Legislative Assembly passes bill to ban greyhound racing

GREYHOUND racing will be banned in New South Wales from July 1, 2017, after legislation to outlaw the sport was passed through the Lower House of state parliament 48 votes to 35.

It comes just two weeks after Baird made the bizarre move to pass the bill through the Upper House first, with many speculating that it was a tactic to avoid fuelling a heated debate within the Legislative Assembly and to prevent MPs from crossing the floor.

“Urgent notices of motion being introduced to the Upper House has usually been reserved for extreme issues such as legislation for terrorism and the like,” Wallsend MP Sonia Hornery said at the time.

“The Baird Government is determined to sidestep due process today by introducing legislation which will ignore a significant section of our community.”

While the bill ultimately passed through the Lower House in the early hours of Wednesday morning, it wasn’t all good news for Baird and his Deputy Premier Troy Grant, with three Nationals MPs crossing the floor to oppose the ban and a further two MPs vowing to abstain in the vote.

It was the most substantial rebellion in the history of the O’Farrell-Baird Government, with the only member of Coalition to have crossed the floor during their reign being Peter Phelps over ethanol laws.

Mike Baird released a statement on Wednesday morning to express his satisfaction with the Government’s overall decision, ignoring the internal revolt which has been occurring within the Coalition Government over the ban.

“When I came into politics, I never envisaged having to make a decision like this one. The driving focus of our government has been, and remains, rebuilding NSW after years of neglect,” Baird said.

“But I also didn’t come into politics just to make the easy decisions or to kick the big problems down the road. Too often governments put confronting problems in the too hard basket. We are not that kind of government.

“I’m proud of the decision we have made to save thousands upon thousands of dogs from cruelty and death. It wasn’t an easy decision, but it was the right decision.

“We will now continue helping the innocent trainers and breeders, who have been let down by their industry, as they transition away from racing. I know many of them are disappointed. I feel deep empathy for them, and I’m determined to help them as best we can.”

The bill was passed after 3am in the morning on Wednesday, with several MPs voicing their distain for the legislation including Cootamundra MP Katrina Hodgkinson, one of the Nationals who crossed the floor.

“I have been threatened for expressing my views by some who have served in this place for periods far less than me,” she said.

“So be it. After 17 years I will happily stand by my reasoning. To serve in Parliament members must have some guiding principles that are innate and not instructed.

“If the process was different I am certain so too would be the outcome, an outcome based on a more methodical and logical process to a complex but not impossible issue.

“In this Parliament we have and will continue to deal with issues more exceptional than this, but if those who rely on us to find the calmer process of a more diligent resolution are ignored, then this vote to ban an industry must be defeated.

“I take this tough decision today not to vote with Labor, but I have to oppose this legislation on behalf of my electorate, on behalf of those who are sick and depressed by this proposed ban and who feel that they have no voice, and on behalf of those many people who are involved in agriculture in my electorate who will be targeted based on the precedent being set today.”

Opposition Leader Luke Foley kicked off the debate, with a two-hour speech which was scathing of the actions of the Coalition government.

“What we have here is the extraordinary intervention by the State — a Coalition Government, with the Liberal Party as the largest party in that coalition — taking away property rights, closing down private business activity and closing down an industry that contributes $335 million per annum to the State’s economy.

“If a Labor Government did it there would be cries of socialism and communism ringing from those opposite and their cheer squad in the media.

“Yet here we have a Liberal Premier — a leader of a party that claims to champion private enterprise and the private sector economy — with the stroke of a pen or, more accurately, with the click of a keyboard to put it on Facebook, wiping out an entire industry, outlawing it, declaring it illegal.”

Foley also re-iterated Labor’s position that Parliament should be used to strengthen animal welfare and integrity measures within the greyhound racing industry, not to rub out the entire industry.

Foley slammed the Government in a statement on Wednesday morning and was particularly critical of the Nationals MPs who refused to stand up for their constituents.

“Regional and rural NSW has been let down by a National Party which has done little more than act as a lickspittle for a North Shore Liberal Premier,” Foley said.

