Another greyhound racing ban could see dishlickers done
The tenuous Tasmanian administration of Premier Jeremy Rockliff has announced it will phase out greyhound racing by mid-2029 as it works to shore up support from independents to continue in minority government.
The timing would coincide with the end of a government funding agreement and make the island state the second jurisdiction in Australia to stop the sport.
The ACT banned greyhound racing in 2018.
Mr Rockliff said the time had come to make a call on the future of greyhound racing in the state.
"It's time to draw a line in the sand and ensure an orderly exit from greyhound racing in Tasmania," he said on Sunday.
He acknowledged the news would be "extremely disappointing" for many in the greyhound industry, but said it had become increasingly clear the sport didn't align with community expectations.
The decision comes after a "great" of Tasmanian greyhound racing, Raider's Guide, was euthanised in July after falling and breaking its neck at a Launceston track.
The four-year-old dog had been named Greyhound of the Year in January after notching 17 wins in 2024.
Coalition for the Protection of Greyhounds president Amy MacMahon said she was elated by the news, but she emphasised the need for a phased-out approach to ensure ethical rehoming of greyhounds and support for affected workers.
"I think this sends a signal to other states and territories that the tide is turning against greyhound racing ... I hope it's just a matter of time," she told AAP.
Other states were already questioning the future of greyhound racing, Ms MacMahon added, with South Australia putting the industry on notice after a damning report in 2023.
NSW is also awaiting findings of the Drake inquiry, a long-running probe into the sport following the release of a report by the state industry body's former chief vet that highlighted widespread animal welfare issues.
One of the state's best-known venues, Dapto Dogs, will cease operations in the coming year after nearly 90 years of hosting races due to its lease expiring.
RSPCA Tasmania commended the Rockliff government's plan to phase out greyhound racing, labelling the sport a "relic of the past" and urging all MPs to support the ban.
Mr Rockliff was reinstalled as premier on Wednesday after the governor granted his request to form a minority government.
Neither his Liberals with 14 seats nor Labor with 10 have secured the required 18 to govern in their own right after a snap election produced another hung parliament.
The Greens, which hold five seats, and independent Kristie Johnston have advocated for the banning of greyhound racing.
Ms Johnston reiterated on Sunday she wouldn't do a deal with one of the major parties, but added the end of racing was a "demonstration of what power sharing looks like in parliament".
Labor leader Dean Winter plans to move a no-confidence motion in the Rockliff government when the parliament returns for the first time on August 19.
He described the greyhound racing announcement as a "political bid to cling onto power".
Any decisions of that magnitude, like shutting down a greyhound industry that employed hundreds of people, should be taken carefully and follow due process, he said.
Veteran economist Saul Eslake recently reviewed the state's finances and found greyhound racing in Tasmania was almost entirely dependent on government funding.
The industry would receive $7.5 million in state funding in 2024/25 alone and it was spending more than twice the national average to keep the sport afloat, he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Three Most Egregious Fabrications In EPA's Climate Rollback Proposal
WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 16: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) logo is displayed on a door at its headquarters on March 16, 2017 in Washington, DC. U.S. President Donald Trump's proposed budget for 2018 seeks to cut the EPA's budget by 31 percent from $8.1 billion to $5.7 billion. (Photo by) Getty Images The EPA's formal proposal to revoke the Endangerment Finding turned out to be worse than I imagined. After reading the text, I was struck not only by its intent but by the sheer scale of fabrication and distortion—of law, of science, and of economic analysis—crafted to serve one purpose: shielding the fossil fuel industry at the expense of public health, environmental protection, and America's economic future. This isn't a debate over policy preferences—it's a wholesale rewriting of reality. It's hard to imagine anything more Orwellian than watching EPA—the agency I worked at for 32 years—walk away from its duty to protect public health and the environment by distorting law and science and using outright falsehoods to rewrite history to protect polluters instead of the American people. Fabricated Law The EPA Administrator has questioned EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. He claims that the Clean Air Act applies only to 'local' pollution—not to global threats like climate change—repeating a long-standing fossil fuel industry argument. The Supreme Court rejected this in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), holding that greenhouse gases are 'without a doubt' air pollutants under the Act and that EPA must regulate them if they endanger public health—regardless of whether impacts are local, regional, or global. Given that the transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, accounting for nearly 30%, EPA acted to mitigate the risks to public health and the environment by regulating these emissions. Every subsequent court challenge—from the D.C. Circuit in 2012 to 2023—has upheld that authority. Fabricated Science The EPA's assertion that the Agency 'never studied CO₂' and relied on flawed science collapses under the weight of the agency's own extensive records. Having led the team that developed the EPA's clean car program relying on the Endangerment Finding, I was at the agency when the 2009 finding was finalized and immediately applied to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars. That determination was grounded in decades of peer-reviewed research—from NASA, NOAA, EPA scientists, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—and underwent one of the most rigorous scientific reviews in the agency's history. To further undermine that record, the EPA now claims it never sought public comment on the finding. That is another fabrication. The 2009 proposal included a 60-day public comment period, during which the agency received over 380,000 comments—written submissions and hearing testimony—that were reviewed and incorporated before the rule was finalized. Yet the EPA's current proposal discards that record in favor of a report from five climate change deniers, hand-picked by Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a former fossil fuel executive. This report bypassed the agency's scientific staff, ignored standard interagency review, and has never been subjected to recognized, scientific peer review. The hypocrisy is staggering, dismissing a deeply vetted, peer-reviewed record while elevating an unreviewed, clearly fossil fuel industry-aligned document. The proposal's suggestion that transportation contributes 'near zero' to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions is equally absurd. Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the nation—a fact documented for years in EPA's own data. To claim otherwise is like saying cigarettes contribute 'near zero' to lung cancer rates. Fabricated Economics The EPA's proposal leads with the claim that revoking clean car standards will lower gasoline prices and deliver net economic benefits. Yet its own analysis shows the opposite: gasoline prices will rise if clean car programs are revoked. The Department of Energy's modeling confirms this, and as former Energy Information Agency (EIA) Administrator Joseph DeCarolis wrote, if the government "disincentivizes electric vehicle purchases, more consumers will purchase gasoline vehicles resulting in higher gasoline consumption and high gasoline prices for everyone." Equally troubling, the proposal erases the $62 billion in annual fuel savings and it ignores the substantial public health gains these standards provide by reducing traditional air pollutants, which would prevent up to 2,500 premature deaths each year. By excluding these benefits, the EPA is effectively assigning no value to American lives saved, an indefensible position for EPA. This is not economic analysis—it's a deliberate distortion of the facts designed to hide higher consumer costs, job losses, and preventable deaths, all while protecting fossil fuel profits. The Stakes Couldn't Be Clearer This EPA proposal is crossing a line that even the most industry-friendly administrations never crossed. If we allow fabricated facts to replace scientific reality, nothing will stop future administrations from doing the same to food safety standards, workplace protections, or aircraft safety rules. As Ryan Gellert, CEO of Patagonia recently wrote 'It is truly Orwellian to see the EPA—an agency signed into existence by Richard Nixon to protect the public from environmental degradation—divesting itself of the responsibility to address the ravages of the climate crisis during a summer of extreme weather and following the hottest year in recorded history.' My granddaughter was born five days after we evacuated from the 2018 Woolsey Fire outside Los Angeles. As she grows up in a world that's struggling to combat climate change, I refuse to accept that her future should be sacrificed for fossil fuel profits. The stakes are too high, the science too clear, the moral imperative too strong. The EPA's stated mission has not changed in 55 years—to protect public health and the environment. What has changed is the willingness of its leadership to sacrifice that mission for political convenience and corporate gain. Climate change will not disappear because politicians deny it, and Mother Nature will not bend to the interests of the fossil fuel industry. The question is whether we will.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Debutant almost outshines Roberts as Eagles soar to win
Ella Roberts lived up to her superstar status and debutant Lucia Painter produced a third quarter for the ages as West Coast defeated Gold Coast by 15 points in their AFLW season opener in Perth. Roberts was unstoppable in the first quarter of Thursday night's match, tallying 11 disposals to go with two goals to get West Coast off to a flying start. And it was the Painter show in the third quarter as the No.7 pick from last year's national draft kicked three unanswered goals to help set up the 5.5 (35) to 2.8 (20) win. Roberts finished with 24 disposals, eight marks, two goals and a goal assist, while Painter kicked 3.1 from 13 disposals. In case you forgot, Ella Roberts is SO talented 🤩#AFLWEaglesSuns — AFL Women's (@aflwomens) August 14, 2025 "It was such a good game," West Coast co-captain Charlie Thomas told Fox Sports. "I thought the girls fought it out right to the final siren. I'm super proud of everyone. "What a good start to the season." For Gold Coast, Charlie Rowbottom tallied 22 disposals, Lucy Single (17 disposals, seven tackles, 501m gained) was huge all night, while No.2 draft pick Havana Harris was impressive with one goal from 16 disposals to go with 440m gained. Harris showcased her aerial abilities with a great pack mark in the final quarter. Goal No.1 for pick No.2, Havana Harris ☀️#AFLWEaglesSuns — AFL Women's (@aflwomens) August 14, 2025 West Coast dominated the first quarter thanks to the efforts of Roberts, who kicked her first goal from a holding-the-ball free kick. She followed it up with a flying 45m shot on the run that was touched on the line, but soon had her second goal via a dribbling effort to give West Coast a 13-2 advantage at the break. The only down-side for the Eagles was a game-ending footy injury to defender Beth Schilling. Roberts was restricted to four disposals in the second quarter as the Suns clamped down on the star midfielder, with neither side able to score a goal. Gold Coast finally scored their first goal of the match early in the third term when Georgia Clayden converted her close-range set shot. The margin was just three points at the time, but Painter turned the game on its head with a three-goal burst. Her first goal came courtesy of a holding free kick, and her second was a smart left-foot snap after dropping a mark. PAINTER'S GOT THREE IN A QUARTER!#AFLWEaglesSuns — AFL Women's (@aflwomens) August 14, 2025 Painter's third goal came from a thing of beauty - a high floating mark in a pack of four players. By the time Painter had weaved her magic, Gold Coast trailed by 21 points at the final change. Harris tried her best to catapult the Suns back into the match, but West Coast's tough tackling and calmness under pressure ensured the home side got over the line.
