The Greyhound Racing Association has filed an interim application ahead of a judicial review after the Government's announcemen it plans to ban greyhound racing from August next year. Photo / 123rf
The Greyhound Racing Association has filed an interim application ahead of a judicial review after the Government's announcemen it plans to ban greyhound racing from August next year. Photo / 123rf
Greyhound racers attempting to stop work on the Government’s moves to ban the sport, say the decision focused too much on injuries and failed to adequately take into account the industry’s improvements to animal welfare.
The Greyhound Racing Association, which represents those engaged in the code, has sought atemporary order from the High Court to stop work progressing on the ban ahead of a judicial review of the Government’s decision, which is expected to be heard in March next year.
In December, the Government announced its intention to ban greyhound racing from August 2026, as a result of ongoing concerns about animal welfare and three reviews of the industry, which recommended significant change.
A Ministerial Advisory Committee was appointed to look at the process in detail and make recommendations on how the industry should be wound down, ahead of legislation being passed.
Christopher Finlayson, KC, who represents the NZ Greyhound Racing Association. Photo / Catherine Hutton
The committee has been working with representatives of the greyhound racing sector, rehoming agencies, animal welfare groups and government agencies to find practical solutions.
Today, Christopher Finlayson, KC, representing the association, told the court this was not a case where the association was seeking to interfere in the parliamentary process.
Instead, it was about the steps being taken by the committee in some respects to give value to a decision before it had been legislated.
He said the decision would destroy people’s livelihoods in relation to an activity that had existed for 100 years and was both lawful and heavily scrutinised.
Cabinet’s decision had been made without all the facts, he argued.
Katherine Anderson, KC, (left) and Emma Dowse, representing the Attorney-General on behalf of the Minister for Racing. Photo / Catherine Hutton.
Finlayson submitted the information in the Cabinet paper focused on very selective injury data, ignoring the extensive work programme undertaken by the Racing Integrity Board (RIB) and Greyhound Racing New Zealand (GRNZ) to address the concerns expressed in the earlier reviews.
Work to improve the welfare of greyhounds has been closely monitored by the RIB, he said.
The court heard those improvements included an increase in spending. In 2013, GRNZ spent 2% of its budget on animal welfare; last year, that had increased to 22%, with further work planned for the future.
As a result, the court heard GRNZ now exceeded, by a considerable margin, the standards that had been identified in the earlier reviews. Greyhound racing now led the way in its welfare programmes across the three racing codes, Finlayson said.
“The decision made by Cabinet was a welfare decision based on injuries and that’s the basis on which the analysis has been undertaken.”
Injury rates unlikely to reduce
Katherine Anderson, KC, representing the Attorney-General on behalf of the Minister for Racing, told the court the decision was a political one that had been well signalled.
She said there was a broad contention that greyhound racing was in decline in the five countries where commercial greyhound racing was permitted, including New Zealand.
She referred to affidavits prepared for the court, which suggested the lack of certainty about the future of greyhound racing, coupled with the ongoing reviews and a lack of a clear political direction, had already impacted confidence in the industry well before Cabinet made its decision.
Anderson said it was also RIB’s view that greyhound injury rates were unlikely to significantly reduce because of changes to governance and regulation.
Finally, she said the advisory committee had delivered its report to Parliament, advising on the legislative requirements.
“Clearly their work is linked to the development of the legislation. Their main substantive task has been completed,” she said.
Justice Dale La Hood reserved his decision, inviting parties to file further submissions on the non-legislative work of the committee that is relevant to the hearing.
Catherine Hutton is an Open Justice reporter, based in Wellington. She has worked as a journalist for 20 years, including at the Waikato Times and RNZ. Most recently she was working as a media adviser at the Ministry of Justice.
