Greyhound racing ban shows how advocacy is replacing evidence

Monday, 2 February 2026

Edward Rennell is the chief executive of Greyhound Racing New Zealand.

OPINION: I have a decent bottle of whisky. For no one in particular.

I am hoping for a conversation with Winston Peters before Parliament shuts an entire industry without evidence or consultation. Even just 10 minutes.

The silence follows more than a dozen formal requests to meet, all declined or ignored.

I published my address and phone number in case I had simply become hard to find.

The whisky continues to age.

The minister has never spoken to me.

The Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill, commonly referred to as a ban on greyhound racing, is currently before the House. It matters that I say this plainly: I lead the legal entity that this bill dissolves.

Most of my working life has been spent inside New Zealand’s racing and animal-welfare systems, implementing reforms, driving standards, and strengthening transparency. Greyhound Racing New Zealand complies with all statutory and regulatory requirements placed before it. Now we are told the decision rests on an undefined concept – “social licence”. I say this not to defend an industry at any cost, but to defend evidence-based lawmaking and basic fairness.

No evidence has been presented to justify the decision, nor does the bill itself improve animal welfare. The phrase “animal welfare” appears in it only once. Welfare is not the spine; it is an afterthought. You do not protect animals by dismantling the very system that regulates, audits, and enforces their care.

The bill’s effect is less principled than its hype implies.

It does not ban greyhound racing. Amateurs and hobbyists can still race greyhounds. Instead, it bans commercial wagering on New Zealand greyhound racing while leaving gambling on overseas greyhound racing untouched.

More than 40,000 Australian greyhound races a year will continue to be broadcast and bet on in New Zealand through TAB’s monopoly, with proceeds ultimately funding domestic horse racing. No principled basis — or animal welfare gain — has been articulated for this distinction.

The bill does its real damage elsewhere. It forcibly dissolves the lawful and compliant clubs and societies that support and govern greyhound racing, overriding fundamental rights and redirecting their assets. This is not prohibition; it is financial suffocation. In doing so, the bill establishes a precedent that extends well beyond greyhound racing - it exposes every lawful and compliant incorporated society to future closure.

It withdraws a well-regulated system without replacing the safeguards that system currently provides, and it fails to address the downstream consequences of that decision.

Officials warned Parliament of these consequences. The Regulatory Impact Statement prepared to justify the Bill acknowledges that industry consultation should have occurred but did not. It flags material risks to livelihoods, communities and mental health. Parliament has chosen to proceed anyway.

Greyhounds currently sit within a fully transparent framework, continuously monitored until they are safely rehomed by breed experts. That framework protects them from entering overburdened and volatile shelters.

Protections aren’t failing - they are being dismantled.

The bill proposes a transition agency to rehome greyhounds. But clause 53D contains a stark legal reality: once the agency determines a greyhound has been “successfully rehomed”, that dog ceases to be a “specified greyhound” under the act.

In plain terms, a greyhound is reclassified as an ordinary pet, exposing it to the churn of the companion-animal population. It also means an owner can lawfully destroy their newly adopted greyhound without cause if they choose. This is not a moral argument. It’s what the bill permits.

Parliament’s urgency in December 2024 to legislate against greyhound euthanasia sits uneasily alongside the legal and practical effects of the bill now before it.

Throughout the process campaign slogans have been treated as substitutes for facts, while the industry body has been excluded. Officials relied on outdated reports but overlooked substantial reforms and investments. Governance was overhauled, track safety improved, rehoming, education and infrastructure were funded and independently reviewed. The care of greyhounds is real, measurable and verified by the Racing Integrity Board.

The minister’s commitment to the issue is unclear - he didn’t campaign on it at the election and he’s long supported racing. The matter only came onto his agenda after receiving a letter from the SPCA confirming it does not call for a ban on horse racing.

The stated reason for closing the greyhound racing industry is an unacceptable injury rate. That claim does not withstand scrutiny. Our injury rate is lower than that of Australian greyhounds, whose races will continue to be broadcast and bet on in New Zealand. Our race day euthanasia rate is half that of thoroughbred racing. At no point has the industry been told what an “acceptable” rate might be.

In a Stuff article in June 2022, the minister’s adviser said that one of his greatest regrets from his time as chief of staff was not shutting down greyhound racing. That position has now been realised without consultation, engagement, or a genuine hearing of the evidence. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that this decision reflects personal views, not proof.

Advocacy can mobilise attention, but it does not constitute evidence. In this debate, the noise has been loud enough to drown out consequences — including the uncompensated loss of jobs for 1054 people. This is what happens when advocacy outruns evidence in lawmaking.

The bill, if passed, will take effect on August 1, 2026. It is now before the select committee where I can speak on behalf of the industry. Ten minutes at last - though not with Winston Peters.

If Parliament gets this wrong, there is little insulation from the consequences. Workers, families, communities, and animals will pay the price — long after the headlines — and the minister — have moved on.