Racing Reform Bill

I move that the Racing Reform Bill be reported to the House by 11 June 2019 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting.

Can I say, Mr Speaker, that I nominate the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House, as I said, by 11 June 2019, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: It comes later. Do that later.

—and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193, and 194(1)(b) and (c). For translation, legally, of that, Mr Brownlee, I’m happy to come over and give him some advice later.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! There’s just a couple of vital words: “I move the first reading of the bill” I think needs to be said, as well.

Yes, I’m getting to it. I move, That the Racing Reform Bill be now read a first time.

Racing in New Zealand has a long and proud history. It’s part of our culture, our history, and our traditions. Racing clubs and their facilities are often local focal points in the community, playing an important role beyond the races themselves, and the racing industry is an important part of New Zealand’s economy, particularly in the regions, contributing $1.6 billion in the year 2016 to 2017. However, the New Zealand racing industry is in decline and the economic benefits New Zealand receives from it are at risk—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Sorry to interrupt the member, but if the group who are having a hui in the aisle there could take their hui out into the lobbies, please. Thank you.

Mr Speaker, it’s only a hui “no matter”. It is in New Zealand’s interests to revitalise this industry. Its success will lead to increased employment opportunities, support for communities, and an increase in the industry’s contribution to the economy. In April 2018, the Government commissioned Mr John Messara, an Australian thoroughbred racing expert, to conduct an independent high-level assessment of the state of New Zealand’s racing industry.

In August 2018, Mr Messara’s report was released. He confirmed that the industry is at a tipping point and that without urgent intervention the industry is at risk of suffering irreparable damage. The public has been consulted on the Messara report, with submitters being generally supportive of the report’s overall direction. Late last year, the Government also appointed a ministerial advisory committee to provide a further stream of advice on the Messara report. The ministerial advisory committee in its interim advice expressed support for the proposals contained within this bill. It’s this bill that is taking a phased approach to responding to Mr Messara’s findings, which includes the on-going work of the ministerial advisory committee.

This bill forms the Government’s first legislative response to the recommendations of the Messara report. It amends the Racing Act 2013 and the Gaming Duties Act 1971, and will implement some of Messara’s key recommendations. The Government intends to follow this bill with a second bill later this year, to build upon the initial reforms implemented by this bill. In order to drive the immediate change required for the industry, this bill reconstitutes the New Zealand Racing Board as the Racing Industry Transition Agency or, in short, RITA. RITA will have a changed membership and new transitional powers to enable the changes needed to move to the financially sustainable future that the Messara report envisaged. RITA will manage the transition and day-to-day operations of the industry for a limited period—and for those who know something about racing, it will make one huge difference.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, it won’t.

—because Messara is an expert and the protester over on the other side, in the form of Mr Brownlee, knows nothing whatsoever about racing.

These reforms are focused on increasing the financial sustainability of the racing industry. One way this bill will achieve this is by two offshore charges that will be implemented: an information-use charge and a point-of-consumption charge. Currently, unlike the New Zealand-based provider, overseas betting operators aren’t required to contribute to the cost involved in conducting racing and sports in New Zealand. These offshore charges will ensure that overseas betting operators start to contribute to New Zealand, including to the racing and sports codes from which they benefit. This bill will also allow betting on sports not currently represented by a qualified domestic national sporting organisation and will place the formula for calculating payments to sporting organisations into regulations.

It’s worth noting that these financial proposals were considered during the select committee stage of the previous Racing Amendment Bill in 2017. Apparently, they were thought back then to be worth it, when they were in Government.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Who wrote this speech?

So when somebody makes that sort of speech—I’m able to write my own speech, unlike that member.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, he clearly can’t remember it.

That bill was withdrawn last year. Now, Mr Brownlee, bombast and behaving like a buffoon doesn’t cut it in this Parliament, and that’s why he’s on the second row. He’ll be on the third row, shortly, and then out the door. This bill was withdrawn last year as it was prudent that its proposals be considered in the context of the wider reforms recommended by Mr Messara. The ministerial advisory committee has recommended and reconfirmed that the need to have these provisions in the bill are part of wider changes to reform the industry.

