Latest news with #EdwardRennell
Otago Daily Times
28-05-2025
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Poll: Bid to overturn greyhound racing ban
Greyhound Racing New Zealand has filed a case in the High Court, challenging the Government's decision to ban greyhound racing from July 31 next year. 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%
RNZ News
26-05-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
Greyhound Racing NZ applies for judicial review of ban
Photo: Photosport Greyhound Racing NZ has applied for a judicial review of the government's decision to ban greyhound racing. In December, Racing Minister Winston Peters announced the practice would be banned from 31 July 2026. He said the decision had been made to protect the welfare of racing dogs , and although the industry had made progress injury rates remained persistenty high. Urgent legislation to prevent the destruction of dogs while the industry was wound down passed with the support of all parties in the House. It is estimated around 1000 people will be affected by the ban, with around 3000 dogs expected to need to be rehomed. Greyhound Racing NZ, which had been vocal in opposing the ban, has now applied through its counsel to the High Court to have the ban reviewed. Chief executive Edward Rennell said the review would "expose the government's cavalier attitude to policymaking adversely impacting the livelihoods of thousands". Its application said there was a duty to consult with the industry on the ban, but it had not happened. It said the Cabinet paper produced by the Department of Internal Affairs was selective in its use of reports from the Racing Integrity Board, and included no information from the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, and accused officials of having already made up their minds. It said decision-makers appeared to have acted in a way that made the decision a foregone conclusion, saying the prime minister had also already made up his mind and stated it publicy. "The government took its decision too lightly and too quickly, without due care and due diligence. It was a rushed and inadequate Cabinet paper," Rennell said. It claimed there were only a "few short steps" from Peters seeking a report in June 2024 on banning the sport, and Cabinet deciding to do so in December. Greyhound Racing NZ has also sought a Court order to stop the Crown from working on the ban while the review is carried out. RNZ has approached the Racing Minister for comment.
Scoop
26-05-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
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.
