Forced to eat crow over his government's retreat on its greyhound racing ban, NSW Premier Mike Baird did the politically astute thing on Tuesday and took full ownership of the decision. "We chose a course that we believed was right," Mr Baird told the media. "[But] we did not give the good people in the industry the chance to respond, a chance to reform. On behalf of that, I am sorry". In fact, Mr Baird had little choice but to wear the consequences, having identified himself as a committed opponent of greyhound racing from the earliest days of his government.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
No one would disagree with Mr Baird's assertion that greyhound racing in NSW was plagued by repeated instances of animal cruelty, ranging from live baiting to the destruction of unwanted dogs, or that authorities appeared unwilling or unable to take action to rid greyhound racing of such practices. So few people demurred when, after yet another media expose of such cruelty, the Premier commissioned former High Court Justice Michael McHugh to investigate the full extent of the problem.
With its troubling statistics – such as that up to 68,000 dogs had been destroyed in the previous 12 years – and its assertions that the industry appeared incapable of reform, the McHugh report provided Mr Baird with what he thought was total justification for shutting down the industry immediately. Declining even to publicly debate the matter, the Premier declared racing would be legislated out of existence in 12 months, the delay intended only to allow industry employees to find new work and prevent further losses of dogs.
The decision was widely commended for its morality and righteousness (with the Barr government immediately announcing it would shut down racing in the ACT). And, theoretically at least, the Liberals stood not to lose a vote – greyhound racing being the quintessential working man's pursuit. But it was a decision which never quite managed to shrug off its authoritarian nature. Not only was the industry collectively being refused a second chance (something routinely offered by Australian courts of law), but it was arguably being punished for the sins of a few outliers.
This narrative of injustice was always going to get media traction, particularly in view of the paucity of assistance offered the industry and Mr Baird's inability to portray the decision as anything other than humane or "right". Public opinion is not much influenced by appeals to voters' better nature.
It appears that it was the Nationals (whose constituency still contains a sizeable working class element) who persuaded their coalition partners that a compromise was required, though Mr Baird's declining approval rating could have been a factor, too. It's regrettable political realities have intruded on an animal welfare issue, but this was because Mr Baird acted in undue haste. With his insistence on stricter regulation, tough penalties, and a statutory review, Mr Baird has engineered a welcome compromise.
