Poll: Bid to overturn greyhound racing ban
The organisation has accused the Government of rushing the decision without proper consultation, ignoring established procedures, and relying on selective or incomplete information in official briefings.
The move follows Cabinet's decision in December 2024 to end greyhound racing in New Zealand, based largely on a paper prepared by the Department of Internal Affairs.
That report, according to GRNZ, focused narrowly on animal welfare concerns while omitting key evidence that supported the industry's standards and progress.
In a statement, GRNZ said the Cabinet paper failed to reflect the full picture, particularly overlooking a November 2024 Racing Integrity Board (RIB) report which found that greyhound welfare standards in New Zealand were not only being met but often exceeded those in other animal sports or overseas greyhound racing jurisdictions. GRNZ also said there was no evidence that advice was sought from the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee before the decision was made.
Chief Executive Edward Rennell said the Government's handling of the issue lacked due process and failed to respect the livelihoods of thousands of New Zealanders involved in the industry.
He said the greyhound racing community, which includes breeders, owners, trainers, and support staff, had been blindsided by the Government's announcement and left with no option but to seek judicial intervention.
Last week's poll results: Should the city council stop collecting the targeted rate for the Christ Church Cathedral reinstatement project?
Yes 58%
No 42%
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
8 minutes ago
- Scoop
A Poser For Labour Party: Tax Wealth Or Tax Capital Gains
Veteran political journalist Vernon Small's latest regular paywalled column in Stuff's Sunday Star Times (3 August) has brought to life a subject that by its very nature can put many people to sleep – tax wealth or tax capital gains: A choice Labour may come to regret. Small was previously an advisor to the former Labour government. Both taxes seek to address tax avoidance. Avoidance involves exploiting or dodging (if there is a difference) the taxation system in order to reduce the amount of tax one might otherwise have to pay. Tax avoidance can be ethically grey This is in contrast to tax evasion which involves concealing income or other relevant information. The latter is illegal and punishable. Wealth taxes involve annually taxing valuable assets such as land, shares, art works, or other valuable collectables. Some prominent economists, such as France's Thomas Piketty, argue that wealth taxes are both necessary and practicable. Drawing upon empirical research Piketty has a particular focus on inherited wealth (think Donald Trump for example). Interestingly Labour leader Chris Hipkins cites Piketty among his reading material. Capital gains taxes (CGT) also tax wealth. However, they tax the gain in value of an asset. Consequently they apply when the asset is sold. CGT is therefore usually paid only once per asset gain unlike an annual wealth tax. Shifting the dial on tax avoidance Former Labour MP and cabinet minister David Parker has for many years been a strong advocate of achieving taxation fairness by addressing tax avoidance. In his recent valedictory speech to Parliament he described his advocacy as 'shifting the dial' over this issue as his most significant achievement. On 26 April 2023, as Minister of Revenue, Parker gave a major speech advocating a wealth tax: David Parker's wealth tax. His proposed wealth tax, supported by Finance Minister Grant Robertson, was not as broad as discussed above. It was based on research undertaken by Inland Revenue that provided 'hard data confirming fundamental unfairness in our tax system.' The study revealed that 311 people had collective wealth of $85 billion. Further, the effective tax rate of middle-income New Zealanders was at least double that of the wealthiest. Subsequently then Labour Prime Minister Chris Hipkins pulled the plug on the Parker-Robertson initiative; a decision which shocked many and helped contribute to Labour's heavy defeat in the general election later that year. Insightful column Vernon Small's above-mentioned insightful column needs to be read in the above context. He reports that the Labour Party's Policy Council has narrowly endorsed a CGT as the centre piece of its tax reform for next year's election. This reportedly is also Hipkins' preferred position. However, this is not the end of Labour's internal decision-making process. Taxing wealth preferred to taxing capital works (Vernon Small) Small described this choice as one that 'it may come to regret.' Small's argument for this conclusion is as follows: CGT would deliver much less revenue initially and takes a long time to build revenue, if applied only to realised gains. CGT requires a 'difficult sales job' as National and its rightwing allies '…whip up a smorgasbord of concerns over the devilish details with a side salad of misinformation.' By comparison, a wealth tax targeted at the very wealthiest '…should be an easier sell.' The claim, which apparently influenced Hipkins' position, that a wealth tax would lead to fear of capital flight is 'over-wrought' and debunked by Treasury There is political advantage of a wealth tax also being the preferred option of Labour's potential coalition allies, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori. It would be easier for a future rightwing government to reverse a CGT because it is slow to accumulate. Widening the thinking beyond either/or It is hard to argue with Vernon Small's logic; it certainly resonates with me. However, while not critical of his column, the debate should be widened including