“There are thousands of good and honest people in the greyhound industry that will have their livelihoods destroyed by this Liberal-National Government.”

Labor moved several amendments during the course of the debate, all of which were defeated, one of which was to suspend debate of the bill for three months pending the Supreme Court challenge launched by the industry.

The industry is claiming that many facts within the McHugh report are incorrect, with questions also having arisen in regards to a potential bias in the favour of those opposing greyhound racing.

Michael Daley, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Minister for Gaming and Racing was disgusted by Baird’s tactic to pass the bill so quickly.

“There was no reason for the legislation to be rammed through the Parliament in the early hours of the morning,” Daley said.

“I moved to suspend the debate for three months until the Supreme Court had delivered its judgement. How can anyone think that is unreasonable?

“We know Mike Baird thinks he’s above the community, now he thinks he’s above the independent umpire.

“Mike Baird knows he’s done the wrong thing. He’s chosen to rush this legislation through and push all the pain onto those in the industry who will be ruined by this.”

The greyhound racing industry will continue to fight for the legislation to be overturned, with Barrister David Bennett QC representing the industry in the Supreme Court in a battle to have the Special Commission of Inquiry report declared invalid.

The matter is due back in court on September 29.

Past Discussion

  1. Deborah555 Hugh_ If you really think that would happen then that only shows how little you understand those you rally against so vehemently, and it is this lack of understanding of why people care about animal welfare that has seen this result for the greyhound industry.

  2. No SAV Hugh_ It’s not semantics.  I view the result of this ban as a net positive outcome for animal welfare, irrespective of Baird’s motives.  Unless you can convince me that because he possibly has ulterior/additional motives, that this will lead to a net negative outcome for animal welfare, then I don’t see the relevance.

    You should calm down.  I’m not the one sitting at my computer slinging insults and frothing at the mouth.  I think it’s safe to say that one of us would curb our behaviour if we met face to face, but it wouldn’t be me, even if I was a bony coward, which unfortunately for you, I am far from being.  You’re the one benefitting from your internet anonymity, not me.  But please don’t change, because this behaviour is exactly what damns your cause.  You are incapable of arguing your side of the case, all you can do is abuse and rant like a small child throwing a temper tantrum.

  3. Hugh_ No SAV sorry Hugh but No Sav is not behaving like a small child throwing a temper tantrum he is displaying perfectly legitimate outrage at was is an outrageous act of bastardry and showing genuine concern for his fellow trainers and his upset at the most likely death  of large numbers of greyhounds currently on the ground which is of concerning to many people except the animal activist with their “well they would have died anyway” semantics. He appears to me to be a perfectly decent man and concerned human being expressing an opinion on A RACING SITE. If you feel that he is insulting you get off the site and go on an animal activist site where your views would be appreciated.

  4. Hugh_ You are right, Mungbean, I should calm down and I have. I was laughing so hard at your response that I think I’ve developed a hernia – ” I view the result of this ban as a net positive outcome for animal welfare.”

    Oh deary me – I think you have really lost it, but it is a response that is hardly surprising given the narrow minded irrational agendas you lot hold. “NET POSITIVE OUTCOME,” Oh dear.

    “Unless you can convince me…”  That would be like trying to convince Animals Australia that advocating meat consumption is a good idea.

    Let’s get it clear – I’m not here to try to convince you of anything because it’s a pointless exercise and you are here on false pretenses.

    Be assured, curbing my behaviour would be the last thing on my mind.

    One last thing, you bitch of a thing, I’m a pro industry person on a pro industry web site – you are a low life devious hypocrite who is not pro industry on a pro industry web site. So, in your confused intellectual interpretation you come to the conclusion that I’m the one that is benefiting  from internet anonymity?

    Yes, Mungbean, you really are on the ball today.

    You should quit while you are behind because it’s the hypocritical arseholes like you that will make an industry victory all the better.

    Hypocritical even in welfare – warped really.

    Deborah, thank you for seeing what I am and what it is.

