Racing Bill

, on behalf of the Minister for Racing: I move, That the Racing Bill be now read a third time. The Racing Bill is an industry-driven initiative. In 2000 the Racing Industry Board, TAB New Zealand, the New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing Inc., Harness Racing New Zealand, and the Greyhound Racing Association developed a proposal for reform that they presented to the Government in the form of a draft bill. The key element of the industry’s proposal was to simplify the governance of racing by merging the Racing Industry Board and the TAB.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I wonder whether the Government whips could have a chat to their members who are right behind the Minister. I cannot hear what the Minister is saying.

Consultation with the wider industry revealed overwhelming support for a merge of the TAB and the Racing Industry Board, and this formed the mainstay of the Racing Bill that the Government was pleased to introduce in mid-2001. The Racing Bill repeals the Racing Act and replaces the two existing boards, the Racing Industry Board and the TAB, with a single body called the New Zealand Racing Board. The famous TAB brand will not disappear from New Zealand’s High Street, though, as the bill protects the name for the exclusive use of the new board.

The board will be responsible for both the administration of racing and the provision of race and sports betting services. Its objectives will be threefold: firstly, to promote the racing industry; secondly, to facilitate and promote race betting and sports betting; and, finally, to maximise its profits for the long-term benefit of New Zealand racing. The bill gives the three racing code bodies greater responsibility, whilst strengthening their accountability to the board. The codes will have the responsibility for distributing betting profits to their constituent clubs. Each code will receive a share of betting profits and will have the freedom to make its own decisions about expenditure. However, the board will have the right to withhold funding from a code if it does not approve the code’s statement of intent or its business plan. This is one of a number of accountability features introduced by the Government Administration Committee that are intended to protect the interests of the public and those whose livelihoods are derived from racing, and there are many thousands of those.

Another significant accountability mechanism proposed by the industry is that the rules of racing and the board’s betting and procedural rules will be deemed regulations, with the potential for disallowance by Parliament. The bill is also explicit that no rule of racing may conflict with any other legislation. The Racing Bill does not affect the industry’s ability to offer certain types of gaming products, or its responsibilities in respect of problem gambling initiatives. These are issues that the House will consider in the context of the Responsible Gambling Bill.

Members are aware that many reports have been written on the racing industry. Over the years, racing has been scrutinised by two royal commissions, task forces, performance and efficiency audits, and numerous reports. I am pleased that all of those recent reports, audits, and studies have supported the mainstay of the bill—that is, the merge of the Racing Industry Board and the TAB into a single board.

In 2002 the Minister for Economic Development and the former Minister for Racing, the Hon Annette King, commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers to undertake an industry-scoping study as part of an economic development strategy for racing. PricewaterhouseCoopers’ main conclusion was that the industry should be restructured using a rules-based commercial model. The Racing Industry Board subsequently established a working-group under the chairmanship of Bill Falconer to develop that idea. The working-group published its report late last year.

I have heard some critics say that the Government should have held up the Racing Bill’s progress and reviewed options in the light of the working-group’s reports. [Interruption] If Mr Tisch would just wait a moment, I will explain why we have not done that. Firstly, there is a pressing need to replace the Racing Act. It was enacted in 1971, as I stated earlier, and while it has served its purpose, today it is hopelessly out of date. Secondly, I tell Mr Tisch that the Racing Bill before the House has widespread industry support, and he knows that. Thirdly, the working-group’s proposals have not met with overwhelming industry support, and the Government is not willing to force change on the industry—unlike the previous Government, the National Party, with producer board reform, where it forced change.

Fourthly, should the working-group’s proposals prove to be robust, and eventually gain industry support, they could be implemented at a later date, and we would be willing to facilitate that. In any case, many of the working-group’s proposals could be implemented without recourse to further Government intervention.

The Government is prepared to support further reform that has widespread industry support. However, industry bodies must be challenged to take the initiative on the working-group’s proposals. As the report notes, that will require very strong leadership; nevertheless, it will be possible for the new board to implement many of the report’s proposals without further legislation. The working-group has made some challenging recommendations and I am confident that, with strong leadership, the racing industry can advance these matters.

