Sitting date: 2 April 2026

Legislative Statement

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Acting Minister for Racing) (15:17): I seek leave to present a legislative statement on the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none. That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Third Reading

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Acting Minister for Racing) (15:17): I move, That the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Since we announced in December 2024 our intention to close commercial greyhound racing in New Zealand, a deliberate, multi-stage process designed to ensure fairness and good outcomes for both people and animals has been under way. An initial bill to protect the greyhounds passed unanimously in December 2024. A ministerial advisory committee was quickly set up and has worked with the greyhound racing industry to plan for closure. That committee made recommendations for a bill which were accepted by the Government. Once it was introduced to this House, the Primary Production Committee listened to and conscientiously engaged with submitters to strengthen it, producing the bill which sits before us today.

At the heart of this bill and all the decision making that has led us to this point are, first and foremost, greyhounds and the people. Animal welfare is important to New Zealanders, and so too is supporting the people affected by this bill, which is why this bill will establish a transition agency to oversee the closure, tasked with supporting affected people and greyhounds.

This bill comes into effect over three stages to allow a smooth transition to closure. The first stage will be from the day after Royal assent, and it lays down the framework for closure ahead of 1 August 2026. This stage will see the establishment of that transition agency responsible for ensuring that a transition plan relating to Greyhound Racing New Zealand is in place to wind up the industry.

The second stage is from 1 August 2026, and it will bring in the actual end of commercial greyhound racing in New Zealand. During this stage, Greyhound Racing New Zealand will be dissolved and appropriate remaining functions will be transferred to the agency.

Finally, the third stage will see the repeal of the provisions relating to the closure of the industry and the agency. While the bill anticipates that the agency will have completed its functions within three years, it allows for some flexibility in timing in case there are still some outstanding tasks. Therefore, the third stage comes into force on a date set by Order in Council but no later than on 31 July 2031. Once disestablished, any residual assets held by the agency will be, as recommended by the select committee, distributed to industry participants.

The Ministerial Advisory Committee, who have been planning for the closure and who will be appointed to the board of the transition agency, recently outlined key elements of planning towards the end of greyhound racing. This includes options for the agency to take over ownership of dogs and pay for all their food and care until they are successfully rehomed. This also includes mental health and wellbeing services for those whose daily lives are closely tied to the industry, as well as retraining support for those currently employed in the industry. Training and behavioural support for greyhounds to improve rehoming outcomes will also be included in the planning. The Ministerial Advisory Committee members appointed to the board of the transition agency will work with the existing greyhound rehoming organisations to facilitate the rehoming process, which we anticipate will take time, given the volume of greyhounds needing to be rehomed.

We have continued to recognise that closing the greyhound racing industry has not been an easy decision to make and that the hardest part about making this decision is the people affected by it. We will do right by them, but we have resolved, alongside the overwhelming majority of this Parliament, that closing greyhound racing is the right thing to do. The commercial greyhound racing industry has been on notice since 2021, after multiple reviews led to the same conclusion—that things needed to change. The industry did make some improvements; however, despite these efforts, data on the most serious injuries and deaths on the racetrack have stayed consistent. Regulatory change or further investments weren’t going to significantly better serious injury rates, and it became apparent that the time has come for the end of commercial greyhound racing.

New Zealand is not alone in this. Other jurisdictions, such as Wales, Scotland, and Tasmania, are also moving to close commercial greyhound racing. These jurisdictions share our sentiments that greyhounds are sentient beings who deserve a life free of serious injury in an inherently dangerous sport, and the time has come to act.

We want to acknowledge those New Zealanders today who are affected by this legislation and encourage them to engage with the transition agency once it is set up and is running. We all have the same shared goal in this closure: to support the people and support the greyhounds.

We expect that, by the time 1 August approaches, there will be around 1,600 greyhounds awaiting their chance to live in a forever home and with a family who cares for them. This week marks 20 years since Minister Peters launched the Greyhounds as Pets adoption scheme. Just as Homer and Bart Simpson discovered in the first episode of The Simpsons, greyhounds make great pets. They’re low-maintenance dogs with quirky personalities, and they are the most gentle of animals. It is great to see that Santa’s Little Helper, the greyhound the Simpsons adopted, is now involved in publicising the New Zealand greyhound rehoming campaign.

We know that rehoming of these greyhounds is a big task and one which requires an all-hands-on-deck approach from the transition agency, greyhound rehoming groups, and, of course, the public. It will take some time. To the members of the public listening today, please share the message: consider adopting a greyhound, or fostering it, if that’s more suitable. These greyhounds are wonderful pets, and it is time for them to live as pets. You’ll never regret having one in your family. We commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (15:24): Kia orana, Madam Speaker. The House is currently at the third reading of the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill, and I rise as Labour’s spokesperson for racing.

It’s been a wee while in getting to this particular point. I know that, previously, there has been some commentary around the fact that this bill currently before the Parliament is the second stage of a bill around seeking to wind down the greyhound racing industry in this country. Previously, the Parliament did, through all stages under urgency, pass a bill—some months ago now—that sought to protect greyhounds from euthanasia and from, effectively, illegal destruction. That was because the Minister, Mr Peters, at the time introduced a bill to signal, effectively, that this bill was on its way and wanted to protect the welfare considerations of greyhounds that otherwise may have been placed at risk. The Labour Party supported that particular bill through all stages under urgency, but just note that that was a signal that the bill currently being debated by the Parliament was on its way.

