To ensure that appropriate funding is allocated to the closure of the domestic greyhound racing industry, the majority of us recommend amending clauses 17 and 19 so that TAB NZ would maintain the ability to take bets on greyhound races held outside New Zealand.

As introduced, the bill would not allow TAB NZ to continue taking bets on overseas commercial greyhound races after the end of domestic racing. This is because the bill would remove the term “greyhound race” from the Act, and this term does not differentiate between domestic and offshore greyhound races. We do not believe this approach matches the Government’s intention.

We understand the intent to be that the industry’s closure would be funded by industry, not by the taxpayer or solely by the horse racing codes. The majority of us consider that continuing to allow betting on overseas greyhound races would help to achieve this.

Many submitters told us that banning domestic greyhound racing while continuing to receive revenue from overseas greyhound betting could be seen as inconsistent with the intent of the ban. They felt this would be unfair to industry participants. We acknowledge this concern. Ultimately, however, we accept that the bill is focused solely on the closure of the domestic greyhound racing industry, and is not intended to affect other activities that are currently permitted. Allowing betting on overseas greyhound races through TAB NZ would help to fund the industry’s closure and avoid the need for subsidies from taxpayers or horse racing.

As introduced, the bill would mean that TAB NZ could not take bets from New Zealanders on overseas greyhound racing, but offshore operators would be able to take these bets. This would create a gap that offshore operators could exploit, undermining the New Zealand betting market and posing a risk to TAB NZ’s viability. Moreover, offshore operators would not contribute to funding the closure of the industry, and allowing them to take these bets would be inconsistent with TAB NZ’s legislated monopoly on racing and sports betting in New Zealand.

We therefore recommend inserting clause 23A to amend section 74AAA of the Act (Prohibition on offering betting to persons in New Zealand). This would prevent offshore betting operators from taking bets from New Zealanders on greyhound races.

As introduced, the bill would mean that once the transition agency has been disestablished, any residual assets held by the agency would be distributed to other racing codes.

Submitters considered it unfair that assets built up by greyhound racing participants would be taken by the transition agency and redistributed to the horse racing codes. We agree that any remaining assets should go to industry participants.

We recommend amending clause 32 of Schedule 1 so that any remaining assets at the end of the process must be distributed to participants registered with GRNZ immediately before the 1 August 2026 closure date. The transition agency would be tasked with identifying who industry participants are. We note that there may not be many residual assets remaining at the end of transition processes.

Clause 10 would insert new section 53D, setting out the functions of the transition agency. This includes a requirement for the transition agency to notify a new owner of a specified greyhound in writing when it determines that the greyhound has been successfully rehomed and has ceased to be a specified greyhound. (The term “specified greyhound” is currently defined in section 53A(4) of the Act to mean any greyhound registered with GRNZ on or after 11 December 2024—the day after the Government announced its in-principle decision to close the industry.)

Submitters suggested that the notification to inform owners the greyhound is no longer a specified greyhound should also include a description of obligations under the Code of Welfare: Dogs (2018).¹ This would help owners to understand the expectations of appropriate care for pet dogs. We think this further information would be useful to new owners, as the greyhound’s status will change from a racing greyhound to that of a pet.

We recommend amending proposed section 53D to specify that when the transition agency notifies a new owner of a specified greyhound, the notice must include information about the new owner’s obligations to provide appropriate care under the applicable Code of Welfare for Dogs.

The Racing Integrity Board (RIB) oversees the integrity of New Zealand’s racing industry by managing compliance and adjudication functions, providing regulatory services, supporting animal welfare, recommending rule changes, and monitoring the overall effectiveness of racing integrity operations. These functions are set out in section 44 of the Racing Industry Act.

The RIB expressed concern that the bill would result in an abrupt loss of its jurisdiction in relation to greyhound-related integrity matters after the closure date of 1 August 2026. It said that this would limit its ability to conclude ongoing compliance matters that had not yet been resolved by the closure date, and would affect ongoing investigations. The RIB suggested that losing these powers could create perverse incentives for industry participants and weaken its powers in the lead-up to the closure date.

We acknowledge and agree with the concerns raised by the RIB regarding its ability to carry out compliance and enforcement functions through the transition period. Therefore, we recommend extending the RIB’s existing compliance and adjudication functions under section 44 following the closure of the commercial greyhound racing industry, and to provide a right of appeal to the District Court in relation to any decision or penalty determined by the RIB during that period. This would be done by amending Schedule 1 of the bill to insert new clause 33 into Schedule 1 of the Act.

New section 53I, to be inserted by clause 10, would require the transition agency to provide an annual report on the performance of its functions and operations.

Submitters suggested that the annual reporting by the agency should include information about welfare outcomes for greyhounds in the rehoming programme, information on euthanasia and deaths of greyhounds, a range of adoption metrics, and expenditure by the transition agency. We agree with submitters that additional performance information would be useful for scrutinising the performance of the transition agency and for providing added transparency to the public.