During the Committee stage of the bill the House considered a Green Party amendment proposing the introduction of a statutory complaints procedure. I feel it is important to explain the Government’s reasons for not supporting that amendment. The select committee debated the issue at length, but decided, instead, to recommend a series of changes to specific sections of the bill to improve accountability and to establish robust processes to safeguard the interests of the industry participants. The Government supports the committee’s decision. It was a sound one. A statutory complaints procedure would undermine the board’s ability to make difficult decisions in the best interests of the whole racing industry. If there were to be an appeal mechanism, the appeal body would end up making all the contentious decisions that are vital to the industry’s future. The Government believes that it is preferable that a board that is accountable directly to the industry, and expert in racing issues, make those vital and often contentious decisions.

To conclude, the underpinning policy objective of the Racing Bill is improved administrative efficiency. It provides a modern framework for key industry bodies to work together for the betterment of the New Zealand racing industry. This bill may not be the final answer to all the industry’s problems. However, many within the industry are confident that it is an important stepping stone towards a better future. It is expected that the Racing Bill will commence and be in full swing by 1 August this year, coinciding with the beginning of the new racing calendar.

I would like to express my thanks to all those involved in developing this legislation, particularly my parliamentary colleagues on the Government Administration Committee. Under Dianne Yates’ leadership they made many positive changes that enhanced this bill. I also thank the former Minister for Racing, my colleague the Hon Annette King, who did a considerable amount of work to get the bill into the House, and who is very committed to the well-being and growth of the industry.

Finally, as well as thanking all the officials involved, as I have said, I would like to acknowledge the work of the current Minister for Racing, the Hon Mark Gosche, who, regrettably, cannot be with us today, for family reasons. This bill will be received positively by the racing industry. It is desperately needed. I now challenge the industry to move forward and make the industry the kind of success that will make this country proud of horse racing.

The passing of this bill has been referred to in many quarters as the first leg of the treble. National has supported the progress of this bill. However, we argued in the Committee about the haste in getting the bill through its Committee stage on Tuesday. [Interruption] We have supported this right through, as we did last year. But the point I want to make to the Associate Minister for Racing is that the industry is not all in one. While the codes have certainly done that, this Government went out and commissioned a report—the Minister mentioned it—the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, an analysis of where racing should be, and it made some recommendations. One of those recommendations was that a working-party would be set up—the Minister referred to that.

The process of that working-party was to travel the country, so that stakeholders could hear what the working-party had come up with. I attended the meeting last Wednesday week in Hamilton, where some of the participants were very vocal about what was in the working-party report, but it was made very clear at that meeting that submitters had an opportunity to get their views through to the Racing Industry Board by tomorrow, Friday, 7 March.

The point that I make to the Minister, as I did in the Committee stage, was why could the Government not wait 1 week so that we could receive the submissions that the Racing Industry Board and the chairman of the Racing Industry Board had made, at that public meeting in Hamilton. I have been receiving them. They have been sending me copies of their submissions. I have one here today that has just come in. The point I make here is that the undue haste that this has come in, in a week, could have been put off for another week, and we would have had that opportunity to read those submissions. But that has not happened.

I am not arguing about the merits of what was in the working-party’s report. I am not arguing about the merits of what the submissions may say. What I am saying is that those stakeholders have wasted their time. Not only that, the eminent people who were on this working-party, those distinguished persons, have also wasted their time. Why would people travel the country with the indication that they could have a say, report back to the Racing Industry Board by tomorrow, Friday, 7 March, and those points would then be taken to the Minister, if appropriate—when, on the other hand, we did the Committee stage on Tuesday, and here we are doing the third reading?

