I am not writing this because I have a passion for racing, either. I am writing this because I have a passion for the Rule of Law.
There is a famous story in Germany, perhaps apocryphal but legally vital, about Frederick the Great and the Miller of Sanssouci. The King wanted to extend his summer palace, but a noisy windmill stood in his way. He offered to buy it. The miller refused. The King threatened to simply seize it. The miller replied calmly: “Yes, Your Majesty. If it were not for the Supreme Court in Berlin.”
Even an absolute monarch in 18th-century Prussia understood that there were limits to power. The King could not simply take what he wanted because it annoyed him.
I fear New Zealand’s Minister for Racing has forgotten the lesson of the miller.
The Government has introduced the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill. Its purpose is to ban commercial greyhound racing from 1 August 2026. You may agree with that purpose. You may think the industry has lost its social license. That is a political debate, and it is fair enough.
However, as a German-trained academic lawyer, I look at how this Bill achieves its objectives. I see a legislative sledgehammer that smashes the furniture of civil society.
In my legal education, we were taught to revere the Rechtsstaat, the state based on the rule of law. The German Basic Law, our constitution, has specific safeguards to prevent the state from becoming a predator. This Bill pulls the trigger while ignoring every single one of them.
First, consider the “package deal” clause, also known as the Junktimklausel. In Germany, the state can take your property for the public good, but Article 14 of our Constitution imposes a strict condition. The law that takes the property must also specify the compensation. It is a package deal. You cannot have the taking without the paying.
The New Zealand Bill fails this test spectacularly. It dissolves private racing clubs and orders their assets to be vested in a new state-created entity, the “Greyhound Racing Transition Agency”. Does the Bill guarantee compensation for this seizure? No. It merely says the Agency “must consider whether any action (for example, a payment) is warranted”.
In Germany, such a law would be void ab initio: it would be legally non-existent. It is effectively legalised theft. The state is seizing private assets to fund its own administrative costs and eventually transferring the leftovers to competing industries such as thoroughbred and harness racing. It is Robin Hood in reverse: taking from the banned to give to the favoured.
Second, consider the freedom of association. The state has the right to ban an activity, like racing dogs. But this Bill goes further. It automatically commands the dissolution of the private clubs that hosted the racing.
Imagine the Government banned chess. They could stop you from playing chess. But could they order the dissolution of the “Wellington Chess and Beer Club” and seize its tables? Surely, the club has a right to exist as a social gathering, perhaps pivoting to become a “Checkers and Beer Club”?
Well, not under this Bill. It treats private associations as if they were government departments to be restructured at a Minister’s whim.
Why does this matter to you if you do not care about dogs?
It matters because this Bill is a blueprint for arbitrary power. It targets one industry while leaving others, like horse racing, untouched. Unless the Government can prove that dogs are uniquely different from horses in a way that justifies total destruction versus regulation, this is arbitrary. In a Rechtsstaat, the state cannot act as a bully simply because the victim is unpopular.
This brings me to the Regulatory Standards Act (RSA).
Some politicians view the RSA as red tape. I view it as New Zealand’s version of the “Miller’s Court.” The RSA contains principles that mirror those German constitutional protections: legislation should not take property without fair compensation.
The Government knows its greyhound Bill violates those principles.
How do we know? Because it rushed to introduce the Bill in late 2025, precisely to escape the RSA, which commences on 1 January 2026. Because the Bill was introduced before that date, it is exempt from the RSA’s scrutiny. It is legislative flight capital, rushing for the exit before the border closes.
If we allow the state to use sledgehammers on greyhound trainers because we do not like their sport, we grant the state permission to use sledgehammers on anyone. Today it is the kennel. Tomorrow it could be your farm, your business or your local club.
New Zealand does not need to adopt the German Constitution. But it should listen to the story of the Miller of Sanssouci. Even Kings need principles.
The Regulatory Standards Act’s regulatory hygiene check is the best hope the miller has of sleeping a bit better at night. At least it would require Parliament to acknowledge what it is doing when it seizes his mill.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE
Even an absolute monarch in 18th-century Prussia understood that there were limits to power. The King could not simply take what he wanted because it annoyed him.
I fear New Zealand’s Minister for Racing has forgotten the lesson of the miller.
The Government has introduced the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill. Its purpose is to ban commercial greyhound racing from 1 August 2026. You may agree with that purpose. You may think the industry has lost its social license. That is a political debate, and it is fair enough.
However, as a German-trained academic lawyer, I look at how this Bill achieves its objectives. I see a legislative sledgehammer that smashes the furniture of civil society.