We recommend that proposed section 53I be amended to require the transition agency’s annual report to include information relating to the welfare of specified greyhounds. It should also include information relating to the number of specified greyhounds that have been euthanised or died while awaiting rehoming.

Some submitters suggested that owners and trainers would send their racing dogs to Australia for racing and breeding purposes. We acknowledge the view that this would help owners and trainers to recover the cost of their investment. However, some of us are concerned about the animal welfare implications for the greyhounds should any owners or trainers decide to do so.

We have not proposed any changes to rules around the export of racing greyhounds overseas, given that this bill focuses on winding down domestic commercial racing in New Zealand. We understand that the risk of widespread export of racing greyhounds is low. We have been advised that the bill as introduced provides flexibility for the transition agency to discourage exporting for racing, by attaching limits or conditions to the support provided to participants who do this.

Dogs can currently be exported to Australia by plane without an Animal Welfare Export Certificate (as the journey is seen as a low welfare risk), but we note that airlines may have restrictions. For example, Air New Zealand currently prohibits greyhounds used for racing or breeding purposes from travelling on their services.

As a committee we do support the rehoming of dogs overseas.

ACT believes that when the Crown uses its extraordinary power to extinguish a lawful industry and effectively take private property, it must do so cautiously, responsibly, and with clear regard for those affected.

A ban on a legal industry should be a last resort. Governments regulate industries precisely so problems can be identified and corrected. Only when a regulatory regime has clearly failed, and when compliance cannot be achieved through enforcement or reform, should Parliament consider prohibition.

In this case, ACT is not convinced that threshold has been met. The greyhound racing industry has, over time, adapted to regulatory requirements and implemented changes in response to welfare concerns. The industry has clearly taken extreme efforts to protect the welfare of racing greyhounds, as was noted by submitters. When an industry operating within the law has taken steps to comply with the rules imposed on it, banning that industry should require a very high burden of proof that the regulatory framework cannot work and that non-compliance is unavoidable. ACT does not believe that standard has been clearly demonstrated, or that the greyhound racing industry has operated outside the bounds of what has been asked in regulatory terms.

ACT understands the intent behind the bill. However, we remain concerned that, in the form reported back by the committee, it is not appropriately structured to allow for a responsible and practical wind-down of greyhound racing without causing unnecessary harm to owners, trainers, workers, and the greyhounds themselves.

We are concerned about the level and quality of engagement the industry received throughout the development of the ban. We believe this is unfortunate and has resulted in legislation that appears rushed and unfair to participants.

A major practical concern ACT has is the ability to rehome the estimated 1,600 greyhounds affected by the ban. The SPCA, the Ministerial Advisory Committee, and industry representatives have all acknowledged that rehoming will take significant resources and time. We do not believe the legislation adequately recognises this fact. We believe the current bill will harm greyhounds.

ACT believes that that the committee should have strongly considered a longer transition period, allowing racing to continue for longer. This would better allow an orderly wind-down, ensure greyhounds are responsibly rehomed and enable the proper disposal of assets. This longer timeframe would reduce pressure on rehoming agencies and lower the risk of unintended animal welfare consequences.

ACT further believes the bill should include a clearly defined compensation mechanism for those whose lawful livelihoods are being extinguished by this bill. Approximately 1,000 full-time-equivalent roles are supported by the industry. Many participants have invested significant capital under a regulatory regime that explicitly permitted their operations. If the Government is ending that regime, it should also address the consequences fairly.

ACT is concerned that the TAB will continue accepting bets on overseas greyhound racing while domestic greyhound racing is banned, with the associated revenue redirected elsewhere.

The committee amended the bill to allow overseas greyhound betting to continue, to help fund the closure. However, there is no clear legislative ring-fencing of this revenue. Instead, there are general assurances. When the Crown makes promises about future funding, Parliament should insist those commitments are clearly embedded in law.

The $15.82 million in net assets identified in the Ministerial Advisory Committee (MAC) report as currently held by Greyhound Racing New Zealand (GRNZ) should first be allocated to industry participants. The costs associated with rehoming greyhounds should be funded by the Crown, given that the Crown made the decision to close the industry. These costs could then be recovered through revenue derived from offshore betting on greyhound racing, which the committee has resolved may continue.

ACT believes revenue derived from overseas greyhound betting should be explicitly ring-fenced in legislation to fund rehoming programmes, assist with industry transition costs, and contribute to any compensation framework. The purpose of that revenue should be transparent and guaranteed.

If Parliament is insistent on progressing a ban, it should be humane and fair. For it to be fair there needs to more time and a clear compensation regime. ACT does not believe that legislation should fall short on these basic responsibilities.