We have supported this bill at first reading, at second reading, and in its current form through all stages of clause consideration, in terms of the committee of the whole House. Here at third reading, the Labour Party will be supporting this bill as it stands today.

The racing industry here in this country, as it stands at the moment, Madam Speaker, as you’ll know, has three codes: greyhound, thoroughbred, and harness. They all have, over many years, added to the fabric of racing in this country, and all codes continue to race, up until this point, with the understanding that there is an absolute expectation that those who are involved in those industries have animal welfare as the primary consideration in everything they do.

Now, we’ve heard for some time that the greyhound industry was, effectively, put on notice, as some would say, back in 2021. We got to this point now where the Labour Party’s position is one of support for this bill, because we do believe that it is the right thing to do.

In previous contributions around the second reading, colleagues talked about the Primary Production Committee and the submissions that had been received. I say that at third reading to signal that this bill has changed from when it first arrived in this Parliament. It hasn’t changed from second reading to third reading, and there were some changes that were sought at the committee stage. The Labour Party did not support any of those Amendment Papers, and I’ll perhaps talk about that in a moment.

I do want to acknowledge that this is a bill that will have an impact on many individuals in the greyhound racing industry, not just those who own or train or perhaps like to punt on greyhounds here in New Zealand, but there will be impacts much broader than that, to those who perhaps are vets who are involved in aspects of race-day support and others as well. I do want to acknowledge the fact that this will have an implication for the lives of those who are involved in this industry. I do note that this is something that has been signalled as being in the pipeline for a wee while, and, as Minister Costello herself has indicated, the Minister, Minister Peters, has signalled that for some time as well.

The animal welfare considerations are really important to us, because they are what is behind our decision to support this bill. A lot has been said around the rehoming opportunities that the transition agency will now need to turn its mind to. There are some fantastic agencies and organisations who are out there, who have, for many years, done a great job in seeking to rehome greyhounds. I’ll perhaps leave other colleagues to touch on that.

Some of the industry participants felt as though the select committee process was the only way that they were able to have their voices heard, and I know that despite the fact that many of them will perhaps be unhappy with the outcome in terms of this bill, none the less, they have identified that they felt as though they were able to be heard through the select committee process. I do hope that, in time, there will be some reflection on that and an acknowledgment that the bill has changed as a result of hearing from them.

The Labour Party didn’t support the Amendment Papers that were put forward at the committee of the whole House stage, and I just want to indicate why that was. One area, really, was around the inability for the TAB to continue to accept wagers or betting on greyhound racing overseas. Now, this was a change that was made by the select committee, because it didn’t accurately reflect the intention of the Government to ban, effectively, the TAB from taking bets on greyhound racing. This is a bill that is focused purely on domestic greyhound racing here in New Zealand and a strong view that it needs to cease and it needs to stop, and that’s what this bill does.

What is really important, in terms of a review opportunity for the TAB continuing to take betting on international races, is the fact that there is a review opportunity in the bill scheduled for some time in the future, which the Minister for Racing must initiate. That is not an optional choice. It is a mandatory review that is expected, and it is expected that the continuation of betting or taking wagering by the TAB on overseas greyhound racing events would form part of that consideration. This is not the Parliament saying, “We’re just going to turn a blind eye to this.” It will be on the radar, but the focus at the moment is on the closedown of the greyhound racing industry and the roles and responsibilities that that transition agency needs to turn its mind to.

The other issue was an amendment to seek to introduce a compensation mechanism for industry participants. Now, the position of the Labour Party in not supporting it is that where we are heading today has been signalled for quite some time. It is our expectation—and it’s been confirmed by the Minister in her comments on behalf of Minister Peters today—that the transition agency will be expected to work actively with industry participants to ensure that mental health and that wellbeing considerations are top of mind; to ensure that there is an opportunity for retraining, redeployment, and skill uptake from industry participants as part of this transition agency. There is absolutely no expectation that the transition agency would just be stood up and, basically, leave the industry participants in a state of flux. No, the expectation, as we understand it—and this is the basis on which we are continuing to support this bill through the Parliament today—is that the agency, in being stood up, would work with industry to ensure that there are opportunities around redeployment, that there are opportunities around retraining, and that there are opportunities around support for them to continue to engage.

The Parliament has made some changes to the bill as a result of what it heard in select committee. One is the number of people that could be on the transition agency. It has effectively increased that holding by an additional member, if the Minister so chooses to appoint an additional member. Now, the Minister for Racing has been very clear that it is his intention to appoint, effectively, the members of the Ministerial Advisory Committee. Now, we believe that there is much logic in that, because they have been working with the industry—and should be working with the industry—around the changes that this bill would provide. There is a continuum, in that sense, of the work that they will continue. However, the Minister has agreed with the changes from the select committee, actually, to have an additional slot on there to perhaps consider who might be appropriate if there is a particular skill set that is missing there, and being able to put that in place.

The final point that I want to touch on is around the issue of the closedown of 1 August this year. There had been some conversation around whether or not that should be delayed, whether it should be staggered. Our view is that that is not appropriate, and that’s why we didn’t support any changes to that time frame, because in addition to this being well signalled in advance, we believe that the transition agency now has a suite of work that it needs to get through. The Minister talked about the three stages or phases that the agency would need to get under way with as a result of this bill coming into force. This has been well signalled.

