 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Further implications
Though the greyhound industry in New South Wales has promised to challenge the government's banning of the industry and though some members of the government may not vote in support of the action, it seems likely that the ban will proceed.
The short-term issue is how successfully the government will be able to manage the social and economic impact the ban will have on owners, trainers and communities and how successfully greyhounds can be either rehomed or humanely euthanised. Failures in these areas, especially those that affect dog welfare, are likely to be judged harshly by both the media and the electorate. It seems probable that closing down the industry efficiently and humanely will be quite an expensive undertaking for the government.
The larger question is whether other states will follow suit and ban the greyhound racing industry. Currently all relevant state governments have indicated that they have no intention of doing so.
Some commentators have noted; however, that this victory is likely to be motivating for animal welfare lobby groups throughout Australia. It has been suggested that animal activists will redouble their efforts to see the industry banned Australia-wide. It has also been suggested that it will enliven campaigns to see duck-shooting banned as well as practices like live-animal export. It is also possible that Australian animal slaughter practices and the use of animals for medical research and surgical treating will attract renewed attention.
The concept of 'social licence', referred to within the report of the Special Commission into the Greyhound Racing Industry in NSW, is a very interesting one. Acting against particular industries or practices because they are judged to be unacceptable to the community at large is a powerful lever for legislative change. However, it raises significant questions. How does the government gauge what is unacceptable to the community? Will it be, as now, via putting a particular position to the electorate in the lead-up to an election or will we see ever-greater recourse to plebiscites to determine the popular will. The question must also be asked as to whether the popular will should always be the primary determinant of government action. If this is the case, can the rights of minority groups be adequately protected?