Racing Minister Winston Peters has ordered a halt to greyhound racing from August 2026. Photo: PHOTOSPORT
Lawyers for the Greyhound Racing Association have told the High Court in Wellington that the ban on greyhound racing will have a devastating effect on the livelihoods of more than 1000 people.
Last December, Racing Minister Winston Peters announced the sport would be banned from August 2026.
On Thursday, the association argued in court that the work of a ministerial advisory committee tasked with implementing the ban should be stopped, until a judicial review of the legislation was heard.
Govt ignored industry improvements in animal welfare
Lawyer Chris Finlayson said the government had erred in directing the industry to monitor and improve animal welfare standards, only to ignore the results in cabinet's decision-making process.
The court was told the racing industry had engaged with three reviews of the sport in just over a decade and had consistently shown willingness to comply with directives to improve animal welfare, and controls surrounding injuries and deaths, as well as track standards and rehoming initiatives.
He said the cabinet paper - on which the decision to ban the sport was based - was "misleading" and a "very selective characterisation" of the key issues facing cabinet, which he argued was the industry's animal welfare standards, not the erosion of public license - society's acceptance of the practices of the sport.
Welfare standards applied with 'more rigour than pet dogs'
Finlayson said the government - after directing the industry to undertake a statutory process and then "blandly ignore it" - contradicted its obligation to consider the expertise of the industry in legislating towards the sport.
Lawyers for the Greyhound Racing Association (left to right) Chris Finlayson KC and Jonathan Kaye at the High Court in Wellington. Photo: RNZ/Bill Hickman
"The standard of animal welfare of greyhound racing is high," Finlayson said. "It aligns with the standards in other jurisdictions and is applied with significantly more rigour than pet dogs."
Finlayson said the uncertainty over the recommendations of the ministerial advisory committee's plan to wind down the sport was resulting in members of the industry leaving the country before the ban, a collapse in breeding numbers and serious mental-health issues in participants of the industry.
He argued, after the ban, New Zealanders could still bet on Australian dog races, which had "equal or lesser" animal welfare standards than Aotearoa's racing industry.
No jurisdiction to stop legislative process
Counsel for the Attorney General - acting on behalf of the Minister of Racing - said interim relief application was "fundamentally premised on a need to stop the legislation".
Lawyer Katherine Anderson said the action, if successful, "would frustrate the introduction of the bill to Parliament".
She said it was "undeniably clear" the court could not make an order to prevent the introduction of a bill.
"It's very clear that the applicant fundamentally [says] the decision is wrong and is attempting to draw you in."
She said it was up to the Minister to decide "how and if" parties would be consulted before the bill was put to Parliament.
Lawyers for the Attorney General - acting on behalf of the Minister of Racing - (left to right) Katherine Anderson and Emma Dowse at the High Court in Wellington. Photo: RNZ/Bill Hickman
"There's no straight jacket on the minister to go to the racing industry saying, 'Is there a ban on greyhound racing that's required on welfare grounds?'.
"They've been elected to make policy decisions and, if people don't like it, they can be un-elected," Anderson said.
Throughout proceedings, Judge Dale La Hood pressed the Greyhound Racing Association's counsel to clarify how the action would benefit the industry, if it's success was not to prevent the ban.
"You need to explain to me... what you're seeking to have... stopped, other than preventing a ban on greyhound racing. I don't know if I understand what the benefit of interim relief would be to your client, if it doesn't halt the ban.
"That's crucial to my decision on whether you've got a case," La Hood said.
Finlayson said he would undertake to clarify his client's intent in a memorandum to the judge after the day's proceedings.
Judge La Hood reserved his decision.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
