Editorial: Mike Baird’s greyhound racing ban bites too hard

THE Baird government is sentencing the entire statewide greyhound racing industry to death. No opportunity for redemption is available.

ON Saturday afternoon, immediately following the Sydney Swans’ demolition of Port Adelaide at the SCG, several Swans players received small, soft, replica AFL footballs from Swans coaching staff. This happens after every SCG match.

During previous seasons, the players would kick those squishy little promotional balls into the grandstands so that young fans could take home a treasured ­reminder of the game — and hopefully become Swans fans for life.

But on Saturday, as happens now at all AFL venues, the players walked to the boundary fence and as gently as possible handed those balls to children in the front rows. They’ve been warned that fines await anyone who kicks those harmless balls into the crowd. The AFL is worried that someone might be injured by a few grams of pliable foam and plastic.

Of course, there does exist the potential for injury — yet it is surely minor, if it is measurable at all. Very few of the Brazilian muggers currently robbing tourists during the Rio Olympics, after all, happen to be armed with tiny Swans footballs.

Following some weeks of public debate, The Daily Telegraph has come to the view that the Baird government’s proposed greyhound racing ban, due to commence in July 2017, represents a similar ­example of regulatory overreach. In seeking a better and safer outcome, the government’s total ban simply goes too far.

It must be noted, however, that in the case of greyhound racing there is no argument at all about the potential for harm. Everyone has seen the shocking images of animal mistreatment that provoked the Baird government’s call, and everyone has read the distressing statistics on the widespread slaughter of uncompetitive greyhounds.

But it is also the case that mistreatment of animals is already against the law. Given that, it would seem to make more sense to apply existing laws than to introduce a ban that would punish not only those greyhound trainers who operate within existing laws but also those trainers who are able to be reformed.

There is a point at which elimination of risk becomes elimination of liberty. With the greyhound ban, the Baird government has crossed that line.

Effectively, the Baird government is sentencing an entire statewide industry to death. No opportunity for redemption is available. No avenue for appeal allowed. This appears anomalous in a state that permits even murderers to be granted parole.

Yesterday Premier Mike Baird was sticking to his ban decision, denying that it is part of a “moral crusade” and furthermore claiming that the greyhound ban is consistent with a global trend.

The premier’s office said greyhound racing is being “progressively shut down around the world (most recently in Arizona) and is now allowed in only eight countries” and that “it is a global trend that looks likely to continue”.

The premier’s office is correct on both counts but this argument may be the weakest yet offered in ­defence of the greyhound ban.

Global trends are no guide to local legislation. Australia went against global trends — certainly European trends — by shutting down the people smuggling industry in our region.

Now, several years later, European nations overwhelmed by asylum seekers are aiming to follow Australia’s example. Ask Germans and Swedes how happy they are that their governments previously followed global trends.

Additionally there are significant issues with the report compiled by the Honourable Michael McHugh AC QC that led to the Baird government’s ban. The most obvious is that a prominent ­element of the report focuses on ­allegations that are at least a ­decade old and have absolutely nothing to do with NSW.

McHugh’s report cites a dog breeder’s claim that he would routinely drown greyhound puppies that showed little race promise. “Dogs who don’t have the instinct [to chase] or the tools to be a consistent winner — well a good handler can spot it a mile away,” the breeder is quoted as saying. “Most of the time I’d drown the pups.”

Yet the report fails to point out that the breeder who allegedly made this claim is actually from the US and was speaking to Canadian researchers for a 2005 report. It has no relevance in terms of Australian greyhound racing.

The possible unintended outcomes of a ban are also worth extended consideration. If the government believes that it cannot successfully police the greyhound industry at present, even though the industry is highly visible, how can it possibly guarantee that greyhounds will be cared for or relocated after the ban is enforced and the industry becomes invisible?

The elimination of risk and danger is a mostly noble pursuit. It is why our road toll is so much lower now than it was decades ago, even though millions more cars are now registered.

But there is a point at which elimination of risk becomes elimination of liberty. With the greyhound ban, the Baird government has crossed that line.