Why Winston refused to meet Greyhound Racing NZ before the ban, and since
Thursday, 26 February 2026
Winston Peters failed to consult the greyhound racing industry for more than a year before he blindsided them with a ban. And he hasn’t met them since. Lloyd Burr reports.
Winston Peters can often be heard lamenting a lack of consultation about things.
Most recently, it’s been the use of “Aotearoa” in place of “New Zealand” during Parliamentary debates without the consultation of the people. Or Parliament’s ditching of X.com without consulting MPs.
He also wasn’t happy with the Cook Islands failing to consult with him over their strategic deal with China. Or Melissa Lee failing to consult him over her media reforms. Or the previous government’s lack of consultation over Māori wards in local government.
The New Zealand First leader also likes to throw around the phrase “words matter” in interviews or when challenged by reporters to ensure he’s being quoted properly.
So when Greyhound Racing New Zealand (GRNZ) claimed Peters had refused to meet or even consult them since being sworn in as Minister for Racing in 2023, it seemed out of character for a politician who talks a big democratic game.
Then there’s his party’s own policy: “We all matter, each and every one of us,” declares New Zealand First’s 2023 election manifesto. It’s right at the top, under a headline ‘Defending Freedom and Democracy’.
It continues: “New Zealand First wants every kiwi to be treated the same, to have equal opportunity and to be treated with fairness and respect.”
For the 1055 Kiwis directly employed in the greyhound racing industry who had their livelihoods outlawed by Peters without any consultation or heads-up on December 10 2024, “fairness and respect” are probably not the words that spring to mind.
Regardless of whether you agree with greyhound racing or not, you’d assume the minister in charge would consult the industry before banning it entirely.
But that assumption would be wrong.
Peters didn’t once meet with GRNZ from the time he was sworn in after the 2023 election, to the announcement of a ban. And he hasn’t met with them since.
No meeting. Not even a text message or phone call. And no explanation as to why he’s been snubbing the only legislated stakeholder in the greyhound racing industry.
GRNZ requested or politely hinted at wanting a meeting with Peters 15 times. Most were via email, but there were others via post, text message, and even a press release begging for a meeting.
Why was a meeting important?
The Minister for Racing is responsible for three different racing codes, each represented by a national governing body: NZ Thoroughbred Racing (NZTR) Harness Racing NZ (HRNZ), and GRNZ.
His office says he’s not met any of the horse racing governing bodies either since being sworn in - however his ministerial diaries show otherwise.
There’s a meeting with NZTR on Jan 28 2024 and a phone call with the NZTR chair on Feb 5 2025. He spoke with HRNZ and “invited guests” in the Beehive on July 31, 2024. There’s also a meeting with the Auckland Racing Club - an affiliated NZTR club - on March 22, 2024.
There are mystery racing-related meetings on September 9 2024, November 4 2024, November 21 2024 and February 19 2025, but details have been “withheld under s.9 (2)(j)” which relates to a part of the Official Information Act that protects the ability for agencies to negotiate effectively.
Peters attended various horse racing events, including the launch of the NZB Kiwi, presenting the trophy for the inaugural NZB Kiwi, attending the 2024 Karaka Millions and Auckland Cup Day, attending the Japan-NZ Trophy at Tauranga Racecourse, Horse of the Year in both Hastings and Hamilton, opening the Manawatu Harness Racing Club season in October 2024, the Ready to Run, NZ Bloodstock and Selangor Turf Club Function in November 2024, the Champions Day Race in 2025, opening the Karaka horse sales in 2025, the New Zealand Racing Hall of Fame Induction Dinner in May 2025, a number of meetings with Racing New Zealand, TAB, or ambassadors and politicians from the Middle East, a speech to the Chinese Jockey Club, and attending the 2026 Karaka Millions and Karaka sales.
Stuff couldn’t find any record of Peters attending any greyhound racing meetings. The only greyhound-related posts on his Facebook page are of Adopt-A-Greyhound-Day at Parliament.