It is time for greyhound racing in Aotearoa New Zealand to come to an end, and this bill gives effect to that. The reasons have been outlined, and it’s on that basis, collectively and individually, that the New Zealand Labour Party will support this bill this afternoon.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (15:34): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Kākāriki to speak in support of the third reading of this bill, the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill.

There has been a long and storied history on the process to achieve this bill coming to its third reading today. The Green Party has for a long time called for the end of greyhound racing. I found a post on the Facebook page of Mojo Mathers from 2016, when she received a petition from the Greyhound Protection League of New Zealand calling for that closure, and the Green Party supported that call then. That was a short time after the Hansen report, and subsequently the Robertson report, and, before that, there was a report in 2013, all of which highlighted the problems and the challenges with racing greyhounds—the injuries that they suffered, some of the cruel practices in the industry at the time. I acknowledge that some of those practices are no longer in place now, but insufficient work has been done to address the fundamental harm that occurs to animals in the process of racing them. That’s why we have this bill today.

I also acknowledge that, in 2022, my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick had a bill in the biscuit tin that would bring about the closure of greyhound racing. I inherited that bill when I came to Parliament, in 2023, and I put questions to the Minister in scrutiny week of June 2024, saying, “Is he the Minister who has the intention to show the decisiveness that this issue requires and actually bring the industry to a close?” At the time, the Minister obfuscated on the question and reminded the committee that greyhounds loved to run, and I said, “Well, they love to run, but they should be free to do so of their own volition, without the compulsion of being forced to race at times that they may not wish to.” The Minister made further comments, and later, I had an opportunity to question him—it happened to be at the Pickwicks Bar—as to whether he would take action on the greyhounds. He quite humorously, in his inimitable style, said, “When the time is right, there will be a decision, and it will be the right decision.”—which didn’t tell us anything.

It turns out it was the right decision. It turns out that it was the right decision that the Minister took, and it is worth acknowledging that it has taken many years for us to have a Minister willing to be this decisive, and we must give the Minister credit for that. I withdrew my bill from the biscuit tin. Though I had actually sent him a copy of it in May 2024 and invited him to adopt it, I withdrew it in December 2024, because it became very clear that there was a serious intention on the part of this Government to support the closure of the industry.

It must be acknowledged all of the organisations and advocates for greyhound welfare who have pushed hard for a long time to achieve what we are passing today: SPCA, HUHA, SAFE, the Greyhound Protection League of New Zealand, and many others who have stood in defence of the right of these dogs to live happy, healthy lives in loving homes.

We put up some amendments that my colleague Tangi Utikere just spoke about at the committee. I should say that the process of the committee was, first of all, to correct an omission in part of the drafting of the bill which actually meant that there would be allowed to be betting on greyhound racing in Australia. That was the Government’s intention: to retain bidding on greyhound racing in Australia. For us, that has always been a hypocrisy. We cannot say, “It’s illegal for you to bet on greyhounds here in New Zealand, but you can still bet on greyhounds in Australia.” It is not fair for us to shut down an industry here but allow New Zealanders to bet on the same industry, where the same welfare issues occur, in Australia. That’s the Green Party view of it, so when the amendment came to the committee to correct that omission in the drafting, the Green Party voted against that amendment. No other party in the committee did vote against that. We subsequently put those amendments before the committee at the committee of the whole House. Again, no party, apart from Te Pāti Māori and the independent MP Tākuta Ferris, voted with us on our amendments.

I want to acknowledge that the money that will be coming from that racing in Australia—around $44 million over three years—will go towards the cost of winding up the industry here, including the rehoming of the dogs and including the support for the wellbeing of those who are currently dependent on the industry. We support that very much, but we believe that money could have come directly from other codes in the Racing Integrity Board.

We put a second amendment that the time frame for which the gambling in Australia could continue should end automatically in three years. That was also voted down, but we think that a subsequent Government could readopt that. I want to note, in a recent conversation with the SPCA, they believe the rehoming could be done and can be achieved in quite a timely fashion, noting that in Florida, they rehomed 5,000 to 7,000 dogs in two years. The SPCA themselves are rehoming 300 animals a week and 16,000 animals a year.

With all of the agencies that we have on board—the existing rehoming agencies; we acknowledge their very important work to date and their ongoing important work and all of the animal welfare organisations on board with us—it should be very much achievable that we rehome 1,500 to 1,600 New Zealand dogs in a relatively timely fashion, but we must make sure that they are going to loving and caring homes. It may be that there is a transitional need for foster homes before there is permanent rehoming.

My final word is to just acknowledge that we did hear the heartache that people in the industry feel. We heard that loud and clear. As I said in the second reading, it is possible to hold two seemingly contradictory views—one, that most in the industry are good, caring people who do care for their animals; and the second view that too many dogs have suffered and died and will continue to do so for us as a society to accept the continuation of greyhound racing. That is the view that we, as Te Pāti Kākāriki, hold. It is time for this industry to come to an end. It must be done in a compassionate way for the people and for the animals.

As to the question of compensation, we do support funding for supporting people in transition to new forms of work. We do not support direct compensation for material losses. The reason that we do not is that we believe that sets a bad precedent.

Cameron Luxton: They did it in good faith.