I am concerned about that. If this is the first leg of the treble, then I would say that much goodwill has been lost in some sectors over this last week. I do not know what the second and third legs of the treble are likely to be, but I do pose the question: why is the Government involved in racing at all? I have canvassed this view over the last couple of years, and in particular in relation to the Racing Bill. During the 1990s there was a reduction in Government involvement in businesses, but racing has continued to receive and look for Government support. Deregulation of many industries required them to respond to market forces, and most of them have thrived; but racing has not thrived, and the needs for change are being driven by social and economic concerns.

The introduction of casinos, gaming machines, weekend shopping, and other entertainments is putting pressure on punters who are looking for greater choices to spend their discretionary money and time, and the racing industry has not responded to that need. The Racing Bill is about governance. It does not do anything for the fortunes of the industry, or attract investment into the industry to make it flourish the way we need. That will be one of the challenges that the new board needs to address.

Racing has enjoyed a special status with its own legislation and Minister. Why do we need a Minister for Racing? Why do we need an Associate Minister for Racing? Why do we actually need them? We do not have Ministers for the icons of rugby and beer. Why do we have a Minister for Racing? Racing has been around for a very, very long time—for 100 years. The special status it enjoys has probably held the industry back. Political patronage, to please everyone, has its risks and costs, and politicians of the past have tended to preserve the past rather than prepare the industry for the future. With this in mind, why can private companies not run race meetings? Many sports clubs, corporates, or private individuals with their own venues run sports events. Why should racing clubs have this monopoly?

I was able to introduce clause 63A into the bill. That clause goes a little way down the road to giving the board the flexibility of being able to run special meetings, but it does not go far enough. I had great difficulty in getting the clause introduced, but at least it is there. The increasing importance of off-course betting, now providing more than 90 percent of betting turnover, has made access to the Trackside television channel a critical factor in race-meeting profitability. Everything is scheduled around being able to see the races on television. Why do we limit the number of race meetings? Is it because they have to be shown on television? We do not tell McDonald’s how many Big Macs they can serve from each outlet per day, yet we are saying here we will limit the number of race meetings that are to be held.

The TAB is a monopoly provider of off-course betting services to the industry and racing clubs, and the question needs to be asked whether the industry and racing clubs are getting the best deal when we have the TAB as the monopoly provider. To my mind, racing does not need to be run like a nationalised industry with its own legislation. Greater innovation and investment in the industry will provide for market development, and this will allow the industry to diversify and give flexibility, which will be paramount.

This is a multimillion-dollar business that employs in excess of 33,000 people. In the area that I represent in the Piako electorate and Matamata, the racing industry is paramount. Matamata township owes its living to the racing industry, and to Cambridge and other towns within the Piako district it is very, very important. National supports this bill. We support the racing industry, and we do wish the new board all the best with the second and third legs of the treble. I do not know what they are, but there are challenges. We have not voted against the bill; we have supported it. We have recommended some changes, but those have not been forthcoming. But we do wish the new board all the best in the challenges ahead, and I for one will continue to have my flutter and enjoy the thrill and excitement that racing provides.

The racing industry has been incredibly patient waiting for the passage of this bill, so I will not take anywhere close to my 10 minutes, in the hope that it will speed things along just that little bit more quickly. United Future’s position on the bill can be summed up in a few points. First of all, we are pleased that this is an industry that has come to the Government with its ideas in order, before trying to have them included in legislation. I would note that as a Parliament, if we saw more consensus-based, self-produced legislation regulating other industries it would make our lives a little easier here. Having to wade into a sector-localised fight and decide for industries how they are to conduct their affairs is never ideal. Our power to impose on a part of New Zealand what we think is best for people is only really well utilised when they tell us coherently and collectively what they as an industry want and need, in order to achieve what is best for themselves and the wider public.

That is why, at the end of the day, we are happy to support this bill, because that is exactly what it is—a bill produced by the industry for the industry, crafted with a good balance between competing interests as far as possible. United Future supports the policy behind the new bill—that one body should be responsible for both the commercial and broader policy issues facing New Zealand racing. We hope that this will ensure that commercial decisions are adequately taken into account and that the impact on the racing industry and its stakeholders, and vice versa, is accountable and transparent. This means that the Racing Industry Board and the Totalisator Agency Board are disestablished and a new board, the New Zealand Racing Board, is to cohesively manage all the functions of the racing industry under one entity.

