Much to the dismay of the 1000+ people nationally who work in the industry, and whose endeavours contribute an estimated $150 million+ annually to the economy, the government is proposing to ban greyhound racing.
It was not like the code did not have an inkling this was coming. Successive ministers of racing — including now University of Otago vice chancellor Grant Robertson, who ordered a review of the sport in 2021 — have faced a barrage of animal welfare concerns due to the rate of dogs getting injured or dying in pursuit of the lure.
That it was, and the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill unanimously passed its first reading in November last year — although Act New Zealand expressed concerns about infringement on personal property rights.
Parliament weighed up those concerns against the 16 race-related or euthanasia deaths in the 2024-25 season and came down on the side of the pooches.
Greyhound racing is not going down without a fight, however, and dozens of trainers and supporters were poised and ready for Monday’s hearing to defend their sport.
One of the fastest out of the traps was Bronwyn Eade, the secretary/manager of the Southland and the Otago Greyhound Racing Clubs.
She told the committee, which includes Waitaki National MP Miles Anderson, that greyhound racing had — literally — been her life. Quite apart from her current job, she had been a trainer, her late husband had been a trainer, and their children had all been brought up surrounded by the greyhounds they had bred and raced.
She called the Ascot Park track a community facility, built by the community and done so with animal welfare in mind: its single wide bend rather than the tight corners of other tracks made it one of the safest going around, she said.
The club ran 52 race meetings a year and each race day employed a dozen people in various roles. Economically, the club was worth about $8m a year to the Southland economy, but Eade’s highly personal tale spoke of a greater intangible value to many people.
Which is all very well, but on the other side of the track are those concerned with the tangible harm it may be doing to the dogs.
One of the ironies of this debate is that both sides love greyhounds, and neither side wishes them any harm.
However, despite the emotional efforts of Bronwyn Eade and others, their sometimes tearful submissions were met with equally as passionate submissions from those who wish to see the sport banned.
Arguably the most significant voice against is that of the SPCA, which sent chief scientific officer Dr Arnja Dale, and senior scientific officer Dr Alison Vaughan to the capital to plead for the bunny to stop rolling ASAP.
Although several of those on the pro-racing side had pleaded for at least a delay in the introduction of a ban if they could not save their sport, the SPCA representatives felt that stopping racing as soon as possible was essential from an animal welfare point of view.
Dr Dale said the SPCA had spent more than a decade engaging in good faith with the greyhound racing industry on safety issues and felt progress had been far too slow. She cited the example of a pledge to introduce safer straight track racing: only one such track was now in operation, and racing did not start there until seven years after bringing in such tracks was recommended.
The number of serious injuries and deaths showed industry reform was not working, and public concern over greyhound welfare — as demonstrated by the SPCA’s own surveys — suggested a ban had wide support.
It certainly has parliamentary support, so in racing parlance greyhound racing is a rank outsider to win this race.
Which leaves several unanswered questions: Why should the TAB be able to take bets on a sport banned here but ongoing elsewhere in the world? What happens to all those dogs, and those who look after them?
And perhaps most difficult of all, if it is going to ban greyhound racing, what argument does the government have when — as will assuredly happen — calls to ban the much more socially acceptable horse racing become more vociferous?
Fight, fight, fight
Now, I would be the very last person to tell you that politics in the South is boring — I have had no problems finding something interesting to write about every week in the five-plus years Southern Say has been a fixture in the ODT.
That said, electoral politics is a challenging topic to write about, given that it is hardly a mystery as to which party will win each seat south of the Waitaki: flipping is the exception rather than the norm.
However, there may now actually be a genuine contest in the South, with news that the Greens will run a two-tick campaign in the seat of Dunedin.
Whether their candidate, Francisco Hernandez, actually believes he has a genuine chance of overturning sitting Labour MP Rachel Brooking’s sizable majority is a moot point. He will be behaving like he can, and that can only be of benefit to him and the Greens — and only be a right pain for Labour and Brooking.
Dunedin has been a dependable and rich source of party votes for the Greens: since 2008 at least 5000, and in 2023 a whopping 11,449. That was just 2711 party votes behind Labour.
Even though the electorate vote margin between the two was much greater, Hernandez had not been campaigning to win the seat. Given the strength of the Green’s campus branch, it is not inconceivable that with a determined push he could give Brooking a real fright.
But being flanked on her left is not Brooking’s only concern. National has yet to select a Dunedin candidate, but should it come up with a good one that person could be the beneficiary if the left-leaning vote splits.
Even if Hernandez fails in his bid to win Dunedin there is still plenty of upside for him and his neighbouring MP Scott Willis in Taieri. Both came in to Parliament in 2023 from mid-table placings on the Green list, and a high-profile electorate campaign would also likely boost the party votes each would likely need to retain their place in the House.
Fire up the popcorn maker: this one is going to be a terrific watch.
