Racing Bill

The genesis of this debate goes back many, many years. In fact, if we were to go back to December 1970—

💬 Rodney Hide: Good heavens!

Yes, that long ago. There was a report commissioned 33 years ago, called Horse Racing, Trotting, and Dog Racing in New Zealand. It was a report of a royal commission of inquiry chaired by Sir Thaddeus McCarthy, so it was known as the McCarthy report. That report was done 33 years ago, and some of the issues that were identified at that time are worth recording now, because, in my view, not much has changed.

If we turn to page 140, we see under “Disabilities of the Present Control Structure”: “We have a strong view that the present administrative and control structure has resulted in three main disabilities. First, its impotence or reluctance in making decisions where the two codes are in conflict. The evidence here is conclusive. It may be seen in such unsolved problems as those of further totalisation licences, the allocation of licences existing in future between codes, and the allocation of race meeting dates and the distribution of TAB profits.” Those points were made 33 years ago, and we are seeing today, in this bill, exactly the same sort of points being made. The title of the bill could be the “Restructure of the McCarthy Report of December 1970 Bill”.

More recently, we had the Ernst and Young Report on the Performance and Efficiency Audit of the New Zealand Racing Industry Board, dated 3 July 1997. That report’s priority areas for action are now included in this bill. They include a simplified Racing Act, which enables the industry to act on its own problems, and merging the Racing Industry Board and the TAB to effect better coordination of policy and delivery. That is exactly what this bill will do: it will merge the Racing Industry Board and the TAB. The third point is driving down industry costs, particularly through an early review of administrative structures. This report was done in 1997, and, as I said, the genesis of the bill we are debating tonight can be traced right back to that date. So this bill could be titled the “Ernst and Young Revival Bill”, or the “Ernst and Young Bring It Again Bill”, or whatever we want to call it, because a very comprehensive report in 1997 about the racing industry identified what needs to be done. That report talked about efficiency and effectiveness, and that is certainly something we are concerned about with this bill.

More recently, 3 years ago, a draft bill was prepared for the then Minister. A lot of changes have been made to the draft bill—just little words, which will come up during the debate—and we now see those changes in the current bill. Basically, this document, dated 20 November 2000, includes the comments, points, and items in the bill that we are debating tonight.

In more recent times, the Minister commissioned a very comprehensive report from PricewaterhouseCoopers. It is very unfortunate that tonight we are debating a bill that was deliberated on before the recommendations of that July report, commissioned by the Minister, were available. We actually finished deliberating on this bill back in May of last year. We were ready to debate it in the House—and National supported it—back in May, to coincide with the 1 August calendar date for the racing industry. There has been delay after delay, then these reports have come out, the first one being the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, which has some very, very good points in it.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Just before I call the next member, I remind members that the debate on clause 1 is not a wide-ranging debate. I ask members to adhere to that when they give their speeches to the Committee.

The member I am following talked about the history of this legislation. Of course, despite his best efforts in the short amount of time available to him, he was not able to refer to all the reports that have come forth with regard to this legislation—legislation that the Government suddenly wishes to rush through the House.

There is yet another report, which Mr Tisch was unable to refer to—and if I were to name the bill, I would call it the “Racing (Many Reports Not Activated by the Labour Government) Bill”—and that is the report of the Racing Industry Working Group comprising Bill Falconer as the chairman, Brian Beattie, Tom Jamison, Wendy Pye, and Steve Thompson, which has just come to hand.

Members may even have received a submission today in their mail, which indicates how rushed this legislation is. I have received one from United Fisheries Ltd. Would members believe that the consultant is one Hon Doug Kidd DCNZM, LLB? There is life after Parliament, even if it is as a consultant! My friend Doug Kidd is now a consultant on this legislation, and, clearly, his submissions must—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member must talk to the title.

I am saying that the title could be the “Racing (Many Submissions Not Activated by the Labour Government) Bill”, and an example of that is the submissions we are now getting on the report of the Racing Industry Working Group. For New Zealand First, I just say that if it has taken 33 years to get as far as this, I think we can take another 2 months or so to have a look at the report of the working-group.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: Even another week.

Even another week, as the honourable Lindsay Tisch suggests. But we could take some further time. After all, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, when speaking on this bill on 10 October 2002, in relation to his request for time to consider this very report—and I am talking about how the bill should be titled—he made it very clear that a five-member committee had been working for some considerable time on the racing industry, and had not yet made its recommendations. We are very grateful to the Government for accepting New Zealand First’s submission that the second reading should be delayed until the report from the working-group came through. The report has just become available, and I think the Government should spend a little more time on it, because, in looking at this other report, I see there are various indications as to how the board should be selected, who should be selected, whether the trots and the dogs should be included, and who should be involved with it all—

💬 Hon Annette King: They are.