    Not hard to see when one has no agenda.

  5. No SAV Hugh_ You’re the one making a point of his motives I’ve explained why I think they are irrelevant.  If you can’t, or wont explain why they are, then it’s no skin off my nose.  Suit yourself.

    The topic and focus of this website and the views of those posting aren’t relevant to the topic of anonymity.  Everyone posting here is anonymous unless they choose to disclose their real world identity.  So your point makes no sense.

    You suggested that I have the gall to engage in these debates because the internet provides some protection.  The point I was making is that the manner in which I conduct myself here is the same as how I would conduct myself in person.  I engage in spirited debate, but I limit my criticisms to the views expressed, not the people expressing them, and I’m not abusive.  Meanwhile you go on abusive tirades of the sort I would expect from undisciplined children, and I very much doubt you would speak to anyone in this manner in person.  That is why it is ironic for you to accuse me of benefiting from internet anonymity.

    In fact, I am more than happy to wave anonymity.  You know my first name, my surname is Winwood-Smith.  Feel free to google me, stalk me, turn up at my house or workplace, I’m really not concerned.  Anyone with half a brain could have figured out who I am from the various posts I’ve made anyway.

    This is not a closed forum, this is a website that is open to any browser of the internet to read and comment on.  Crying about the fact that people come here and express contrary views is ridiculous.

  6. No SAV Hugh_  Oh  Yes, there is agenda’ its called bestiality  and its interpreted as Animal welfare  by those who Practice this inhuman act !

  7. No SAV Hugh_ Unfortunately that fallacy doesn’t apply to the arguments you’ve made.  I posted the straw man fallacy in response to your claim “there is agenda’ its called bestiality  and its interpreted as Animal welfare” (which in itself makes no sense), which is based on Peter Singer’s “Heavy Petting”  article which can be read here: http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001—-.htm
    There is no line in that article that advocates or encourages bestiality.  Anyone claiming that has misread it or misunderstood the point.  Go ahead, find the quote that supports your assertion.

    Secondly you called me a charlatan, which you’ve not even made an argument for, so that’s purely a personal attack.

  8. Hugh_ No SAV I’ll get back to the rest of this post later. Hughie, what do you think Peter Singer’s point is for writing that article? What is the point that has been misunderstood?

  9. No SAV Hugh_  The first thing to note is that Peter Singer is aphilosopher, and he’s a philosopher of ethics. This is what philosophers do, they ask questions to provoke thought anddiscussion.  And as a ethicist, one ofthe things that Peter does is to ask questions designed to make us question ourmorality, and draw attention to inconsistencies in both our personal code andthe moral code of our society, which our legal system should reflect.

    This essay asks a question and makes a point.

    The question:

    Why is bestiality illegal? This  is a legitimate question,and asking it is not the same as advocating for bestiality.  He asks this question through the frame ofanimal welfare.  Why is bestialityillegal?  Who does it hurt?  He points out that it can occur without anyharm, but also that in some cases it does cause harm.

    The point:

    The point of asking these questions, and the point of theessay, is to draw attention to a serious inconsistency regarding animal welfarein society.  On the one hand, in manywestern societies (not all), bestiality is simply illegal, and the justificationgiven for this is that it is against the welfare interests of the animals.  Meanwhile, it is completely legal to causesignificant physical harm and suffering to animals in agricultural systems.

    Do you not think this is a point worth making?  To on the one hand say it is illegal toengage in consensual sex with an animal, and on the other hand say it isperfectly legal to confine an animal to a small cage for the duration of itslife, artificially inseminate it (which is just bestiality with a metal rod),deny it the chance to bond with its offspring, mutilate it (tail docking,castration, tooth removal) without anaesthesia, and then kill it.

    He then suggests hat this disparity in law, has nothing todo with animal welfare, and is actually do do with traditional puritanicalattitudes that have permeated many societies, that generally stem from religiousbeliefs that self-indulgent, pleasure-seeking behaviour is sinful.  This seems to be obviously true when you consider that it is illegal to have sex with an animal but not to inseminate it with a metal rod, ejaculate it with a hand or machine (or other methods) in an agricultural context.  Is this about welfare?  Or about controlling human “excess”?

