GRNZ Media release

[BitofaLegend]

https://www.grnz.co.nz/News/3352/Media-Release-Greyhounds-starts-judicial-review-proceedings

[Chief Stipe]

Media Release - Greyhounds starts judicial review proceedings

26 May 2025

MEDIA RELEASE

Greyhounds starts judicial review proceedings

Greyhound Racing New Zealand (GRNZ) has today applied, through its Counsel to the High Court, for a Judicial Review of the Government’s decision to ban greyhound racing from 31 July 2026.

The statement of claim made to the Court says the decision broke fundamental rules of law, being inadequately informed, prepared and consulted on. There were only a few short steps from the Minister for Racing seeking a report in June 2024 on banning the sport, to the Cabinet deciding to do so in December 2024.

The Cabinet paper produced by the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) focused on animal welfare but was selective in its use of reports from the Racing Integrity Board (RIB) and included no information from the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC). For example, an RIB November 2024 report stated that GRNZ met welfare standards, often better than other animal sports or greyhound racing worldwide, but this information was left out of the DIA report and Cabinet paper.

GRNZ’s application says there was a duty, promise and expectation to consult with GRNZ on the decision which never happened, despite a history of constructive engagement on animal welfare.

GRNZ CEO Edward Rennell said “the organisation had decided on a judicial review to expose the Government’s cavalier attitude to policymaking adversely impacting the livelihoods of thousands.

“This was a Cabinet paper from public officials who had made up their minds, for a Prime Minister who had made up his mind and stated it publicly.

“The Government took its decision too lightly and too quickly, without due care and due diligence. It was a rushed and inadequate Cabinet paper.

“This is an injustice to greyhound breeders, owners, trainers and all other industry participants, as well as a dereliction of duty to New Zealanders.

“Decisions that impact the lives and livelihoods of people must be extremely well articulated and evidenced.

This decision was not, highlighting an emerging pattern of short-cutting in policymaking. New Zealand deserves better.” Edward Rennell said.

Case explainer

The GRNZ statement of claim under the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016:

• The essence of the GRNZ case is that the way the Cabinet decision to ban Greyhound racing was reached and the decision itself broke many fundamental rules of administrative law.

• It is rare to challenge a Cabinet decision, but the decision-making process was so inadequate and erroneous that it warrants judicial intervention.

• It clarifies that the Cabinet decision was a ‘reviewable decision’ under the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016.

• The first cause of action was the failure to consult.

GRNZ says consultation is a legal duty that arose from being promised to Greyhound Racing, and because of the hugely significant implications to the detriment of many hundreds of hardworking New Zealanders. The Department of Internal Affairs officials said no decision would be made without Greyhound Racing being consulted – but it did not happen.

• The second cause of action is legitimate expectation.

A legitimate expectation about a certain process can be established by what has been said or done by a decision maker. GRNZ says DIA’s course of conduct since 2021 created a legitimate expectation that the industry would be able to make submissions on any proposed ban.

• The third point is that the process broke all the rules about procedural fairness.

Decisionmakers must act reasonably to ensure the process undertaken is fair and not a foregone conclusion. That has not happened here.

• The fourth and fifth causes of action deal with the failure to make relevant considerations.

Either the Minister was unaware of the development of the Cabinet paper and the background circumstances, or the Minister knew exactly what was going on and was instrumental in its sign-off and presentation.

The fourth cause of action says that if the Minister was unaware, then the officials failed by not bringing to the Minister’s attention certain key relevant considerations

The fifth cause of action proceeds on the basis that the Minister did know what was going on.

 

• Interim Relief.

GRNZ is applying for ‘interim relief’ – a Court order to stop the Crown working on the ban (via the Ministerial Advisory Committee) while the judicial review is undertaken. No further steps to give effect to the ban should be taken unless and until the Court has had an opportunity of scrutinising the claim.

/Ends

[Special Agent]

I am surprised there hasn't been more comment on this.

The whole process was terrible.  No support from the other codes selfish.

I saw a quote somewhere, may have been from Rennell, saying Winston Peters has been the best Racing Minister, yet the greyhound demise was under his watch, and in the media release above there is thought the minister was unaware of what was going on.

I have to wonder if some people are gullible.  Is there really anyone out there who is concerned with the best interests of the entire industry?

[Overit]

1 hour ago, Special Agent said:

I am surprised there hasn't been more comment on this.

The whole process was terrible.  No support from the other codes selfish.

I saw a quote somewhere, may have been from Rennell, saying Winston Peters has been the best Racing Minister, yet the greyhound demise was under his watch, and in the media release above there is thought the minister was unaware of what was going on.

I have to wonder if some people are gullible.  Is there really anyone out there who is concerned with the best interests of the entire industry?

