemma Kate HEWETSON, is an Unlicensed Trackwork Rider and an Owner approved by New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (NZTR).

[10] Her partner,  is a Licensed Class A Trainer, his license having been issued by NZTR. They both reside at the same address located in the Waikato District at Rotorangi.

[11] On the 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 of 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 the 16 day of November 2021, the Respondent attended the Racing Rotorua race meeting held at Arawa Park.

[16] The Respondent travelled from her Rotorangi address which at that time was in Alert Level 3 to the Rotorua race meeting.  Rotorua at the time was in Alert Level 2.  She then returned to her home in Rotorangi.

[17] The Respondent was approached by a Stipendiary Steward and was questioned as to what she was doing at the races.  In response she said that a horse she part owns had raced and explained that it is a very difficult horse to handle and she didn’t want anyone else to have to deal with it as everyone is so busy.

[18] The Respondent said she had not left the barn area and that someone else took the horse in to the parade ring for the race.

[19] The Respondent was advised that under Government and NZTR level 3 protocols that she was in lockdown and therefore not permitted to be on-course due to her L3 address and the L2 setting in Rotorua.

[20] The Respondent said she was sorry she was and reiterated her horse was difficult to handle.  She started crying and was visibly upset.

[21] On Thursday 18 November 2021 the Respondent was further spoken to by a Racing Investigator and she fully admitted breaching the NZTR protocols. In explanation she stated that she Just decided to go to the race meeting anyway because it was a difficult horse for anyone else to handle.

[22] Subsequent enquiries revealed that she was is an Unlicensed Trackwork Rider.

[23] The horse that raced at Arawa Park that day was called MORE THAN WORDS which she shared in the ownership.

[24] The Respondent has been involved in the Thoroughbred Racing Industry all her adult life and has not previously breach the Rules of Racing.

REASON FOR DECISION:

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

SUBMISSIONS FOR PENALTY:

Penalty Submission – Applicant

Mr Westerlund, on behalf of the  RIB, provided written penalty submissions.  These are summarised as follows:

[26] The Respondent is an Unlicensed Trackwork Rider and Owner under the New Zealand Rules of Thoroughbred Racing.  She is operating as an Unlicensed Trackwork Rider on the basis that she was previously Licensed, and she failed to relicense by the 1 August 2021. She has been involved in the Thoroughbred Racing Industry all her adult life.

[27] The Respondent has admitted the breach, details of which are contained in the agreed Summary of Facts.

[28] The penalties which may be imposed are fully detailed in the Penalty Provisions relating to the Rule (refer paragraph 7).

Sentencing principles

The principles of sentencing relevant to this charge can be summarised as follows:

[29] 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.

[30] In a racing context it is extremely important that a penalty has the effect of deterring others from committing similar offences.

[31] A penalty should also reflect the disapproval of the JCA (now RIB) for the type of offending in question.

Precedents

[32] 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 of the day to weigh up all the facts and submissions in arriving at a fitting penalty.

[33] This is the first COVID-19 breach within any of the three Racing codes that has come before a Tribunal and that there are no precedent decisions to reference in 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.

[34] The ‘COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 (Alert Level Requirements)’ has resulted in charges laid by Police for breaching Auckland Border, the majority of these are adjourned until March 2022, (the exception being the recent sent imposed on William Willis and Hannah Rawnsley – refer paragraph 59).

[35] The most recent case relating to a breach of a Directive under the same Rule is:

RIU v J Oliver (October 2020) – Failing to comply with a directive given to rider by a Stipendiary Steward. Penalty Imposed: 8 days suspension and $1000.

Mitigating factors

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

[37] That the Respondent has been fully co-operative throughout the process.

[38] That the Respondent has been involved in the Racing Industry all her adult life.

[39] That the Respondent has a blemish free record of offending against or breaching of the Rules of Racing.

Aggravating factors

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

[41] That Alert Levels were issued by the NZ government to avoid significant health risks to the New Zealand Community. By breaching these Rules, she has potentially put herself, her family, and colleagues at risk from a deadly disease.

[42] That flagrant disregard of the NZTR Notices is detrimental to the Industry.

Conclusion         

[43] 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.

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

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

[46] 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.

[47] 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

[48] The Respondent provided written penalty submissions.  These are summarised as follows:

“On 16 November 2021 I attended Rotorua races with a horse I have a share in, named MORE THAN WORDS.  I was residing in alert level 3, while Rotorua was in alert level 2.

I had been double vaccinated for over the two-week immunity period and Waikato was due to move to level 3 at midnight.

My horse cannot be left unattended at the races as she can flip over in the tie ups and even in the box if left alone. Emily Farr strapped her and I held on to her before and after she raced, staying in the barn area only.

Strappers were so busy that I saw horses being left in boxes straight after they raced while strappers ran to get saddles for the next race. From an animal welfare point of view, it is not really acceptable, especially as it was a warm day.

I am very sorry for my actions as racing was lucky to be able to continue. I chose to go to the races that day purely for my horse’s welfare”.

REASON FOR PENALTY:

Determination of Penalty starting point

[49] 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 her 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.

[50] In addition, 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 her 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.