    So to vilify Singer as some kind of bestiality advocate iscompletely inaccurate.  I’m not surewhether you actually believe that’s what he is, and if so, whether you came tothat view from reading this article or just from what other people havesaid.  Essentially people have eithermisunderstood the point of this article, or they are intentionally taking hiscomments out of context in a dishonest attempt to smear or discredit the animalrights movement.  I think it’s probably abit of both.  My experience is thatpeople tend to overreact emotionally to certain topics and this stiflesintellectual discussion.  Moreimportantly it means that people are not good at critically analysing their ownmoral beliefs and questioning their validity. Critical thinking is a learned skilled, not an innate ability.  By nature humans are quite irrational andemotional, because this served our ancestors well under much harsher “Darwinian”(survival of the fittest) contexts.

  10. Hugh_ No SAV  He’s not collecting a parliamentary salary -paid  by the taxpayer- to be a philosopher. Does he have a philosophy about economic policy, education, health ? He is not a philosopher he is a wack job taking a parliamentary salary under false pretences.

    PS Riding a horse only has one meaning on this racing site.

  11. This Bill was put forward by Baird and Grant based on LIES ,So in real terms they don’t have the real right to be custodians of NSW and the Governor General should sack  the Baird Grant Government for a DELIBERATE UNTRUTH about the Greyhound Industry here into NSW . ICAC identified with this Government having a BROWN PAPER BAG MENTALITY !

  12. Deborah555 Hugh_ No SAV What are you talking about?  He’s a university academic specifically in the area of philosophy and is affiliated with several universities, some here and some overseas.  Do you even know who this guy is?

    And if you are trying to suggest that philosophy is somehow unimportant then you should perhaps do some research on the history of human civilisation.

    Honestly, you guys accuse me of being condescending, but when you say stuff like this…

  13. BobWhitelaw Deborah555 Hugh_ No SAV It’s pretty sad that you would choose to continue with a completely dishonest and factually incorrect smear on someone just because it suits your agenda. That says a lot about what sort of person you are.

  14. BJoe Hugh_ No SAV Also you should consider the irony of everything you hold dear about western civilisation being due to “intellectual wankers” while simultaneously harboring irrational prejudice against them.  If you want to know what the world looks like when intellectual discussion is stifled look to the middle east and countries that operate under sharia law.  That’s what you support when you hate people for engaging in complex philosophical thought and debate.

  15. Hugh_ BJoe No SAV

    Hughie, I’m angry but not defensive.  I’m a realist, just like most of the population in this Country of ours, not an intellectual as you purport to be.  Watch the footage of Springer’s appearance on that  wanker’s program called Q & A.  Everyone laughs after Springer’s comment until he was picked up by one of the Panellists, who said that no, it was not OK to have an animal lick your genitals.

  16. This whole idea of who’s an intellectual and who’s not is stupid. You’re just promoting class warfare. I’ve met incredibly intelligent uneducated people that have very insightful things to say, and highly educated people that I think are morons.

    If that’s your interpretation of what singer said, then you need to watch it again, because you and many others misunderstood him and missed the point he was making. He posed a question, he didn’t advocate animal-human oral sex. I’ve explained quite clearly what the point is, and you just dismiss it and label me a wanker, which has nothing to do with whether you are an intellectual or not, it just means that you aren’t capable of listening to reason and prefer instead to cling to a dishonest interpretation because it suits your agenda.

    His question was whether a dog licking a woman when it is not coerced harms the animal, and why that should be illegal on welfare grounds when it’s legal to cause suffering and pain to animals in agricultural and other contexts. He’s pointing out a moral inconsistency. Can you defend this inconsistency?

  17. Hugh_ BJoe No SAV  Sorry Hugh but since when is debating whether an animal can lick your genitals” intellectual” ? I doubt whether the thought would even cross the mind of most people on the planet. I have a couple of uni degrees and have some very intelligent friends with lots of education and we have never discussed something as stupid as this even when very ,very drunk.