STEVE ABEL: I’ll give you a quite intense example, Mr Luxton, of why we don’t want to set that precedent. When it reaches a point that a society finds that a certain industry or activity no longer meets the morals of that society—i.e., that activity has exceeded the social licence of that society—it is appropriate that that society and its legislators should have the right to bring that industry to an end. In 1833, when it became clear it was no longer acceptable for there to be slavery in the world, the British Parliament passed legislation against that slavery, but they made the terrible error of compensating the slave owners for the loss of their industry.

Now, I am not in any way suggesting that the greyhound races are in the same category, but I simply make the point and a glaring example that, if we set the precedent of compensating industries that have moved beyond the social licence of New Zealand, we set a dangerous precedent. There are other industries, if we are to deal, for example, with climate change, that we are likely to need to bring to an end as a Parliament, so we do not support the compensation. We do support direct work to support those people in transition, and that may be financial work for their mental wellbeing and for finding them new jobs. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (15:44): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in opposition to this bill because this is not a happy day for Parliament. What we are doing here is not built on respect for the people who this is affecting. It is a debate that has not reckoned with the principles that it is creating. We have heard phrases like “social licence” thrown around as a substitute for facts on the ground and as if it can be used instead of a meaningful engagement with the people whose livelihoods are on the line, who were not engaged with, and who came to the select committee and had their say. What changes did they get?

When these people have tried to engage and ask for meetings, they’ve been told that they need to talk to a Wellington bureaucrat and not talk to the actual people who are making the decisions. These lawfully acting New Zealanders have been called “sinners”, and that reminds me of when one Minister of a previous Government called protesters a “river of filth”. When they questioned the levels of engagement and when they raised their concerns, they were told they should be thankful—thankful that their industry is being taken away with the claim that they have been saved in the past.

Let’s be very clear about something: this industry was not built in Wellington by MPs in this House or by fancy suits in the Beehive. This industry was built by hard-working New Zealanders—Kiwis with rough hands—and not done by favours or handouts from Government. They built an industry and a community through decades and generations of work, and, now, they are being told that they’re the problem and they don’t deserve to have what they’ve worked for, what they’ve invested in, and what they’ve lived in. I remember when the war on farmers labelled us. I remember being out there on the back paddock on the ranch and thinking about the city folk calling us all kinds of things and the pain that caused us in our souls. I remember how that felt, and I say to those out there who remember that pain, “Think of how these folk feel today.”

I want to turn to the animal welfare issue, because this is where the debate has really lost its footing. New Zealanders love their dogs. I think of my hound Uffy and my past dogs, who I’ve loved, Jazz and Tahi, but the way that welfare has been talked about—and treated as if this was the case—is that the greyhound industry were indifferent to the wellbeing of their animals. The people of this industry depend on good animal welfare. They have built towards it. They have recognised issues in the past and come to terms with them and tried to find a way through. They’ve spent millions of dollars supporting it. Frankly, their own standards and pride of work depend on those animals. I’ve visited these facilities and seen these investments. Good animal welfare is about setting policy that is practical with enforceable standards that improve the outcomes for animals. It is not about standing on a soap box and pretending that a whole industry is evil. That is not a serious animal welfare policy.

The simple question that needs to be asked is: what actually leads to better outcomes for animals? Is it working with an industry who care about their dogs to improve outcomes, or is it pushing the betting offshore with standards we can’t set? This raises questions of intentions.

Tonight, many are going to pat themselves on the back and declare victory, but that is just ignorance to the reality of the situation. We have seen this before. Lawful firearm owners were treated as criminals. This House passed legislation, unfairly taking their firearms, and, back then, ACT was the only party that stood up for them. We said that you should not punish law-abiding New Zealanders just for political convenience. ACT stood alone in the face of a tough political crosswind. Here, today, we are seeing a similar approach. It is a different sector, but it’s the same attitude—a Government thinking that it can impose change from the top without trying to work with the people most affected. Instead, the Government would rather lecture and demonise than listen. This can be seen in other things ACT has stood up for. ACT was the only party in Parliament that stood up for the unnecessary, burdensome, and expensive earthquake relief regulations. A decade later, people have come around to the view. ACT was the only party that stood against the zero carbon Act while every other party in the House voted for it. Now, we have parties adopting ACT’s view that it was a mistake and that we need to have a good review.

Even if it’s too late for greyhounds, to somebody listening out there, they will eventually come for your industry, and I hope that there is someone left to speak for you.

Tamatha Paul: Do you want your dog to race?

CAMERON LUXTON: She loves running. It’s great.

Now, it’s important to discuss what we’ve heard about how this transition will be managed. We have been told that the transition agency is filled with people who are experts, but the truth is that rather than letting the industry wind itself down, we’re taking away decisions from people on the ground and giving them to people whose jobs are in Wellington. We’re putting trust in the system over trust in New Zealanders, and I have to ask, when did we stop trusting the people that this country was built on? When did we decide that salt of the earth Kiwis, the ones who actually do the work, could not be trusted with their own future? In ACT, still trust them.

Hon Casey Costello: Perhaps read the bill.

CAMERON LUXTON: I have definitely engaged with this bill. We believe that these people with decades of experience and a proven record of improvement should be involved more deeply.

Hon Casey Costello: They are involved.

CAMERON LUXTON: More deeply. It’s not the job of Government to be micromanagement. The simple principle is this: you cannot light the fire and claim the credit for putting it out. In this case, you cannot undermine an industry and then turn around and say that you’re saving it. You certainly cannot expect those to be thankful for it. New Zealanders can see through this vegetative verbiage.