There have been, of course, some areas where we feel that the balance of interest has not been struck correctly, and we have attempted to adjust those—hence our support of various amendments. That has included ensuring the continued prohibition on Easter Sunday racing. It was not done for any moralistic reason but quite simply to avoid delaying the bill further, as the matter would otherwise have been a conscience issue and the bill would have been mired in even more debate, probably continuing for another 6 months.

It is unfortunate that the reasons for having Sunday racing were originally brought forward by an industry that had a bit of foresight in thinking that if it was able to include this in the legislation now, then when and if the time came that trading on Easter Sunday was the norm it would not then have to sit around and wait for Parliament to legislate yet again. Unfortunately for those people, it backfired, but they had the right inclination, I believe.

The institution of an appeals process providing efficient natural justice to those wanting to appeal against the decisions of a statutorily constituted racing board whilst ensuring the prohibition of vexatious and petty claimants, is something we would have liked to see pushed a little bit further, and we are glad to have supported Sue Bradford’s amendment in that particular regard. We are sorry that it did not go through. Lindsay Tisch’s amendment to ensure the fairness of distribution of profits amongst the codes was something else we sought to support. Sadly, that too has not progressed. But on the whole I believe that this bill should not remain languishing, because it is something that the industry has been wanting for a very long time, and I entrust it to a speedy conclusion. I recommend this bill to the House.

I am not certain where the previous member was when an attempt was made to bring this bill before the House on 10 October last year. At that time, the PricewaterhouseCoopers report was being examined by an advisory committee, and notwithstanding the fact that it had not even reported, this Government tried to ram through the Committee stage back then. Now we have this extraordinary event. The advisory committee has recently reported, a review committee has gone around the country, and undertakings have been given by officials on behalf of the Minister that people would have a certain time by which to make submissions. That date was 8 April. Today is not 8 April; it is 6 March, and it bespeaks bad faith and a shocking public process. What is the use of making submissions by 8 April, if the bill is through its third reading on 6 March? How can the Minister explain that, other than to say that something is going on in respect of the formation of public policy that is not defensible?

💬 Hon Damien O'Connor: Absolute rubbish!

No, it is not absolute rubbish. Perhaps the Minister, Damien O’Connor, can explain to me why the Government tried to have the Committee stage of this legislation moved up the Order Paper on 10 October last year.

💬 Hon Damien O'Connor: The industry wants it.

Look, I know the industry wants it, but the industry does not want shonky public policy. The industry has had a succession of meetings, and I want to know why the bill is being rammed through the House. Even now, on the advice of the Minister to his officials, people are being told that there is a certain date by which they must make submissions. Doing so will all be forlorn and a waste of time, because the bill will already be through Parliament. [Interruption] Not at all! I would have thought it was a bit illogical. If the closing date is 2 days from now and the bill is passed through the Committee stage today, what does that make it? A total waste of time!

I was disturbed to learn that the ACT party, which puts itself up as a paragon of constitutional virtue and legalistic understanding—particularly Mr Franks from the Securities Commission, although I do not know how he ever got the idea that that qualified him for any sort of status, given the commission’s appalling record when it comes to certain issues like the Bank of New Zealand—

💬 Gerrard Eckhoff: Self-interest!