  18. You say this, yet I’m not the one who claimed it was or wasn’t intellectual. That was a response to you saying that Singer and I were intellectual wankers. So you’re disagreeing with yourself. Nice one.

    Despite your impressive qualifications you are still incapable of grasping the point that Singer is making. You can’t get beyond your emotional reaction to the idea of bestiality to understand argument he’s making.

    Honestly, you’re quite pathetic. You accuse me of benefitting from Internet anonymity, I happily give you my name. You ask me to explain singer’s essay, so I do, you respond by calling me a wanka. You’re just a coward hiding behind his keyboard lashing out like an angry child. Stop being so gutless and grow up.

  19. Hugh_  I cannot remember calling you an intellectual wanker in any of my posts. I don’t think you are an intellectual wanker I just think that Singer is an odd sort of a person and yes my response to him is emotional he makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. There is just something about him that I do not like and you are correct it is not intellectual but a primitive response. These primitive responses however are sometimes accurate or maybe a warning and my name is actually Deborah surely you don’t think some-one would make up a name like that to be anonymous. I can assure you any complaint I have made to a pollie about this decision I have included my full name and address. I might be many things but coward is not one of them.

  20. Hugh_ BobWhitelaw Yes, mungbean, I can answer that for you. This quote from you is certainly sick…”In fact, I am more than happy to wave anonymity.  You know my first name, my surname is Winwood-Smith.  Feel free to google me, stalk me, turn up at my house or workplace, I’m really not concerned.  Anyone with half a brain could have figured out who I am from the various posts I’ve made anyway..”

    So anyone with half a brain could have figured out who you are from your posts, hey? You really are a tool, aren’t you. That is the second time you have made me piss myself from laughing – you have to stop that!

    You delusional, self centred, egotistical, confused moron.

    You honestly believe that people on a greyhound site have heard of you. Did you expect that once you revealed your identity that people would say – “Oh my God, it really IS Hugh Winwood-Smith talking to us!!!! Oh, WOW, we are so lucky.?” LMFAO

    You moron!

    That is so so funny.

    The sad part about you, mungbean, is you and Peter Singer do have things in common.

    It explains why you are here on a pro greyhound racing site.

    Unfortunately the common ground you both share is a sad one.

    I find you boring and it seems I am not the only one.

    I gather that even your intellectual friends even find you boring.

    The master of semantics, it must be hell trying to converse with you.

    It’s people like you who are a danger to the English language.

    No more innuendo, sub text, slang, joking, double meanings, or humour.

    Just the boring written word – black and white, and a scientific interpretation.

    You would certainly be the hit of the party, mungbean.

    Who would of thought that the famous Hugh Winwood-Smith would grace the greyhound world with his presence?

    I find it sad that you have been forced to relate with plebs like us. The rejection from your peers must be frustrating for you.

    Lets face it, Winwood -Mungbean-Smith, you need to stop the beastiality with toads, stop the attention seeking, and work on your human relations so you aren’t so BORING!

    You are a nowhere man. Much like Peter Singer.

    You are both attention seekers and desperate.

    You are right about what Singer puts forward but that is not the point of why it is disturbing.

    Look beneath his written words. Look at the absence of a disclaimer.

    He actually did research on this subject. 

    A valid question might be how much research was done, or more importantly, what type was done.

    It’s a controversial topic that demands attention.

    The question is – Does his desperation for attention facilitate your belief that Philosophers are important or does it damage their importance?

    No matter how you reason his intentions, the majority will look upon him as a grub.

    Who cares, he says?

    Well, he should care, Winwood-Mungbean-Smith, as you should.

    It erodes the integrity of the person in the eyes of the majority who one day you might rely on.

    But here is something much more disturbing in my opinion.

    Peter Singer’s moral standing on pedophilia.

    I heard an interview with Singer stating he has no moral taboos.

    They were talking about an adult man having sex with a 10yo girl.