not constraining it to either/or options. The starting point should be recognising the need to address both the unfairness of tax rate inequity favouring the wealthy at the expense of the rest and untaxed income derived in various ways from speculation. It should also differentiate between getting early 'runs on the board' (I'm a cricket addict, just saying) and longer term measures and longer term benefits. Logically this favours a wealth tax for the reasons discussed. Beginning with something like the Parker-Robertson proposal would produce quicker tangible and identifiable fiscal returns. This would be more likely to be sufficiently bedded in to make it more difficult for a subsequent rightwing government to overturn. While this implementation is underway, work should be undertaken on broadening the range of wealth taxation taking the lead from economists such at Thomas Piketty. This does not mean waving goodbye to a capital gains tax. But it is politically savvy to recognise the longer time required to 'reap the benefits' . Taking advantage of the report from the Michael Cullen led working group, further work should be undertaken in order to develop a practical CGT without unintended consequences. The importance of messaging a good narrative Vernon Small correctly observes that the rightwing government parties will quickly get into attack mode once Labour announces its taxation policy. They know full well Labour's past inability to counter such an attack and to look like a possum in a car's headlights. Expect Finance Minister Nicola Willis to lead the charge. The political right are experts in messaging. My way of describing this politically is as follows: the far right communicates in gestures and soundbites (and sometimes violent threats); the political right communicates in sentences reinforced by soundbites; the political left communicates in paragraphs (social liberals in longer paragraphs); and the far left communicates in footnotes. Labour in my view is more technocratic social liberal than leftwing. I have discussed this previously in Political Bytes (30 April 2023): What leftwing really means. Regardless, however, Labour needs to deliver a good narrative on the unfairness of tax avoidance by taking a lead from the political right. Show more spine and do it in crisp succinct sentences further enabled by smart soundbites.
1News
an hour ago
- 1News
Nicola Willis bemoans 'glass half-empty' view of unemployment figures
The Finance Minister is bemoaning those who take a glass-half-empty view of the unemployment figures, saying they were still better than forecast. The unemployment rate has risen to 5.2% in the three months ended June, up from 5.1% in the previous quarter. Stats NZ figures show unemployment has risen 1.9 percentage points since the June 2022 quarter. Annual wage growth has slowed to 2.4%, compared to 4.3% in the June 2024 quarter. The economy shed about 2000 jobs during the quarter and 16,000 jobs over the past 12 months. There was also an increase in the number of people aged 15 to 24 in education, which Stats NZ said could be due to the current labour market conditions. Speaking to the figures, Nicola Willis said the "positive news" was a lower rate of unemployment than what was expected. "Some New Zealanders, particularly in the commentariat, have got themselves into the habit of what I call glass half-empty economics," she said. "Today, on the plain facts of the data, is a lower unemployment rate than was being forecast by Treasury at the Budget, that was being forecast by commercial banks, that was being forecast prior to the election." Willis said the 16,000 people who had lost their jobs "shouldn't take it personally" and blamed the previous government. "What we have inherited is the horrible human aftershock of poor economic management. "What happens when you let interest rates and inflation get out of control is that it strangles an economy and it strangles job creation." She said there were promising signs in the agriculture and tech sectors, and construction would bounce back once the Government's infrastructure projects got underway. Labour leader Chris Hipkins said it was the Government's fault for letting construction jobs fall in the first place. "The current Government got elected on a platform that they were going to fix the economy, and clearly they've made things significantly worse." Hipkins said there were 18,000 fewer people working in building and construction than there were at the time of the 2023 election. "When thousands of people are employed building new state houses, and you stop building state houses, is it any surprise that the number of people working in building and construction goes down?" Willis rejected that, saying the Government was continuing to build state and social housing. The Green Party said the Government was forcing people further into hardship and poverty, and then punishing them with benefit sanctions. "Increasing unemployment to tackle high inflation is a political choice not new to National governments, but this one has shown little concern at throwing tens of thousands of people out of work," Greens' employment and social development spokesperson Ricardo Menéndez March said. On Breakfast, BNZ chief economist Mike Jones gave his thoughts on what was driving unemployment, and when it could get better. (Source: 1News) "People want to work and there are masses of important projects for people to work on – housing, climate protection, nature regeneration and others. "The main barrier to people finding work is this Government." The tariffs imposed by the United States were likely to have an effect on the economy, Willis said, but Treasury was still forecasting unemployment to fall in the latter part of the year.