Oh no, it is not self-interest, and that is proven by countless court cases all the way to the Privy Council. How is he to explain his colleagues’ dilatory attitude towards that issue when he was in charge of it? Here is Stephen Franks, that paragon of constitutional virtue and commercial rights, but when the Greens put up a thoroughly meritorious proposal that there should be an appeal procedure—which we see in every other area of life—what does the ACT party do? It says no. In consequence, this Government, not being in any way persuaded by arguments of civil rights, appeal rights, and commercial rights—that is why it wants to get rid of the Privy Council, for goodness sake!—had a reason for doing what it did. But I cannot understand what the ACT party, admittedly in Opposition, was thinking about. When this provision came before the House, the National Party supported it, the Greens promoted it, United Future supported it, and New Zealand First supported it, but the ACT party, in its perverse way, said no. As a consequence it is lost, and no person who has future dealings with this administration will ever have a right to take his or her case beyond a finding by the current establishment set up by this bill to a more legal and judicial authority. That is very regrettable.

In respect of the racing industry, I want to say that, with the exception of Mr Simich, we have had a procession of racing Ministers who know absolutely nothing at all about racing. I do not know why we appoint people to be Ministers for Racing if they do not know one end of the horse from the other.

💬 Hon Damien O'Connor: Ha, ha!

Is Mr O’Connor the associate Minister? One day at the Kumara races does not qualify him to know anything about the racing industry, its permutations, the breeding industry—

💬 Hon Damien O'Connor: How many have you got?

I have three.

💬 Hon Damien O'Connor: You’ve got three horses?

Yes. That comes as a surprise to him, does it not? And they are about to run very shortly.

💬 Dail Jones: Are they worth betting on?

I will let the member know after the results are in. [Interruption] No, no, it is fully recovered.

This great industry directly employs 32,000 people, and beyond that, tens of thousands like myself and others who have an interest at various points in the industry. The way the racing industry in this country has been treated since Roger Douglas came in in 1984 and changed the whole taxation regime, compared with, say, Australia and Ireland, is absolutely disgraceful. Racing has been down ever since. I want to make a commitment on behalf of New Zealand First that when we return to Government—which will be as soon as this Labour Party in Government throws in the towel, which it will. It could not even make the last election in 3 years, but had to have it in 2½ years, at the end of its first term. We will change the depreciation regime for both mares and stallions. We will ensure that we have decent stallions in this country, which we are losing—

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: Why didn’t he do it when he was Treasurer?

I was Treasurer for 20 months, and did a thousand little things. Unfortunately, Jenny Shipley decided she had ideas above her station, and that is why she is not here any more. She took the National Party to its worst defeat in its whole history, and she is gone. But I would have got around to it in 1999, in my third Budget. One cannot do everything in one day, but this party is in its fourth year of Government, and when it comes to the taxation regime, it has made one minor change to the depreciation allowance for mares. For stallions, it has done nothing, and for the racing industry itself, it has this perverse result.

Why do casinos have a privileged tax position compared to New Zealand racing? For foreign-owned casinos like the one in Auckland, there is a very special rate, but the New Zealand – owned racing industry—the thoroughbred industry—has the highest taxation that the Government could possibly mount against it. The Government does not want to know a thing about racehorse owners, or about their costs and expenses. But the moment one gets involved in the racing industry, bang, along comes a Government that is totally unsympathetic to racing and an Inland Revenue Department that is very, very punishing.

There was a time when if one’s horse won a race in New Zealand, that would have paid its costs for the rest of the year—just an ordinary race at an ordinary provincial racecourse. Now, it would take four or five races to do that. Given the enormous potential market on the eastern seaboard of China, and in other parts of the world because of favourable regimes, this is an industry that has been truly Cinderella-ised and marginalised. That is the reason that so many New Zealand breeders and racing experts are relocating offshore in terrible climates like Singapore. They are doing it because it is too harsh and too difficult back in New Zealand.

I recommend to the Government that it does something in the next 2½ years to help this industry, because it will sell far more than wine ever will. This industry is capable of multiplying its profits five times over, if it were but given a chance. Instead of going along to the races and sort of “gladhatting” around the place, it is high time that some members of Parliament put a bit of serious study into this matter and were a bit more helpful.

I would like to thank the previous speaker for resuming his seat. I say to him, and to Mr Tisch who spoke earlier, that the very reason that the Government is finally progressing this bill is because of the requests from the industry. Prior to the last election, I can recall the unanimous wish of racing industry parties in the Waikato to get on with it, and I find it extraordinary that the National Opposition would delay this bill in any way at all.