ACT has offered solutions to problems in this bill. We went out and we listened to the community. My colleague Laura and I visited the Addington Raceway to hear directly from those affected. We had a great time. We watched the races, the dogs going hard, checked out the infrastructure, saw how happy, how ramping and amping to go the dogs were. No one was being forced to race; they were having the time of their life. Once they had stopped, you could see how contented and happy with themselves they were. It was an occasion for people from a rural and urban life to come together and watch dogs having fun. But there was a sting of sadness in the air: disappointment with this ban. It was sitting like the Sword of Damocles above them, but the string had been broken.

From these meetings we learned some important things. These folk are not delusional. From the moment the ban was announced, they knew that there was very little chance of it being changed. When I talked to them, they were able to let us know what could be done to ease the transition. The first issue raised with people was straightforward. They wanted compensation for the State taking away their property, and fair enough. I said it in my second reading speech, and I’ll say it in this House again. We need to understand just how extraordinary this step that we are taking actually is. It is extinguishing an industry. When the State does that, it simply cannot walk away. It must recognise the consequences.

That’s why I put forward an amendment which was debated during the committee stage. What was the response? That these people do not deserve to be compensated, because they’ve somehow failed. How can they have failed when they followed the rules Parliament set for them? And now, in good faith after the fact, we are rewriting the rules. The Government has moved the finishing line. Compensation sets the right precedent. It says that Parliament respects property rights. It says that Parliament understands the immense power we hold. It says that, when we exercise that power in a way that fundamentally disrupts people’s lives and livelihoods, we do so with responsibility, not indifference.

The second issue raised by trainers was also clear, and it’s one that ACT sought to address. If the legislation is truly about animal welfare, and acknowledging Steve Abel’s comments, there needs to be consistency. We are shutting down a domestic industry on animal welfare grounds while continuing to allow betting on overseas greyhound racing through the TAB. My proposal was simple: that revenue from overseas betting should be ring-fenced, used only for animal welfare purposes, greyhound rehoming, or compensation for those affected. That would at least align the policy with the stated intent. Instead, we are told that continuing overseas betting is necessary to fund the industry closure. There is a real concern here: without clear safeguards, that money may not go to where it’s intended, and there is a risk that it will simply disappear into the wider racing system. These amendments were proposed to be pragmatic and grounded in common sense. They weren’t about stopping the policy. They were about making sure it was fair and consistent. They weren’t about stopping the policy. We were trying to make sure that what was being claimed was actually being done.

Finally, I want to say something to the participants in the industry and to those who feel like they haven’t been heard. Listen carefully to what is being said in the House today, because it tells you everything you need to know about how parties see you and your communities. In ACT, we see you as valuable members of a rural New Zealand, of the backbone of our country. Even if ACT stands alone in this, we are proud. We will always stand for a Parliament that knows it is not above the people and instead understands that we work for the people—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired.

SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) (15:55): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise today to address the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill, legislation that marks a turning point for greyhound racing in New Zealand. Feedback from those in the industry has been at the heart of this process, and I’d like to thank everyone who submitted, including the trainers, breeders, track staff, and families, who spoke passionately about their enduring love for their animals and their jobs. This bill’s impact is far reaching.

After listening to submissions, we’ve ensured resources are focused not just on animal welfare and rehoming but on the pastoral care and support people will need during this transition. We owe these individuals compassion, dignity, and practical help as they adapt to this profound change. The select committee process brought some important improvements, and I’d like to acknowledge the chair of the Primary Production Committee, Miles Anderson, and committee members for their engagement and commitment to this process.

The racing amendment bill is a response to changing social licence and the involving expectations of society. Right now, our resources and empathy must be directed both to the dogs needing to be rehomed and to the people who have cared for them and built their lives and livelihoods around them. I’d like once again to acknowledge and sincerely thank everyone who submitted on the bill. I know that, for many of them, the outcome of this bill is imaginable, and I sincerely wish you all the best.

Tamatha Paul: Madam Speaker. Oh, is it not?

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) (15:56): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a very quick call on the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill.

Steve Abel: Point of order. Madam Speaker, I think you missed my colleague’s call before Dana Kirkpatrick’s. [Interruption]

DANA KIRKPATRICK: Well, I’ve got to do one anyway. I might as well get it out of the way. [Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The sheet I was using didn’t tell me that it was a split call, so that’s why I didn’t see you over there. I’m sorry, I will come back to you next call.

DANA KIRKPATRICK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I was saying, I rise to take a short call on the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill.

Look, I understand this has been a difficult time for many involved in the sector. I just want to commend the good work by the Primary Production Committee to do their very best to reach better outcomes in some very challenging circumstances. There’s been a lot of passion and emotion involved in this bill. I want to just leave our thoughts with all of those people who are involved and all of those animals who will find new homes, hopefully. I think that it is best just to leave it at that, and I can happily pass it over now to my colleague and friend over there, Tamatha Paul. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Tamatha Paul: Madam Speaker. Over here in the back.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I hear you and I see you. I call Tamatha Paul.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) (15:59): Thank you, and thank you to the previous speaker, my friend—I like that—and colleague, Dana Kirkpatrick.

