ACT withdraws support for greyhound racing bill after Parliament rejects fixes

ACT MP Cameron Luxton says ACT will withdraw its support for the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill at third reading, after Parliament voted down common-sense amendments to ensure fairness for those affected.

“ACT supports moves to improve animal welfare, but the way this ban is being implemented is a travesty. You can address animal welfare without riding roughshod over people’s rights and livelihoods. Instead, the Minister has chosen to rush this through a truncated select committee process, ignoring serious concerns about fairness and due process.

“My amendments would have required an independent review of financial harm to develop a compensation framework, and ensured transparency around how overseas greyhound betting profits are distributed to other racing codes like horse racing. These were modest, practical steps that ACT signalled well in advance of the vote.

“At Committee of the Whole House today, ACT stood alone in trying to fix this legislation. We put forward practical amendments to ensure people are treated fairly and public money is handled with integrity. Every other party voted them down.

“I questioned the Racing Minister on the lack of compensation, the speed of the shutdown, and whether the industry’s improvements in animal welfare had been properly recognised. The Minister failed to provide any reassurance that these issues have been properly considered.

“ACT has listened to the people affected, and we’ve done everything we can to hammer this bill into shape. Now, we’re left to take a principled position: we will not support a law that shuts down an entire industry without a fair process.

“This reminds us of the Labour–New Zealand First Government’s rush to seize the property of licensed firearms owners. Once again, ACT is the only party standing up for basic rights and fair treatment.

“Remarkably, just moments after this debate, the Deputy Leader of New Zealand First opened debate on fisheries legislation by declaring, ‘I belong to a government that believes in property rights.’ How rich.”