I am pleased that the Racing Bill is finally receiving its third reading this afternoon. It has not exactly galloped, raced, or even trotted through the House, having had its first reading in June 2001—nearly 2 years ago. No matter what they think of the bill in its final form, I am sure that the various diverse streams of the racing industry will be relieved to finally know where they stand, and will be able to begin to make plans based on the changes that the bill brings forward. Despite the reservations I have had about some aspects of the bill, I think it marks the start of a new era for racing in New Zealand. This legislation provides the opportunity for the creation of a fresh governance framework—the new Racing Board—which I hope will comply with principles of both natural justice and social responsibility in all its dealings.

I also note that the bill has been strengthened during the select committee process by an addition to the purpose clause, which states very clearly that one of the bill’s three core goals must be to promote the long-term viability of New Zealand racing. Throughout the 2 years of the bill’s meander through parliamentary proceedings, we have heard many submitters and lobbyists telling us the sad story of the current state of racing in this country. There are problems with the diminishing number of horses available to race; the loss of race days by some clubs, in some cases altogether; the decline in attendance at meetings; unwelcome decreases in stake money; loss of income for trainers and breeders; loss of betting income to overseas jurisdictions and other forms of gambling, and so on. That litany of woes makes it absolutely critical that the new board takes a leadership role right from the start in developing a capacity to build a strategic overview that takes into account the needs and concerns of all parts of the industry, but is able to transcend petty feuding, so that in the end, the sector as a whole might move forward successfully and, above all else, survive.

From the point of view of someone outside the racing world like myself, it seems as though far too much time is taken up in some parts of the industry with petty feuds, desperate power plays, and the pursuit of naked self-interest. I do not know whether it is possible, but I hope the new board will have the capacity to pursue achievable and visionary goals, and the ability to work developmentally and fairly in the interests of all parts of the racing world. After listening to and reading the various submissions and working-party reports, one thing that seems apparent is that despite the best efforts of many individuals and groups within racing, there has not been any kind of strategic visioning or implementation across the industry for a very long time. If nothing else, I believe that this must be a top priority for the new board, and I sincerely hope that the Minister and the nomination advisory panel will do their best to select seven members who have the skills and experience to provide that kind of leadership.

I believe the Racing Bill, overall, sets a second underpinning goal for the new board, and that is to do everything it can to promote principles of natural justice and equity in racing—not only in its own activities and decisions, but also in the codes. The bill does its best to outline clear and fairly detailed accountability structures between the board and the codes, but it will be up to the board—and to some extent the Minister—to do their utmost to ensure that happens.

Along with colleagues and other parties in this House, and with the racing industry, I tried very hard to get an amendment to the bill earlier this week that would have enabled an appeal procedure to be established. That process would have reviewed decisions of the board, and would have been particularly useful in the most naturally contentious areas of distribution of reserves and allocation of race dates, as well as other board decisions in a broader sense. Our Green Party amendment would have provided the industry with a fair process to guard against prejudice and protect the interests of the smaller clubs and groups, which lack the financial and political clout of larger and richer organisations. Without such a review and appeal process in place, I am very concerned that many of the current problems may continue under the new system. If the board is of a high enough quality and is ultra-accountable, I may be proved wrong. I certainly hope that will be the case.

Meanwhile, I was dismayed the other night by the failure of either the Labour Party or the ACT party to support the Green amendment. All we were trying to do—along with United Future, New Zealand First, and National—was to make the industry more transparent and fairer for all stakeholders. I cannot understand why Labour and ACT were so keen to oppose the review process, especially given the fact that almost all other similar law contains such provisions.