The facts of the breach

[51] The particular facts of the breach, as set in the Summary of Facts (refer paragraphs 10 to 25), are not disputed.  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 her level of culpability

[52] This breach can only be characterised as a deliberate act.  It was not the result of an error or mistake as the Respondent’s decision to attend the race meeting at Rotorua was a deliberate and calculated.  She knew that she was not permitted to attend but did so on the basis, in her mind, that she was the only person available to handle her horse.

[53] The Respondent submitted she was concerned for the welfare of her horse, but knew full well that the horse was being cared for on-course by her Strapper, Ms Emily Farr.  Ms Farr is a very accomplished horsewoman and a successful Jumps Rider.  It seems inconceivable that having been entrusted with responsibility for strapping the horse, and given her considerable experience that Ms Farr would have been unable to provide the necessary care.

[54] The Respondent, according to her submission, had concerns about her horse’s welfare prior to leaving home.  Perhaps rather than taking was a considerable risk in travelling from her home, whilst  in L 3, to Rotorua races, she ought to have consulted her concerns about the horse’s welfare with the Trainer, who she resides with.  In doing so, options could have been considered and a viable solution put in place to overcome the need for her to travel to Rotorua races in breach of the Covid Directive.

The Respondents personal circumstances

[55] The Respondent has spent her entire working life in the Racing Industry.

[56] Her partner is a Licensed Trainer; they live on the property and she is an Unlicensed Trackwork Rider. If she were to be disqualified for this breach there would be far reaching consequences.

[57] The Respondent submitted that at the time of the breach she was had been double vaccinated for more than two weeks.  When spoken to by Stipendiary Stewards at the racecourse she cried and was visibly upset at having been apprehended.

Precedent cases  – the desirability for consistency

[58] There are no precedent decisions within any of the racing codes in New Zealand relating to COVID-19 breaches.  However, a number of cases have been publicised, via open-source media reports, in Australia and in the United Kingdom.  These are set out below and are helpful for benchmarking purposes albeit they were dealt with in different racing jurisdictions:

27/08/21 – (Victoria) Riders Brown, Gaudry, Kahand and Melham breached Covid protocols by attending a party together (Mark Zahra was later charged with same offence).  After pleading guilty stewards acknowledged it was their first breach and took into account their personal circumstances; that any suspension would result in them missing feature meetings; that they expressed remorse for the serious breach and the ramifications for Victoria Racing, each rider was suspended for 3 months.  In the written decision it was made clear that compliance with Covid protocols were non-negotiable.

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.

00/08/21 (NSW) Apprentice Rider Tom Sherry rode trackwork whilst awaiting results of a Covid teat.  Suspended 4 months.

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.

[59] Furthermore, 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.

[60] In their submission the Applicant on behalf of the RIB referred to one case, namely: RIU v J Oliver (October 2020) – Failing to comply with a directive given to rider by a Stipendiary Steward. Penalty Imposed: 8 days suspension and $1000.  The Committee has had the opportunity of perusing the Oliver decision and the only similarity with this matter is that both Oliver and this Respondent have been charged under the same Rule.  The circumstances are quite different and whereas the cases highlighted above are helpful, the Oliver decision does not really assist in determining an appropriate penalty in this case other than pointed to the fact that a combined suspension and fine is an option.

Fine, Suspension or Disqualification

[61] 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 been alluded to these penalties reflect the serious nature of the offence.

[62] The Respondent is captured by the Rules (s.101 (1)) by virtue of the fact the that the Rules apply 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.

[63] 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.

[64] Given that the Respondent lives and works in a racing establishment; she rides trackwork (albeit unlicensed) and horses are trained on the property, a disqualification, if imposed, will have serious ramifications for her and potentially her partner and owners of horses in training and under care on the property.  Accordingly, in the circumstances of this case a disqualification would be a disproportionate penalty and therefore is not considered a practical option.

[65] A suspension of the Respondent’s trackwork riders license would also have ramifications, but would not be so severe.  But, consideration of suspension in this case is problematic.  The Respondent’s Trackwork Riders License expired on 1 August 2020.  Therefore, in a practical sense, she is now an unlicensed person who should not be riding trackwork in any circumstances, and in effect she has no current license to suspend.

[66] A fine may create some financial hardship but would be the least restrictive penalty in terms of the Respondents offending.

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

[67] 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.

[68] 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.

[69] 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.

[70] 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

[71] In consideration of the above factors a fine of $3000 is the starting point.  But for the fact she is an Unlicensed Trackwork Rider, a 6-week suspension would have been seriously considered in addition to a fine.

[72] As indicated at paragraph [65] disqualification was considered to be disproportionally harsh given its implications and the Respondent’s personal circumstances.

Mitigating factors

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

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

[75] The Respondent has a clear record. 

[76] The Respondent has demonstrated remorse and apologised for her actions.

Aggravating factors

[77] The breach is a serious racing offence which was a deliberate and selfish act that was clearly wrong and avoidable.

[78] 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, it had the potential to compromise the continuance of racing throughout New Zealand.

[79] Although the Respondent was double vaccinated; the breach was committed with limited regard to the health and safety of other racing participants who attended the Rotorua race meeting.

Penalty

[80] 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.

[81] After weighing up the circumstances of the breach; consideration various submissions and the mitigating and aggravating factors personal to the Respondent a $600 (20%) downward adjustment is made to the starting point resulting in a fine of $2400.

CONCLUSIONS:

[82] The Respondent is fined $2400.

Costs

[83] 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