I agree with your comment  thought there would have been others share their opinion.  I made the decision back in 2021 to leave the industry as an owner and handler due to the lack of proactive forwardness in the industry.   Good on GRNZ for fighting but this should of been started early.  I blame the past and present board members and racing managers and ceo's.  But good luck to the good people in the industry with a over turn of the ban

[BitofaLegend]

19 hours ago, Special Agent said:

I am surprised there hasn't been more comment on this.

The whole process was terrible.  No support from the other codes selfish.

I saw a quote somewhere, may have been from Rennell, saying Winston Peters has been the best Racing Minister, yet the greyhound demise was under his watch, and in the media release above there is thought the minister was unaware of what was going on.

I have to wonder if some people are gullible.  Is there really anyone out there who is concerned with the best interests of the entire industry?

While I think GRNZ should have acted sooner to get more of a public response, the other codes really do not care about greyhound racing here so it is not surprising.

[Special Agent]

1 hour ago, BitofaLegend said:

While I think GRNZ should have acted sooner to get more of a public response, the other codes really do not care about greyhound racing here so it is not surprising.

What a selfish world we live in.

[curious]

I assume that GRNZ has reached out to the othe other codes to ask them for what help they think they need or would like? I haven't seen any requests like that.

[Chief Stipe]

2 hours ago, curious said:

I assume that GRNZ has reached out to the othe other codes to ask them for what help they think they need or would like? I haven't seen any requests like that.

Why would they @curious ?  It would only reflect back on them and given their lack of proactive support prior to the ban announcement they don't appear to give a damm.

As I've always said though they should have defended the Greyhound bridgehead from the get go.  Now there is only Harness between the Thoroughbreds and obscurity.

Hopefully NZTR and HRNZ will coordinate their fight back against the Anti-racing brigade.

[Special Agent]

On 5/30/2025 at 2:48 PM, Chief Stipe said:

 Hopefully NZTR and HRNZ will coordinate their fight back against the Anti-racing brigade.

I doubt it.

I would have thought Edward Rennell had contacts from his harness days he could have called on.

[BitofaLegend]

Interesting read. Sounds like GRNZ are concerned Govt is going to try and take its money: https://www.grnz.co.nz/News/3358/Government-requisition-plans-for-Greyhound-money-revealed

[Chief Stipe]

Government requisition plans for Greyhound money revealed

MEDIA RELEASE
16 June 2025

Government requisition plans for Greyhound money revealed Greyhound Racing New Zealand said today that the Government will enter unprecedented territory
if it requisitions the organisation’s savings fund (currently $16m), built up over decades, as part of its intended ban of the sport.

GRNZ is an Incorporated Society, with funds held on behalf of participants in the sport.

Governments can only forcibly close and appropriate funds of an Incorporated Society for financial misconduct, insolvency or failure to submit returns.
GRNZ has operated impeccably and complied with all requests made of it. Therefore, the Government will need to pass a remarkable new law to close a Society that has done nothing illegal.

The Government would need to declare what happens to the Society’s funds. It has been suspiciously silent on the matter to date.
GRNZ CEO Edward Rennell said a grab for money rightly owned by the sport and its participants would be contemptible.

“The Government will execute the sport on trumped up charges, and make us pay for the gallows and grave,” Rennell said.
“It is a real low point; the first Government to fabricate a new law to close an Incorporated Society that is totally compliant with all laws and standards. It’s a cavalier approach to law, justice and
democracy.

“The Government is grinding its heel into our people by taking their money as well as their sport.

“Those funds were built up over decades by generations of sport participants. It belongs to them,” Edward Rennell said.

Rennell predicts the Government would excuse the extraordinary theft as necessary to pay for rehoming greyhounds, but he says that the high cost arises from the Government’s ban, and
insistence on a close-down faster than greyhounds can be rehomed, requiring long-term kenneling while they wait.
Rennell said the ban was unjustified, so at least should be carried out with impeccable fairness.

Any ban must be cost-neutral, where the sport is wound down gradually, using profits and savings to cover costs and compensate participants for loss of assets.


For further information contact:
Liam Constable – 029 200 9842

[hesi]

Greyhound racing industry takes court action

5:53 pm on 14 August 2025 

Share this 

• Share on Twitter
• Share on Facebook
• Share via email
• Share on Reddit
• Share on Linked In

Bill Hickman, Journalist

Bill.Hickman@rnz.co.nz

Racing Minister Winston Peters has ordered a halt to greyhound racing from August 2026. Photo: PHOTOSPORT

Lawyers for the Greyhound Racing Association have told the High Court in Wellington that the ban on greyhound racing will have a devastating effect on the livelihoods of more than 1000 people.

Last December, Racing Minister Winston Peters announced the sport would be banned from August 2026.

On Thursday, the association argued in court that the work of a ministerial advisory committee tasked with implementing the ban should be stopped, until a judicial review of the legislation was heard.