Rural and provincial race clubs are the lifeblood of racing. At a time when the industry is under both internal and external threat, the last thing any of us should be doing is undermining the smaller clubs any more than they have been already. Over the past decade, and more, there have been too many moves to coerced amalgamation and enforced loss of race dates, on the theory that the largest clubs need and deserve the lion’s share of dates and funds to survive. That is madness—the rich and powerful taking from the weak to make themselves stronger, if they can. It is an understandable madness, in that all groups in nature fight for survival, but nonsensical when one looks at the long-term interests of racing in New Zealand.

I hope that in future, and even without a review and appeal process in place, the board and the codes will do everything they can to make their decisions in an even-handed and thoughtful way, recognising that everyone cannot get what he or she wants, but that everyone deserves to have a role and a rightful place that need to be supported to the maximum extent possible.

Finally, I would like to thank the Government for its support for another Green amendment that we put up earlier this week. That amendment will go some way to addressing our concerns about discrimination and inequity. I hope that its provisions will be applied in practice by all who might need them in future.

In a broader sense, I would like to thank everyone who had a role in shaping this bill. I know that the whole process of the genesis and formation of the Racing Bill has, right from the start, been long, slow, and difficult, and not easy for anyone concerned. It is a credit to the various Ministers, officials, submitters, and the dogged members of the Government Administration Committee that we finally have before us legislation, which, if applied well, will sow the seeds of a much happier future for New Zealand racing.

I would like to speak at length about this bill, because I am a great supporter of horse racing in New Zealand. I just wish I had time to go to more race meetings. Unfortunately, I do not. My claim to fame is that I have named a successful racehorse, which actually won—

💬 Hon Member: What is it called?

Salt Spray. Suffice to say, I have spoken on this bill before, and am pleased to speak again on its third reading. The most important thing is that we get this bill through the House. It is supported by the racing industry, and we look forward to the further prosperity of that industry. The bloodstock industry is an exciting industry, and I wish it well. Let us get this bill through.

I had real pleasure in speaking during the first reading of this bill. As I recall, I emphasised just how important it is to ensure that the small rural clubs throughout New Zealand get a fair shake out of this new bill. There is no question about the importance of small clubs right throughout New Zealand. Most New Zealanders have been brought up with the country club meeting, and whether it is on a Saturday, a Sunday, or midweek, does not really matter; it is a great family day out. The whole ambience that has evolved around the racing industry has come very much from those small and very important little clubs.

I think back to last New Year, when one of the most popular small racing club events in New Zealand, the Glenorchy Races, was held. Some intrepid reporter spoke with the Department of Internal Affairs about how long the function had been going, and so on. To the department’s shock and horror, the Glenorchy Races had been going on for years and years, highly successfully but without a licence, so that shocking situation was remedied immediately. That illustrates how capable small clubs and rural people are in having a great day out without the excessive bureaucracy that seems to permeate so much of our lives these days. I am happy to say that, as I understand it, a great outcome has been achieved by the Glenorchy club—and, indeed, by the authorities—to ensure that the cost structures imposed on this industry are not so great as to force the closure of what is an increasingly popular day. I will certainly welcome my colleague from the Green Party, Sue Bradford, who has indicated a wish to come to Glenorchy and view that race on New Year’s Day. I look forward to that.

In this bill, we have decided on centralised control, but it is the breeders who are responsible for this industry, and who have made New Zealand famous. It is not the TAB or the New Zealand Racing Board that have bred the Phar Laps or the Sunlines. Our breeders go to Bahrain and Tokyo. They are fantastic ambassadors, they put New Zealand bloodstock at the forefront of the racing world, and it is hugely important that that continues. But I emphasis again that it is the breeders who have achieved that—without the rules, the regulations, and the centralised bureaucracy. They have relied on their individualism, their brilliance, and their knowledge of the industry to achieve those wonderful goals. It is the racing industry, rugby, and—dare I say it—the right-of-centre philosophies, that have made New Zealand absolutely famous throughout the world. One would hope that that would continue well into the future.

It is incumbent upon the new board to recognise that this House demands that it understands and respects the wishes of the industry. The industry, too, must respect the intent of this bill, which is to give every racing club—and especially the small clubs like Glenorchy, or wherever—a fair shake in this new and exciting era of racing in New Zealand.