Time Business News
3 hours ago
- Time Business News
Australia vs South Africa 2025 T20 Series: Expert Insights on Match Outcomes and Key Players to Watch
Australia vs South Africa 2025 T20 Series: Expert Insights on Match Outcomes and Key Players to Watch When it comes to making the ideal forecast in sports, particularly in breath-taking matches like the ongoing T20 series between Australia and South Africa, it's all about comprehending the game deeply rather than just guessing. Platform like Reddy Anna constantly discovered that paying attention to this kind of games, team dynamics, and match conditions provides you such a clear image of who will win. For example, in the existing T20 clash, instead of just stating who will win, it's more interesting to dig into how Tim David's aggressive batting or Kwena Maphaka's bowling could affect the match flow. That kind of thoughtful breakdown is what Reddy Anna Book naturally brings to the table– making forecasts grounded in patterns and facts, instead of hype. Anticipating cricket matches includes lots of variables– group kind, pitch conditions, player physical fitness, and game momentum all play critical functions. The 2nd match will be crucial for South Africa to equalize the series. Existing Series Overview Australia presently holds a dominant position, riding a nine-match winning streak in T20 Internationals. The first match of the series saw Australia protect a 17-run triumph despite early hiccups, including being 75/6 at one point. Their late surge, particularly the blazing innings of Tim David– who smashed 8 6s and scored 83 runs off 52 balls– turned the tide in their Favor. South Africa combated valiantly, propelled by remarkable bowling from teenage experience Kwena Maphaka, who took 4 wickets for simply 20 runs. The batting side had a hard time for consistent collaborations, in spite of a strong 71-run effort from wicketkeeper-batter Ryan Rickelton. The Proteas have actually not won a T20 match in Australia because 2014, which includes additional motivation as they seek to break their losing streak on Australian soil. Key Players Impacting the Series – Tim David (Australia): His aggressive batting design and capability to clear boundaries under pressure make him a crucial weapons in Australia's lineup. His performance in the very first match turned the series in Australia's Favor. – Kwena Maphaka (South Africa): This young rate bowler has actually revealed amazing pledge, interfering with Australian batsmen with pace and precision. His record bowling figures highlight his possible to influence match outcomes. – Ryan Rickelton (South Africa): As a top-order batsman, Rickelton offers stability and composure. His 71 in the very first match assisted South Africa post a competitive total in spite of wickets falling around him. – Josh Hazlewood (Australia): The knowledgeable pacer led the bowling attack efficiently, taking essential wickets and preserving pressure throughout the death overs. Predicting Match Outcomes Predicting cricket matches includes lots of variables– group type, pitch conditions, player fitness, and game momentum all play critical roles. Australia's present form and home benefit offer them approximately a 75% opportunity of winning the series. South Africa, while the underdogs with a 25% possibility, have the ability to surprise, particularly if players like Maphaka and Brevis can sustain their excellent performances. The second match will be important for South Africa to match the series. They will require to develop more powerful collaborations and make use of any weak points in Australia's middle order. Australia's depth in batting and bowling, coupled with the self-confidence from their winning streak, makes them favourites, however cricket is a game of unpredictability's, and any group can dominate on a provided day. What Fans Should Watch – How South Africa handles the pressure of chasing or defending targets, given their previous battles in Australia. – Australia's batting lineup changes and how emerging gamers step up in crucial moments. – Impact of pitch and weather on swing and spin bowling. – Fielding efficiencies, which typically turn the tide in tight T20 matches. Conclusion The Australia vs South Africa 2025 T20 series promises exciting cricket action filled with power hitting, tactical bowling, and intense minutes of suspense. Following player kind and match patterns provides fans with a deeper gratitude of the game and a peek of prospective results. Whether you are a passionate cricket or a casual observer fan, this series provides lots of talking points and exhilarating minutes. For those interested in sports forecasts and comprehending cricket characteristics, watching on essential gamer performances and match advancements is essential. This approach not just improves match watching however also supplies a richer context for forecasting possible winners in upcoming video games. TIME BUSINESS NEWS
