The way NZ treats animals is a race to the bottom

acing Minister Winston Peters’ decision to ban greyhound racing from 2026 was both courageous and evidence-led. It is a rare good news story for anyone who cares about the interests of animals, and warrants celebration. It was also astonishingly overdue, and successive governments’ delay in arriving at the only logical conclusion speaks volumes about how we regulate animal use in this country, or as in this case, fail to regulate.

In the past decade alone, there have been not one, not two, but three reports commissioned into the greyhound racing industry. In 2013, in response to a petition presented to Parliament, the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association (NZGRA) commissioned its own report, which found numerous issues with the industry and provided recommendations for reform.

Four years later, the New Zealand Racing Board – which oversees all three racing codes in the country (thoroughbred, harness and greyhounds) – commissioned a report by distinguished judge Rodney Hansen KC. He found that while there had been efforts by NZGRA to implement the recommendations of the 2013 report, there were unacceptably high rates of injuries, dog euthanasia and ‘unaccounted-for’ dogs.

Another four years later, yet another distinguished judge, Sir Bruce Robertson, was commissioned by then-racing minister Grant Robertson to conduct an independent review of the industry. He noted that despite the passage of 10 years, “Frustratingly, while the symptoms are different, the fundamental issues within the industry remain the same.” He agreed with Rodney Hansen that greyhound racing was “inherently dangerous” and concluded that:

“An unrelenting focus on data recording, transparency of all activities, and animal welfare generally could see this industry continue despite vocal pressure. If these factors, for any reason, cannot be significantly improved, the industry will cease to have the social licence necessary for its existence.”

Upon receiving the report, Robertson said “I want to be clear today – the greyhound racing industry is on notice: either make the improvements needed or risk closure”. And so, almost another four years later, when those improvements weren’t forthcoming, the risk has materialised.

No one should be surprised. Then-minister of racing Keiran McAnulty, told the industry last year it was “on thin ice” after another report indicated it was “no longer viable”. A few months later the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition agreed in an election leaders’ debate that greyhound racing should be banned. The only surprise is that it has taken this long to arrive at the inevitable conclusion: that the greyhound racing industry can’t improve a model that inherently involves significant risk to dogs’ welfare, and therefore cannot and should not continue.

The Animal Welfare Act 1999 is the legislation that governs our animal welfare regulatory system. At its heart is a legal obligation not to cause animals “pain or distress that in its kind or degree, or in its object, or in the circumstances in which it is inflicted, is unreasonable or unnecessary”.

Those words – unreasonable or unnecessary – do a lot of heavy lifting. They are what allow the differential treatment of agricultural animals and companion animals. Most of (not all of) society sees the sort of pain and suffering inherent in farming as necessary and reasonable to create animal products: food. The ends justifies the means.

But we wouldn’t – and couldn’t – subject the same level of pain and suffering on our dog, cat or budgie. There is no ‘greater purpose’ that justifies such ill-treatment of these animals, and therefore our Animal Welfare Act designates it an offence to do so.

The use of animals in entertainment has always fallen into a grey area. Animals used in rodeo or racing provides (some of) us humans not with food, but with a level of joy and spectacle. The theory is that the enjoyment we derive from animals’ use in industries that are inherently dangerous justifies any harm they incur.

Compared to the use of animals for food, that calculus makes many of us understandably queasy, which is why Sir Bruce Robertson’s mention of social licence is so important. Using animals in a way that causes them pain and suffering is only legal if society agrees that it is necessary and reasonable. It’s clear that the social licence for greyhound racing evaporated a long, long time ago.

We are only one of eight countries globally that permit the practice. Large majorities in successive polls have demanded a ban on greyhound racing. An SPCA poll released this month found only 18 percent of New Zealanders thought it acceptable.

It’s that simple. We, as a society, do not think that it is either necessary or reasonable to use greyhounds in this manner. As a matter of law, but for the existence of the industry, we would not allow the racing of greyhounds: just as we long ago banned animal fighting ventures, or the United Kingdom banned fox hunting in 2004 and rodeo in 1934.

The question, then, is whether this Government will be consistent. There is even less social licence for removing the ban on live export of animals by sea as the Government has said it will. Equally, there is little support for the continued use of animals in rodeo.

There are vocal supporters of this practice within those industries who would protest bans, but when the use of animals in these contexts is inherently and inevitably harmful, and the public does not see that pain and suffering as justifiable, logic dictates that those uses of animals shouldn’t restart or continue. If the Government really wants to be courageous, evidence-led and logically consistent, then it would think about its policies on the use of these animals, too.