I actually want to respond to what ACT MP Cameron Luxton was saying in his speech. I don’t want to have a go at what he’s saying, because I get that you’re standing on your principles and I respect your freedom to do that, but I said, “How would you feel if that was your dog?” And he said, “Yeah, my dog loves to run.” So does my dog. Here’s a picture of him—[Holds up picture] His name’s Max, for the Hansard; he’s also known as Mukman, spelt M-u-k-m-a-n. He’s a rescue, but he’s a greyhound - border collie mix, and he loves to run. He is the most annoying dog ever. I get home at 10 o’clock at night, and he comes right up to me and stares at me. If people know greyhounds—they stare, and it’s really annoying. You’ve just got to say, “Get—get.”

Because he loves to run, they are also single-mindedly focused on what’s in front of them. Greyhounds have been bred over generations and decades—if not centuries—to focus in on the thing that they’re chasing and to just lock on and chase it. I know that, because that is exactly what Max does. When he sees a rabbit, when he sees a possum, when he sees a little ferret, he goes for it, and he doesn’t care what’s around him, and that has meant a very expensive vet bill.

That’s the thing about greyhounds: they love running, yes, but they also really hurt themselves in the process when they’re doing that. I know that that was identified as part of the reports leading up to this moment—that there have been parts of the industry that mean that the way that greyhounds were being raced actually injured them. I’ve got an example. While I’ve been an MP, Max almost impaled himself on a stick because they’re just so focused. People might have seen me on the front lawn of Parliament throwing a ball for Max, and that’s also a risk, because I’m always really scared that he’s going to knock somebody over. It brings people great joy, because even parliamentary staff go out there and throw the ball for him, which is really nice.

But this is the thing about those dogs; they are massive idiots as well. They don’t care about what’s going on around them; they have no spatial awareness, they just go for the thing. That’s why there have been all of these red flags raised about the injuries, because they just go for it. My understanding is that because of the way that the racecourses are, they are hurting themselves when they’re turning those corners. My understanding is that the greyhound industry knows well about the injuries that happen to these dogs.

I know there have been three reports making recommendations about how the industry can improve their welfare so that dogs don’t get injured—and nobody ever wants to see a dog injured. I don’t know about you guys, or if anyone’s a dog person here, but when you step on your dog’s foot, and they squeal, you feel like the worst person on earth. I remember seeing a video of a greyhound on meth; I’m not sure if it was a New Zealand dog. The Speaker’s looking at me in a puzzled way. I looked up, while I was sitting here, “greyhound racing, methamphetamine”. There’s an article from 2021: “Greyhound Zipping Sarah wins race—while on methamphetamine”; an RNZ article from 2023: “Greyhound racing case: Lengthy ban imposed on mother and daughter”; and, from 2026: “Winning greyhound tests positive for methamphetamine”.

These are the kinds of practices that have come about. Sure, these might be the worst examples of treatment within the racing industry, but, unfortunately, because the greyhound racing industry has failed to meet these constant warnings to buck their behaviour up, they have lost their social licence to continue as an industry, to take that directly from the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who I thank for having the courage to be the one to finally end this cruel practice.

Dogs—I’ve got two—are not just things to race; they are their own beings with their own personalities, thoughts, and feelings. I just hope that this is a really big signal to everybody out there that you can adopt one of these greyhounds; just Google “adopt a greyhound New Zealand”. They will be looking for homes. They are beautiful companions; they will keep you on your toes; they are extremely loyal, intelligent creatures—but stupid when they’re chasing something. I really want to encourage everyone at home to consider adopting a greyhound as this industry comes to a close.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour) (16:04): Thank you, Madam speaker. I rise as a member of the Labour caucus and the Primary Production Committee in support of this bill that we are speaking about today to bring to an end the commercial greyhound racing industry here in New Zealand.

I want to respond to something that Cameron Luxton mentioned about this not being a happy day. I don’t think that necessarily anyone here is saying that this is a happy day, because we are fully aware of the implications of this piece of legislation and the change it has on those that are directly involved in the industry—whether it be breeders or those who work in the grounds preparing tracks, etc., for racing. But the industry has pretty much been on notice for many years now. We’ve had multiple reviews; the industry has been given the opportunity to make improvements with the types of racing tracks and things that they use. While there has been some change from round tracks, basically, to straight tracks, the changes have been far too slow and far too few.

I do, on that note, just want to acknowledge all of those from the industry that did submit on this bill to us in the Primary Production Committee. There were some really heartfelt submissions given by these people, and we are talking about families in the industry. I might have mentioned in my second reading speech that we’re not talking about big commercial businesses; we are talking about families here, who have been involved in this industry for many, many generations. We clearly heard from those who really love their animals and care for their animals, including a lot of young people and young children. But we cannot ignore the number of deaths and animals having to be euthanised as a result of the racing industry.

New Zealand is a country that absolutely prides itself on our animal welfare standards. I think this is something that, around the world, people are taking another look at. Up until today, or when this bill passes, New Zealand was one of only a few other countries that actually have commercial greyhound racing. I think Australia, the UK, and Ireland are the other countries, and I think there are only two racing tracks in the US. This is an industry that is on notice around the world and perhaps will come to an end.