They are, but the question is that perhaps they should not be. After all, this is a bill about the thoroughbred racing industry and the TAB. Why should the dogs be included? There is, obviously, disagreement between me and the Minister in the chair. The suggestion is that this matter should go to a select committee for the working-group’s report to be considered. As Lindsay Tisch indicated, we have reports going back 33 years. What is another week, so that full consideration can be given to this legislation, which, as I suggest, should be entitled the “Racing (Many Reports on It) Bill”?

I am speaking to one of the latest reports on the issue, the report of the Racing Industry Working Group. If I am taking some time and labouring the point, it is because of all the time that this issue has already taken. Last Thursday the Leader of the House, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, indicated we would be considering the bill this week. Well, there is hardly enough time to consider it. It affects the very many New Zealanders who are working in the industry. I think about 33,000 New Zealanders work in it, and there must be many hundreds of thousands of, if not in excess of a million, New Zealanders who involve themselves in the industry every weekend. Surely the House has enough time to put this bill aside for a few more days, for a week, so that a select committee could fully consider the working-group’s report, rather than our rushing the bill through in the way that is finally being done today. I would like the Minister to take a call and tell me whether she has read the report of the Racing Industry Working Group. What are her comments on that report?

On behalf of United Future, I would like to submit that this bill should be called the “It’s About Time Bill”, because it has been a long time coming. The purpose of the bill, which is to merge the Racing Industry Board and the Totalisator Agency Board into a single statutory body to simplify the governance of the racing industry, has been asked for for a very long time. It is about time that we put it to the vote and pass it. The racing industry needs the legislation. It has been begging for it for a very long time.

As has already been stated, the bill is the result of the 1997 review. An audit found that the current industry racing structures are ineffective. The bill will give the legislative grounds to design and implement a management and organisational structure to set up a joint group. It will be far more efficient, and it will take away a lot of the inefficiencies. We have a few concerns, but we are glad that the bill is finally before the House. We think it should be called the “It’s About Time Bill”, just to emphasis the relevance of that fact.

One of the areas we need to look at is the prohibition of races on Easter Sunday. This is echoed in our amendment, and I am convinced that the Committee will welcome it. Other amendments will probably be necessary to make the legislation workable, including support for an appeals process against decisions by the board in relation to the revocation of race dates. We will also probably support an amendment that provides for some fairness in the distribution process, but that comes later.

The main aim of the bill is to unite two facets of the racing industry. The industry has been asking for this to happen, and we are now jointly giving it the legislation to facilitate it. As I said, the bill should be called the “It’s About Time Bill”.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Before I call Dr Paul Hutchison, I remind members that clause 1 is not an opportunity to debate the purpose or principles of the bill. There will be an opportunity to do that when Part 1 is debated. I refer members that the title of this particular bill is the Racing Bill.

I am delighted to speak on this bill. Undoubtedly, the title should reflect what the bill does. However, due to the Government of the day, often that does not occur. This bill is somewhat of a misnomer. The correct title should have been along the lines of the “Labour Government Stop, Start, Stagger, and Stumble Bill 2001”.

As my colleague Lindsay Tisch just pointed out, the genesis of this bill goes back a long time, but the more recent genesis really comes from the Ernst and Young report of 1997 or 1998.

💬 Hon Annette King: 1997.

The Minister tells me it was 1997. I am glad to hear that she is alert on this chronology, because it is important in terms of the way her Government has not managed it. After all, here we are at least 6 years later finally about to deliberate on the bill. The reason the bill should be called the “Stop, Start, Stagger, and Stumble Bill” is that it took a long time for the Minister and the Labour Government to get the Ernst and Young recommendations into the form of a bill and then to process it on to the Government Administration Committee. After the committee’s deliberations had taken place, the Minister, in her wisdom, decided that it would be right and proper to get Price Waterhouse to make a report on the industry, which it did. That was the first stop or stumble, maybe both, which is absolutely relevant to the title I am talking about. It was after its report recommending the setting up of a working-party to consider option 2, which was a rules-based commercial model, that Price Waterhouse also suggested four meetings be held around the country, all of which have taken place. The last of those meetings was held last Wednesday in Hamilton. Next Friday was to be the day that the submissions would be heard. What is remarkable in terms of this stop, start, and stumble process, is the fact that the Government, in its wisdom, has suddenly brought in this bill without even having heard the recommendations of the working party. That must have cost a lot.

