Greyhound racing ban vote hinges on compensation, independent indicates support

The Tasmanian government's push to ban greyhound racing faces a critical juncture, with the fate of the legislation hanging on the support of an independent MLC. Dean Harriss has indicated he might back the bill, but only if the compensation offered to those involved in the industry is significantly enhanced. This stance highlights the complex interplay between public sentiment, fiscal responsibility, and the livelihoods of industry participants.

“

The current offer on a per capita basis is less than half of the proposed compensation offered to the New Zealand industry following the decision to ban greyhound racing.

Harriss's conditional support is rooted in what he describes as "strong public opposition to a continuation of funding" and the "shocking state of the government books." He points to an independent economist's report that found public funding for greyhound racing to be unprofitable, costing taxpayers millions. This financial argument resonates deeply in Tasmania, where public funds are under scrutiny.

The Premier's proposed $4.8 million compensation package has been deemed insufficient by Harriss, who notes it's less than half of what was offered in New Zealand for a similar ban. This comparison underscores a perceived disparity and raises questions about fairness and adequacy for Tasmanians whose investments were encouraged by the government itself.

“

The Eslake report on the financing of greyhound racing made a compelling case that Tasmanian taxpayer support of the industry, at more than double the per capita funding of any other jurisdiction, was delivering diminishing returns.

The political maneuvering surrounding the ban also reveals the delicate balance of power in Tasmania's parliament. The government needs six votes to pass the bill, and Harriss's support, if secured, would bring the tally to the required eight. His re-election is therefore crucial, illustrating how a single independent voice can wield significant influence in the Legislative Council. The debate is not just about animal welfare, but also about economic impact, public finances, and the political calculus of minority government.

“

The industry hadn't changed. What changed was the arithmetic of minority government.