One of the really important pieces of this legislation is the transition group that is going to be put in place. They’ve been part of the advisory group to the Minister, and the fact that these members are going to move to this transition group or board is really important to allow for that continuity. They are very familiar with the bill; they’re very familiar with the issues that have been raised, and their role is going to be of absolute core importance in supporting those that are involved in the industry—whether it be to help support with the upskilling. I know that in the committee of the whole House, there was a proposed amendment brought to the House around financial compensation, and that was obviously voted against. I think that this particular group or board will be compensating, in a way, in so far as helping to support those to up skill into new roles and new jobs.

The other part that they will play that is really important in this bill here is to ensure that the animals that are rehomed are rehomed to appropriate new owners. I can only imagine that, in taking on an animal that has come from that racing industry, it will probably take a little bit of a transition period for the dog to go from being a racing dog to being a pet at home and living quite a different lifestyle.

The other thing that has changed from when this bill first came to the select committee, and then after submissions, and didn’t change through the committee of the whole House process, is the ability for the TAB to continue to take bets for overseas greyhound racing. This will support the financial implications to allow for this change to happen within the industry. The intent was that the New Zealand taxpayer would not be footing the bill for the changes that this legislation brings about, but that it should come from industry itself.

So, again, I do really want to acknowledge the families that are impacted by this. It was not a bill that the committee took lightly. As I said, we heard some really heartfelt submissions that definitely pulled at the heartstrings, but, ultimately, animal welfare has to be at the core of this, given, as I’ve said, New Zealand takes its animal welfare very, very seriously. We can’t ignore the continued deaths. We can’t ignore that we were only one of a very small number of countries that continued to allow this to happen. So, with that, I commend this bill to the House.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) (16:10): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on this bill, the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill at it’s the final reading. While I didn’t sit on the select committee, listening to the feedback from the other submitters, it’s clearly been quite an emotional experience, with the people who are losing, effectively, their livelihoods, and they love their dogs and what they do, and the families involved. I think it’s really important just to remember and acknowledge that. With that, I’ll leave it there. Thank you.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (16:11): I rise to take support for the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill. We do so because it reflects a difficult but necessary decision, one that balances the imperative of animal welfare with the fairness of people whose livelihoods have been tied to the industry for many years. This is not a decision that’s been taken lightly, nor has it been one made in haste. After multiple reviews and years of scrutiny, the conclusion has become unavoidable and the greyhound racing industry has repeatedly failed to meet those acceptable welfare standards. The evidence has been consistent. Systemic issues have occurred: high injury rates, preventable deaths, and insufficient oversight. You know, we come to a point where reform is no longer credible. At some point we must act, and this bill does exactly that.

It removes greyhound racing as a permitted betting activity in New Zealand and provides for an orderly, humane, and well-managed wind-down of the industry. Importantly, it does so in a way that has been significantly strengthened through the select committee process. I want to acknowledge that process. Over 2,000 submissions were received. That’s a substantial level of public engagement and it has led to meaningful improvements in the legislation that is before us today. The bill we are debating is now actually better and more balanced and more humane and more practical because of that scrutiny.

At its core, this bill places animal welfare where it belongs: at the centre. It strengthens prohibitions against unlawful destruction of greyhounds. It prioritises the safe and successful rehoming, and following the select committee amendments, it requires the newly established Greyhound Racing Transition Agency to report annually on key welfare outcomes, including euthanasia numbers and deaths while awaiting rehoming. That transparency matters. It ensures accountability and it gives confidence to the public that this transition will be conducted with care and integrity.

The bill also makes clear that new owners of rehomed greyhounds must be informed of the obligations under the code of welfare for dogs and that is a practical but important step in ensuring that these animals are not only rehomed but properly cared for in the long term. The principle here is simple: no dog is left behind. Every greyhound must be accounted for and every animal must be treated with dignity, and every effort must be made to ensure a safe and humane outcome.

This bill is not only about animals, it’s also about people too. Labour acknowledges that this decision will have significant impact on workers, the trainers, and the communities connected to the greyhound racing industry, as has been mentioned in various contributions here today. These people have dedicated years—in many cases, decades—to their profession. Those concerns are real and they deserve to be treated with fairness and respect, and this amendment bill goes further in addressing those concerns.

It establishes a dedicated Greyhound Racing Transition Agency, and that’s a body tasked with not only overseeing the closing of their industry and the rehoming of dogs but also supporting those affected through the transition. It seeks out a structured three-stage approach. Stage 1 establishes the transition agency immediately following the Royal assent. Stage 2 brings an end to all commercial greyhound racing betting from 1 August 2026, and stage 3 sees the transition agency wound up between 2029 and 2031 once the rehoming enclosure is complete.

This is not just an overnight shutdown; it’s planned and it’s a staged transition. It’s one that provides certainty while allowing the time to get this right. Funding for this transition will come from TAB New Zealand. Importantly, following the select committee amendments, TAB New Zealand will retain the ability to take bets on overseas greyhound races. So it’s a good bill and I commend it to the House.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) (16:16): I stand to speak on this Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill. I want to thank the Primary Production Committee for all the care and consideration they have given this bill; for the likes of Miles Anderson and his leadership as deputy, for instance. I also want to acknowledge the many families involved in this greyhound industry that love their dogs. As previous speakers have said, the select committee has strengthened the orderly and humane wind-down of this sector. I wish everyone success. We acknowledge those that are rehoming greyhounds and we all encourage more of that. I commend the bill.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (16:17): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to also make a contribution today at the third reading of this Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill. I wasn’t on the Primary Production Committee who heard the submissions but, as most people would have, we have run into colleagues from time to time and heard stories about submissions and know that, of all the bills that we see progressing through this House, this was one where there were whole families coming in to provide evidence and give their submissions, and that there were lots of very heartfelt stories to be relayed to the select committee. So I acknowledge that Labour supports this bill, however, at the third reading stage and we concur that the select committee process has strengthened this bill, and I think it better reflects both the interests of animal welfare and the affected industry participants.