As the member of Parliament for Otaki I am very pleased to speak in the third reading of this Racing Bill. In my region there are a number of racing clubs that contribute very significantly to our local economy, and they have been looking forward to the passage of this legislation. I remember attending the community racing forum that the Hon Annette King held in the Beehive theatrette in June 2000, and from that forum a consensus emerged across the three codes in the industry to have this legislation written. It has taken us 2½ years to get it to this point of the third reading, but I know that the Foxton Racing Club, the Levin Racing Club, the Otaki Māori Racing Club, and the Kapiti Harness Racing Club will look forward to using this legislation and its new governance arrangements to ensure great economic development in my electorate. I support the bill.

On behalf of the National Party, I am very pleased to support the third reading of the Racing Bill. This bill is designed to strengthen the governance of the racing industry in New Zealand, and is supported by the three codes. I am particularly pleased to speak on this bill, because Port Waikato—the area I am so privileged to represent—happens to be one of the emerging premier areas for racing in this country. In particular, I speak of the Karaka region, where we have recently seen the opening of the Glenmorgan stud, not to mention the Westbury stud or the premier sales facility at Karaka itself.

I am deeply aware that this bill has been a long time coming and that its genesis probably did originate from the Ernst and Young report commissioned by the National – New Zealand First Government back in 1997. It has taken a long time for the bill to reach its final form, and it is quite evident that the three codes are of one mind in wanting the bill to be progressed. It has also been said that the bill itself is not perfect. I note the efforts of my colleague Lindsay Tisch, who has spent a great deal of energy and effort on every branch of the industry that would talk to him—and I must say that that represents many, many hours of meetings—in order to help achieve a better shape for this bill. Lindsay Tisch put up a very important and constructive amendment to clause 15(3) but, unfortunately, the Government did not take any notice of it. He also urged that some of the major concerns of the wider industry be noted, in terms of addressing depreciation rates of stallions and mares, and of correcting the disincentives in New Zealand that have brought about the high use of shuttle stallions. That results in profits not being retained in New Zealand and the steady decline in stallion numbers. National, in its formal policy, said that it will support investment in the bloodstock industry. We will allow accelerated write-off of stallions over 2 years. That will encourage investment in breeding, rather than the leasing of shuttle stallions. We will allow the write-off of brood mares in full from age 12 years, and we will review the inequity in the taxation duties over gaming activities. That certainly beats the Labour Government’s record. All it did was forgive the GST on dead horses—quite extraordinary.

During the Committee stage of this bill, National aired its concern that the Government spent considerable money on the PricewaterhouseCoopers report—which it commissioned and which was published as far back as July 2002—and, subsequently, on the racing industry working group. As we have heard, the racing industry working-group submissions were to have been finally submitted not tomorrow but the next day—Saturday, 8 March. It does seem utterly nonsensical that the Government would spend significant funds on those reports, involve the time and effort of a considerable number of people in the industry, then bring this bill into the House before the benefits of that work were considered, particularly after the Government has had 3 long years to have the bill ready before last season’s racing began. Just 1 week’s delay after 3 long years could have made a difference and, at least, honoured all the work of the eminent people who compiled the working-group report.

The ways of the Labour Government are erratic and incomprehensible. However, it is good that the wishes of the three codes are generally embodied in the bill that we have before us. Many of the racing industry working-group’s recommendations could be applied in the future. As my colleague Lindsay Tisch has mentioned, why should the Government have so much influence in the racing industry? National is pleased to support the passing of this bill. National recognises the huge potential of the racing industry, but also the fact that over the last few decades there has been a steady downturn in its viability. We are very aware of the great employment opportunities within the racing codes, and we are very keen to see wise governance in progressing the interests of racing. National wishes the racing industry a very prosperous and viable future, and looks forward to the industry working well within the framework of this legislation. Hopefully, the recommendations of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report and the working-party will not be ignored.

Bill read a third time.