Govt ignored industry improvements in animal welfare

Lawyer Chris Finlayson said the government had erred in directing the industry to monitor and improve animal welfare standards, only to ignore the results in cabinet's decision-making process.

The court was told the racing industry had engaged with three reviews of the sport in just over a decade and had consistently shown willingness to comply with directives to improve animal welfare, and controls surrounding injuries and deaths, as well as track standards and rehoming initiatives.

He said the cabinet paper - on which the decision to ban the sport was based - was "misleading" and a "very selective characterisation" of the key issues facing cabinet, which he argued was the industry's animal welfare standards, not the erosion of public license - society's acceptance of the practices of the sport.

Welfare standards applied with 'more rigour than pet dogs'

Finlayson said the government - after directing the industry to undertake a statutory process and then "blandly ignore it" - contradicted its obligation to consider the expertise of the industry in legislating towards the sport.

Lawyers for the Greyhound Racing Association (left to right) Chris Finlayson KC and Jonathan Kaye at the High Court in Wellington. Photo: RNZ/Bill Hickman

"The standard of animal welfare of greyhound racing is high," Finlayson said. "It aligns with the standards in other jurisdictions and is applied with significantly more rigour than pet dogs."

Finlayson said the uncertainty over the recommendations of the ministerial advisory committee's plan to wind down the sport was resulting in members of the industry leaving the country before the ban, a collapse in breeding numbers and serious mental-health issues in participants of the industry.

He argued, after the ban, New Zealanders could still bet on Australian dog races, which had "equal or lesser" animal welfare standards than Aotearoa's racing industry.

No jurisdiction to stop legislative process

Counsel for the Attorney General - acting on behalf of the Minister of Racing - said interim relief application was "fundamentally premised on a need to stop the legislation".

Lawyer Katherine Anderson said the action, if successful, "would frustrate the introduction of the bill to Parliament".

She said it was "undeniably clear" the court could not make an order to prevent the introduction of a bill.

"It's very clear that the applicant fundamentally [says] the decision is wrong and is attempting to draw you in."

She said it was up to the Minister to decide "how and if" parties would be consulted before the bill was put to Parliament.

Lawyers for the Attorney General - acting on behalf of the Minister of Racing - (left to right) Katherine Anderson and Emma Dowse at the High Court in Wellington. Photo: RNZ/Bill Hickman

"There's no straight jacket on the minister to go to the racing industry saying, 'Is there a ban on greyhound racing that's required on welfare grounds?'.

"They've been elected to make policy decisions and, if people don't like it, they can be un-elected," Anderson said.

Throughout proceedings, Judge Dale La Hood pressed the Greyhound Racing Association's counsel to clarify how the action would benefit the industry, if it's success was not to prevent the ban.

"You need to explain to me... what you're seeking to have... stopped, other than preventing a ban on greyhound racing. I don't know if I understand what the benefit of interim relief would be to your client, if it doesn't halt the ban.

"That's crucial to my decision on whether you've got a case," La Hood said.

Finlayson said he would undertake to clarify his client's intent in a memorandum to the judge after the day's proceedings.

Judge La Hood reserved his decision.

[curious]

Sounds like they don't have a case here?

[Chief Stipe]

5 minutes ago, curious said:

Sounds like they don't have a case here?

Very hard to over turn a Paliamentary decision in the courts.  At the end of the day Parliament sets the laws and the courts interpret and enforce them.  There are few if any checks and balances in the NZ system.  

[curious]

40 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Very hard to over turn a Paliamentary decision in the courts.  At the end of the day Parliament sets the laws and the courts interpret and enforce them.  There are few if any checks and balances in the NZ system.  

So, why are they wasting time and money on this? Makes little sense to me. There seems to be no feasible objective from GRNZ. It's just making them look sillier than they have already been.

As was noted, the check and balance is to unelect the members that introduced or voted for the legislation. That's how democracies work isn't it?

Edited 2 hours ago by curious

[Chief Stipe]

3 minutes ago, curious said:

So, why are they wasting time and money on this? Makes little sense to me.

Well you would think an ex-Attorney General Chris Finlayson KC would have given appropriate advice.  However it seems the argument that is puzzling the Judge is what is it exactly they are hoping to gain by an injunction/interim relief.  Especially since the ban is not yet in place.  They could argue that the ban is affecting decision making now by Greyhound stakeholders and that they propose to argue in court against the actual ban.  But at the end of the day when the Government makes a decision it is very hard to overturn it.

9 minutes ago, curious said:

As was noted, the check and balance is to unelect the members that introduced or voted for the legislation. That's how democracies work isn't it?

Yes.  Although some democracies have other checks and balances such as a Human Rights Act with teeth and an Upper House.  All we have really is the Governor General!