An alternative title could be the “Labour Government Let’s Spend Money on a Serious Report then Ignore it Bill”. Undoubtedly—

💬 Jill Pettis: Stop mucking around—just get this bill through.

This is a very serious matter. This is a Government that purports to be concerned about accountability, and here it brings in a serious report, and absolutely ignores it. This is the mark of the Labour Government—stop, start, stumble, and stumble again, which absolutely describes the name appropriate for this bill. That is what we have seen the Government do in terms of chronology from 1998—and the very report it ordered, at considerable expense, has been ignored. Although the submissions are due in on Friday, the Government suddenly whips in the bill. Surely it would have been sensible to at least do what the working party recommended—that is, look at what the report said and what the Government has spent its money on—and have a much more considered bill.

Indeed, either of my suggested titles would be appropriate. Sadly, under this Labour Government, the Racing Bill seems a misnomer of the highest order. As I have suggested, we have had not only a staggering stumble exhibited by the Labour Government in the way that this bill has been progressed, but also a serious worry about accountability in terms of the money the Government has spent on the Price Waterhouse report and the huge amount of time and energy that has been put into the report of the racing industry working-group, involving some very respected New Zealanders.

I begin by thanking those members who have worked hard to support this bill and to bring it back to this Chamber, largely unchanged, from the Government Administration Committee. I know that most members in the Committee tonight support the bill, and that the racing industry will welcome that.

I was the Minister who brought this bill to the House. I became Minister for Racing when we came into Government at the end of 1999. Very early on I met the racing industry, and it brought to me its many concerns about the industry and its future. Members of the racing industry said to me how worried they were. There had been little change in the 9 years previously and little emphasis and concentration on this very important industry. I told them that this Government would take the racing industry seriously but that if we were to have a racing bill and make changes to the racing industry, then I would want agreement on the bill that would be brought to the House. The hallmark of this industry is that there has been a lot of argument, a lot of dissention, and a lot of division. I was not prepared to bring a bill to the House—and I can understand why other Ministers for Racing have been reluctant—if there was no agreement in terms of the approach that was about to be taken.

Whilst it is a bit fun to give the bill all sorts of names—and I acknowledge that we ought to have a little light heartedness in this Chamber—I take exception to the stop, start, and stagger speech made by Mr Hutchison. That was a rather unfortunate and mean-spirited speech. I could have said that it was a stop, start, stagger, and stagnate approach from the previous Government. I have decided that once I have made this speech I will not go back and rake over the old coals, because I am interested in passing a bill for the good of the industry.

I know that is Mr Tisch’s approach, and he has been very positive in it. I am just disappointed that Mr Hutchison does not take the same approach. It does take time to get agreement, and it took some time before the industry brought a bill to me that it agreed on. Members need to know that the bill that was introduced into the House is basically the industry’s bill. Our role in that industry must be to ensure a proper regulatory framework and to let it get on with running its own business. Members of the industry brought the bill they wanted to me. There were lots of arguments about it, but finally they said: “We agree on this.”

The matter of the report has been raised. It was a report that was done to look at the economic benefits of the racing industry. Members of the industry said to us that for years, members of this Parliament have not recognised the economic impact of racing in New Zealand—the number of people employed and the income it generates. They wanted to look at the economic impact and future of the racing industry, and that report, which looked at what impact it had and what changes could be made, was carried out. It was agreed long after the industry had agreed on this bill. It is important for members to know that many of the industry groups opposed the working group’s proposals. They also said that many of the working group’s proposals could be implemented, if the industry wanted to do so, without any recourse to further legislative change. So that is a red herring.

I was disappointed in the speech from the New Zealand First member, because it is obvious that he has had no association with the racing industry. To talk about whether harness racing or the dogs should be in this legislation shows that he has never talked to those two other codes that make up the racing industry. This bill came in with the agreement of the harness racing industry, the thoroughbred racing industry, and the greyhound racing industry. Members of those codes sat down and agreed. I say to that member that this legislation is not rushed, but considered. It is the result of the work that went in by those members of the different racing codes in order to give us a bill that they believe would work for their industry. That is not say that there are not a few people who nibble around the edges, but at the end of the day, the industry has informed me that it wants this bill to proceed, and to proceed as soon as possible.

I thank members tonight for their attention to ensure we can get this bill through the Committee stage and passed. I know that the racing industry will thank us for that. I hope we can carry out the debate in the proper spirit, as we ought to, over a bill that will assist a very important part of the economic structure in New Zealand.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Part 1 Preliminary Provisions