In my legal education, we were taught to revere the Rechtsstaat, the state based on the rule of law. The German Basic Law, our constitution, has specific safeguards to prevent the state from becoming a predator. This Bill pulls the trigger while ignoring every single one of them.
First, consider the “package deal” clause, also known as the Junktimklausel. In Germany, the state can take your property for the public good, but Article 14 of our Constitution imposes a strict condition. The law that takes the property must also specify the compensation. It is a package deal. You cannot have the taking without the paying.
The New Zealand Bill fails this test spectacularly. It dissolves private racing clubs and orders their assets to be vested in a new state-created entity, the “Greyhound Racing Transition Agency”. Does the Bill guarantee compensation for this seizure? No. It merely says the Agency “must consider whether any action (for example, a payment) is warranted”.
In Germany, such a law would be void ab initio: it would be legally non-existent. It is effectively legalised theft. The state is seizing private assets to fund its own administrative costs and eventually transferring the leftovers to competing industries such as thoroughbred and harness racing. It is Robin Hood in reverse: taking from the banned to give to the favoured.
Second, consider the freedom of association. The state has the right to ban an activity, like racing dogs. But this Bill goes further. It automatically commands the dissolution of the private clubs that hosted the racing.
Imagine the Government banned chess. They could stop you from playing chess. But could they order the dissolution of the “Wellington Chess and Beer Club” and seize its tables? Surely, the club has a right to exist as a social gathering, perhaps pivoting to become a “Checkers and Beer Club”?
Well, not under this Bill. It treats private associations as if they were government departments to be restructured at a Minister’s whim.
Why does this matter to you if you do not care about dogs?
It matters because this Bill is a blueprint for arbitrary power. It targets one industry while leaving others, like horse racing, untouched. Unless the Government can prove that dogs are uniquely different from horses in a way that justifies total destruction versus regulation, this is arbitrary. In a Rechtsstaat, the state cannot act as a bully simply because the victim is unpopular.
This brings me to the Regulatory Standards Act (RSA).
Some politicians view the RSA as red tape. I view it as New Zealand’s version of the “Miller’s Court.” The RSA contains principles that mirror those German constitutional protections: legislation should not take property without fair compensation.
The Government knows its greyhound Bill violates those principles.
How do we know? Because it rushed to introduce the Bill in late 2025, precisely to escape the RSA, which commences on 1 January 2026. Because the Bill was introduced before that date, it is exempt from the RSA’s scrutiny. It is legislative flight capital, rushing for the exit before the border closes.
If we allow the state to use sledgehammers on greyhound trainers because we do not like their sport, we grant the state permission to use sledgehammers on anyone. Today it is the kennel. Tomorrow it could be your farm, your business or your local club.
New Zealand does not need to adopt the German Constitution. But it should listen to the story of the Miller of Sanssouci. Even Kings need principles.
The Regulatory Standards Act’s regulatory hygiene check is the best hope the miller has of sleeping a bit better at night. At least it would require Parliament to acknowledge what it is doing when it seizes his mill.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE
2 comments:
I do not follow greyhound racing, how ever if cruelty has anything to do with banning the sport how is pig hunting allowed where a good dog can easily have 3 major injuries in a season and countless dogs are killed. Having said that I agree with NZ first on most of their policies but this one seems motivated by something quite different than cruelty to animals.
You can almost see the dust rising from the law textbooks in this argument. It’s a romantic notion, isn’t it — that New Zealand’s greyhound debate is really about the “Rule of Law” and some long-dead Prussian miller standing up to the crown. But this isn’t 18th-century Potsdam. It’s modern New Zealand, where the “rule of law” also includes Parliament’s right to change it when an industry proves incapable of reform, even after three separate warnings. Greyhound racing hasn’t been ambushed; it’s been on notice for years. That’s not tyranny. That’s consequence.
The seizure claim sounds dramatic until you realise what’s actually being taken are club assets built on licenses and public confidence — both granted and revoked by the state. When the state ends the licence, the business ends with it. Those clubs aren’t private bakeries suddenly commandeered by the crown. They exist because Kiwis have tolerated an industry that, at best, has lurched from welfare scandal to welfare scandal. Lose your social licence, lose your privileges. That’s how the system works when accountability matters more than sentimentality about “tradition.”
And the rights argument? Please. No one’s banning people from owning dogs, meeting for beers, or reminiscing about the good old track. The only thing going extinct is the idea that profit and cruelty can keep running under the banner of nostalgia and bureaucracy. If that’s the hill you want to die on, fine. But spare us the opera about Prussian millers. The real story here isn’t the death of liberty. It’s the state finally doing what the industry refused to do for itself — draw the line.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.