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Labelling rules ease for genetically-modified food made without adding new DNA
Simultaneously, the Government was considering a new regulatory regime for gene technologies used outside the laboratory, after it attracted 15,000 submissions during a select committee earlier this year. GM food or GM-free: a consumer's choice? Hoggard told RNZ last week there was some opposition to FSANZ's P1055 proposal during public consultation from those who 'don't believe in [genetic engineering]'. 'There was still some vocal opposition, so that was taken on board,' he said. 'Obviously, there was support from a lot of industry and scientific groups.' Hoggard said that in removing the requirement, producers could still choose to disclose gene technologies used throughout production on the label. 'There's nothing stopping anyone who is producing food that doesn't have any new breeding technologies to label it as such. 'We're not outlawing that people don't have to put these labels on.' He said it came down to the consumer's choice. 'So if the organic sector, for example, doesn't want to allow these new breeding techniques in their production, then people who also think they don't want to consume food that's had new breeding techniques used in them, then they can just buy organic and know that 'okay, that hasn't been used'. 'If this is something you're not worried about, then just go ahead shopping as normal. 'If it is something you are concerned about, producers who will be using the old methodologies will still be able to highlight on the packaging that, 'hey, we don't use the X, Y and Z' or 'we don't do this or that'. And you just need to go and look for that food.' Food Safety Minister Andrew Hoggard says producers can still choose to disclose gene technologies and label items as such. Photo / RNZ, Angus Dreaver Hoggard said to the best of his knowledge, no health issues had been raised from the consumption of GMO products, such as soya bean, for example. Meanwhile, GE-Free New Zealand spokesman Jon Carapiet said the eased labelling requirements took informed choices away from the consumer. 'It's really fundamentally unethical to take away the ordinary consumer's choice in the supermarkets,' Carapiet said. 'It's all about trust, and to say 'we're not gonna even trust you to make your own decisions anymore'... is really wrong.' He said the assertion that shoppers concerned about GM food would simply buy organic food instead was 'disingenuous'. 'The average consumer certainly can't afford to go and buy organics on an everyday basis. I wish they could, but they can't,' he said. 'So to say all the ordinary people of New Zealand don't deserve the right to choose, I think that's very wrong.' Carapiet said supermarkets could ask their suppliers to disclose the use of gene technologies throughout production to ensure transparency and to inform shoppers about the product they were buying. 'I think that in the coming months, if this does go ahead, companies will have to go above and beyond the food authority standards. 'If the food authority FSANZ says 'no, you can have GM crops and GE foods unlabelled in the supermarket', then it's going to be for the supermarkets to voluntarily label it.' Supermarkets commit to compliance In a written statement, a Foodstuffs spokesperson said it took food safety 'very seriously' and complied fully with the Australia and New Zealand Food Standards Code, including all labelling requirements. 'Customers have the right to know what's in the food they're buying,' they said. 'As part of our supplier agreements, we require partners to disclose country of origin information, and any environmental or social claims must be accurate and substantiated.' They said the same approach applied to food made using gene technologies, including GM ingredients. 'Any changes to regulation in this space will be carefully reviewed, and we'll continue to ensure our labelling provides customers with accurate and transparent information, so they can make informed choices.' A Woolworths New Zealand spokesperson said it will make sure its retail items comply with labelling rules. 'If the labelling rules in New Zealand change, then we would ensure all products comply with labelling requirements,' they said. – RNZ