His ministerial diary showed meetings with Heather Simpson who is tasked with winding down the greyhound industry, as well as meetings with an official from Internal Affairs which likely was about greyhounds.
Greyhound lobby miffed
GRNZ chief executive Edward Rennell isn’t surprised at the gulf between the time Peters spent at horse code events and the lack of attending greyhound events.
“If he met with each of these three agencies just once in his three-year term he could argue he has discharged his duties. But he has never met with GRNZ,” he says.
“He has, however, met with advocacy groups opposed to greyhound racing,” says Rennell. “The last time the Minister for Racing met with GRNZ was 945 days ago under [Labour’s] Hon Kieran McAnulty.”
Rennell claims officials warned Peters and his office that proceeding with a ban without consultation posed certain risks. However, Peters proceeded anyway.
The questions we put to Peters
A series of questions were put to Peters’ office:
Why did the Racing Minister not meet GRNZ at all this entire term of Parliament? (A list of 15 requests were laid out in the request and are listed in the final section below.)
Why did you not consult with GRNZ regarding your decision to ban greyhound racing?
Have you failed to discharge your duties as minister by failing to meet GRNZ? If no, please explain.
As the leader of a party whose policy is for every kiwi to be treated with fairness and respect, did you treat GRNZ and those who work in the industry with fairness and respect?
NZF's racing policy talks of “continued consultation with all stakeholders”. Why did you breach this policy by not meeting with GRNZ?
Did you instruct officials not to engage with GRNZ about proposals to ban greyhound racing?
Peters responds
A spokesperson replied with this:
“The greyhound industry has been on notice over animal welfare concerns for several years. There have been three reviews into the industry over the past decade, all recommending significant changes. The industry had repeated opportunities for input into those reviews.
“Both prior to and after the 10 December 2024 announcement, GRNZ has corresponded with delegated officials who have reported to the Minister. Prior to the announcement, officials were clear they would relay GRNZ viewpoints to the Minister.
“Since the 10 December 2024 announcement, the Ministerial Advisory Committee (MAC) headed by Heather Simpson has liaised and met with GRNZ and a wide range of other stakeholders. The MAC regularly reports directly to the Minister.
“It should be noted in 2025 GRNZ sought interim relief (effectively an injunction) in the High Court regarding the industry closure, in which it was unsuccessful, with GRNZ arguments being described as ‘weak’ by the judge.
“GRNZ has also participated in the Select Committee process for the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill,” it says.
A survey commissioned by the SPCA in 2024 also found that “three quarters of New Zealanders would vote to ban commercial greyhound racing if the decision was put to a public referendum”.
GRNZ still perplexed
Was it naive of GRNZ to think Peters would back their industry? Possibly. His senior advisor, Jon Johnasson, who was Peters’ chief of staff in the Ardern government, wrote in 2020 that “not ending greyhound racing remains a regret”.
Should they have looked at the multiple reviews and reports and realised a ban was fait accompli? Rennell unequivocally says no.
“Following the 2017 Hansen Report and the 2021 Robertson Review, the industry introduced strengthened animal welfare standards, enhanced injury reporting, independent veterinary oversight, track improvements, increased rehoming and greater transparency.
“These reforms were not superficial; they were structural and ongoing. The clear expectation created by successive ministers was that improvement not prohibition was the pathway forward,” he says.
In relation to Peters’ argument that the MAC’s role is to liaise with the industry post-ban, Rennell says “too little, too late”.
“The MAC was established after the closure decision had already been made. Its role relates to implementation, not reconsideration of the policy itself.
“Engagement at that stage cannot reasonably be characterised as meaningful consultation on whether closure should occur,” he says.
Do you back the ban? Have your say in comments. If you’re using the Stuff app on iOS you’ll need to view Stuff.co.nz on a browser to view and post comments.