    The interviewer asked Singer if he agreed that “It is just WRONG”

    Singer was very adamant that he did not concur with that theory.

    Perhaps the question should have been – “Seeing that you have no moral taboos, have you ever engaged in pedophilia, Mr. Singer?”

    Now let me make you aware that perception is a very powerful thing.

    Forget the technos here, the public perception of a philosopher who has no moral taboos when talking about beastiality and pedophilia is not a good one, in fact it is very bad.

    The thought of “where there is smoke there is usually fire” might be going through many of the public’s minds.

    It is irrelevant how you justify his philosophy because it doesn’t count in the real world, mungbean, and you and Singer don’t seem to grasp that very well at all. Quite strange for both of you so called academics.

    Now Peter Singer is a founder of Animals Australia.

    Animals Australia have a children’s version called AA Unleashed.

    Those same members of the public might well be becoming alarmed at the thought of a “no moral taboos” philosopher being behind such a cause.

    I know if I had young children who were visiting that site I would be very very concerned, but that might just be me.

    Now, you boring bitch of a thing – Are philosophers important in the modern world? No, a bit outdated really. Make no difference to the real world and are basically here to entertain the boring intellectuals such as yourself. They also get paid diddly squat so it’s a dead end job.

    Don’t give up your job ramming toads with steel rods. I hope your moral standings halt you from ramming anything else in there.

    If your lab days end you can take comfort that there will always be a job for you with the NSW Rugby League team as an adviser on how to slow down the cane toads.

    Or you can help your mate, Singer.

    You are so detached from reality it’s numbing, Sir Hugh Winwood-Mungbean-Smith.

    I hate people who use three names in their title, they all seem to be a little insecure and mentally disturbed.

  21. You have trouble reading English. Not one word I said suggested that I expect anyone to know who I am. I said anyone could “figure out” who I was if they were motivated to do so. The implication being that I have made no effort to hide my identity which was a perfectly reasonable point to make in response to someone who was accusing me of hiding behind internet anonymity. But nice try.

    Regarding philosophers, I have zero doubt that you feel they have no relevance to society, and I do think they have no relevance to you. You are right that this kind of philosophy is not aimed at you, it is aimed at a different kind of person, the kind of people that are capable of processing complex ideas without having a conniption fit and will in turn contribute to the kind of debate and discussion that drives the evolution of society. And the idea that serious intellectual discussion should be held back because of “perceptions” by irrelevant people like yourself who will never be of any use in serious social debate is laughable. You have no ability to think critically, the very fact that you think “loving” dogs means exploiting them demonstrates the depth of your mental simplicity.

    If you think that society has reached its peak and no improvements are to be had regarding its structure and function, then you’re not only stupid, but you’re dishonest, because you’ve also been on here whinging about government. Human civilisation is an ongoing project and we have many improvements to make.

    I have no great familiarity with singer’s work, I have only read a couple of things he’s written and watched a couple of talks. I have no disagreement with any of what I’ve seen so far. Regarding his peadophilia comments, I have no opinion because I have no faith in your ability to accurately convey his points. You’ve demonstrated clearly that you cannot accurately interpret English prose and that you are invested in twisting the words of people who’s views you oppose.

    I love how you finish off by attacking my name, a name I did not choose and has been in my family for generations. It’s just a name. This shows the extent to which you can reason, and why serious philosophers don’t waste time worrying about your perceptions of anything.

  22. Hugh_


    You’re still a f*ckwit.  Now get off this website…yes, go trawl other publications such as ‘The Australian’ where your comments about ‘sentient’ beings are as insignificant as the drivel you come out with on this website.

  23. Hugh_ BJoe  Hugh I think this comment is unfair – I can remember you distinctly saying that Animals Australia could not be held responsible if one of their members behaved badly- they were not responsible for every member. Neither are the greyhound people responsible every member for those few who do the wrong thing.  PS this is from Deborah not BJoe whenever you send a reply to BJoe it also comes to my inbox that is probably what the confusion is.