I would note that sometimes when you’re not a member of the select committee, you listen a little bit more intently to the prior contributions to pick up the gist of the vibe of things, so to speak. I feel like I’ve learnt several things today, listening to the contributions. I was aware of the fact that there had been three major reviews, I think in 2013, 2017, and 2021. Many of us on this side of the House will remember in 2021, Grant Robertson being quite emphatic and making that explicit expectation to put the industry on notice. It had been something that I hadn’t paid much attention to before that time. It wasn’t a sector or an industry that I had any personal particular knowledge of or experience of, but it prompted therefore Grant Robertson’s particular interest and it prompted many of us to do a little bit of homework to make sure that we checked in with the local industry in our own areas and learnt a little bit more about something that was potentially very easy to take for granted. So I remember that passion and I’d like to acknowledge the work that Grant Robertson did in those early stages of being very explicit about putting the industry on notice, because I do agree that there’s only so long that you can continue to hope for improvement. There are so many reviews and expectations that can be said without seeing some major changes. Because, at the end of the day, the harm here is harm to animal welfare and to real-life animals, and that is important.

I’d also like to acknowledge Eugenie Sage. Eugenie Sage was a very valued member of this Parliament and a local resident in Banks Peninsula, who also was incredibly passionate about this issue and had taken the opportunity to, on several occasions, raise welfare concerns using that parliamentary process. So I acknowledge that.

But today, we are here because this bill removes greyhound racing as a permitted betting activity and winds down the industry, as we’ve heard, in an orderly and in a humane and in a well-managed way, with key improvements that were secured during the select committee process. We’ve heard from other people who have made contributions today who have talked about the three stages and who have talked about the transition agency. We have heard from my colleague Tangi Utikere, who led for us on this bill about the fact that it is certainly our expectation that part of the remit of the transition agency will be to ensure that there is appropriate support in the myriad ways that that might manifest for people who are involved in the industry, either directly or indirectly.

That certainly is our expectation and why, therefore, we don’t agree with the amendment to support that there would be direct compensation. I think that that is absolutely the right thing to do, given that there has been such a lengthy period of notice. It springs to mind some parallels, I suppose, with some other industries that we may eventually want to wind down because they cause terrible harm. So avoiding that precedent, I think, is really, really important.

So Labour has consistently supported action on the greyhound welfare issue and a responsible transition. While we support the amended bill’s objectives, we will continue to hold the Government to account on the compassion, fairness, and meaningful support for workers, trainers, and communities affected by that transition. It is important that that land in a fair place. It creates a Greyhound Racing Transition Agency, as we’ve talked about, which is a dedicated body to oversee the closure and the rehoming of dogs.

I would like to take the opportunity to reiterate what several people have said, including the Minister who introduced this bill at third reading, that it’s time for many people, hopefully, to consider adopting or to consider fostering a greyhound. There has been the genesis of a little bit of a PR and an advertising campaign around that and we would like—I’d certainly hope—to see a little bit more of that happening. I know of probably one already confirmed adoption relationship that has taken place and another one that is in train, because that’s the nature of these things, isn’t it? You often don’t know what you don’t know, and then one person goes through that process of adopting an ex-racing greyhound, and that seems to be going quite well, and therefore friends and family get the opportunity to consider it for themselves. So a bit of a shout-out for people to take that seriously and to give that a crack.

As we have also discussed, the structured, three-stage approach, I think, turns this process into something that’s not only manageable but is also something that has the requisite transparency. We think that that is a good idea. So closing an industry that has—and let’s be honest—repeatedly failed to meet the welfare standards which we would assume it should do if it wanted to maintain that social licence to still be a legitimate part. The select committee improvements therefore have made this wind-down process, I think, a very easy bill to support. As long as the protections for animal welfare and dignity remain at the heart of that decision-making process, which I absolutely believe is the right thing to do, then I think that we can be rest assured today during this process that that is a good decision and Labour will continue to support the bill.

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) (16:25): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take this final call in the third reading for the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill. I think what I have experienced with the fact that I haven’t been a member of the select committee, but listening to the speeches of those that were, is that this has been a very emotional journey with regards to the passing of this bill.

I also want to acknowledge the fact that from the very first inquiry or looking into the animal welfare of the greyhound industry back in 2013 and the subsequent two other inquiries that were had, it obviously exposed the fact that there was quite concern over the welfare of the greyhounds in the industry itself. This I think has exposed the fact that select committee processes can actually bring quite an amount of emotion into it. The previous speaker, Dr Tracey McLellan, mentioned the fact that families came into the select committee rooms in quite emotional states with how this is going to affect them with this—an industry that they love, an industry that they have passion for, and also animals that they also love as well.

So I am mindful of the amendments that were provided throughout the select committee process, which strengthens the bill itself. I want to acknowledge that I want to convey to all those that are part of this sector all the very best in this transition away from the closure that’s going to occur shortly. I commend the bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 112

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Noes 11

ACT New Zealand 11.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

© Scoop Media