Greyhound racing has its origins in coursing, a popular past time of the 1800s when dogs were used to hunt food and eliminate pests. From this, modern greyhound racing began in Australia in 1927 with the commencement of the Gaming and Betting Act which allowed legal wagering.
This racing became very popular with the working class as the entry fares and ability to place bets was not as high as it was with horse racing. However, even at this point in time, racing dogs created opposition from those of a more conservative background.
Late last month, the Australian Government passed the Greyhound Racing Prohibition Bill 2016 in parliament. This legislative action has signalled a drastic turning point in the history of animal welfare as it will include a one-year jail sentence and maximum $11, 000 fine for anyone caught organising a race after the ban.
Propelled by a Special Commission of Inquiry into the Greyhound racing industry discovered that approximately 68, 000 ‘uncompetitive’ greyhounds were put to death in the last decade and one in five trainers were believed to have used live animal baits.
Not everyone is happy.
Opposition leader, Luke Foley, has argued that Premier Mike Baird has conducted an “unprecedented government intervention into people’s lives” as this disservice will interrupt the lives of many good men and women involved in the Greyhound racing industry.
According to the Greyhound industry, the community is devastated by the decision and the political ‘stunt’ will financially ruin hundreds of people who have dedicated their lives to the industry.
Whilst some are holding out in the hope that a legal challenge will be upheld, the parliament passed the bill 49 votes to 30, indicating the popularity of the decision.
It is important to note, despite what the opposition leader has argued, there are limits to what the Government can legislate on. This rule lies in section 61 of the Constitution which states,
‘The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.’
However, the Courts are aware that this section is shaped by contrasting considerations. The Government must be allowed the discretionary tools and power to administer the States, but cannot be allowed open-ended power that could lead to arbitrary decisions.
One of the key purposes for our separation of powers doctrine is to ensure the relevant checks and balances are in place to ensure this balance is not tipped one way or the other. If the Government is found to have over-stepped their mark in regards to the Greyhound racing ban, it will be settled in Court as an example of these checks and balances.
So who has won? Unfortunately, the race is not over yet.
If you are involved in the Greyhound industry or wish to know more about the recent changes to legislation, please contact our offices on 02 8917 8700.