This bill will also progressively repeal and replace the totalisator duty, which is currently paid to the Crown over three years. These funds will instead be reinvested to the racing and sport sectors. A proportion of those funds will also be set aside—because we are a responsible Government—for industry-related gambling harm minimisation programmes.

As indicated, the Government intends to introduce a second Racing Amendment Bill later this year. This will build upon these initial reforms by establishing the future governance structure for New Zealand racing and will implement the other agreed recommendations from the Messara report.

We intend to tell the racing industry, right around this country, in respect to these deliberations, what their representatives in Parliament think. We need the racing industry, all around New Zealand, to know that this great industry—which has an enormous capacity to triple its exports and to do so much more in respect to the welfare in this country and to give so many employment opportunities in the main to so many young people—is a serious consideration and priority of this present Government. We intend to tell them, and very clearly, that they should hang on for a bit longer, because hope’s on its way and so is help. We have a chance to build a great industry that will deliver for all New Zealanders, and this bill is a first step in that process. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The National Party will support this bill to first reading, and I’ll discuss those factors a little later on. I just wanted to broadly outline the racing industry and the state it’s in, as I see it. The racing industry’s very important to rural New Zealand, with many communities still vitally involved in their local racing clubs. It’s equally as important to the New Zealand economy as a whole. Thoroughbreds, harness, and the greyhound racing sectors are all critical components of a great day out. Local communities are also very involved in the racing-club - owned properties where a huge variety of events take place in many communities from Saturday morning sport, Country Women’s Institutes, school events, pony clubs, and many, many other community activities—all hugely valued by their respective communities, as are those properties that belong to that sector.

The Minister referred to the Messara report. Last year, the Minister engaged the leading Australian racing administrator and stud master, John Messara, to provide a report on the state of the New Zealand racing industry. He provided a pretty comprehensive report, much of which we support, some of which makes us nervous, and some of which we won’t support in the future. Some of the recommendations of that report are included in this bill; some of the recommendations will be included in legislation to come to the House a little later.

The Racing Amendment Bill, introduced by the Hon David Bennett late in 2017, was considered by the Primary Production Committee early in 2018. It contained many of the recommendations encompassed in this bill, and had it been passed at the time, the racing industry would have been some $16 million better off. If it had been passed at the time, parts of this bill that weren’t included in that bill could easily have been included in a further bill introduced to the House, as this one has been.

So I want to refer to some of the features of the Racing Reform Bill. The first one is the transitional governance arrangements, or the Racing Industry Transition Agency (RITA), which is, effectively, going to replace the Racing Industry Board, which has been governing the industry since 2002. RITA is put in place to run the industry and to implement changes which are put in place by this bill. The Racing Industry Transitional Authority will be replaced in a second piece of legislation to follow later in the year; its term running out on 30 June 2020. This is one of the problems or one of the challenges that we find in supporting this bill, in that that authority is appointed by the Minister and can be appointed, effectively, by the Minister in perpetuity, if the second part of the legislation doesn’t take place. So, effectively, we’re placing an industry in the control of a Minister of the Crown. I hope that this will meet with much debate at select committee. I want to make the point that we think this is unsatisfactory. At the same time, we have complete confidence in the ability and the quality of the six members of the Racing Industry Transitional Authority that the Minister intends to appoint.

The piece that we wholeheartedly do support in this bill relates to the offshore charges, betting information use charge, and point of consumption charges. This is, effectively, the same piece of legislation that I referred to earlier, introduced to the House some nearly two years ago by the Hon David Bennett. The delay has, effectively, as I said, cost the industry an amount estimated in excess of $16 million. We support this piece of the bill. It, effectively, provides a basis for collecting revenue from offshore betting operators who provide betting services to New Zealanders. That is significant—it could be more significant, the amount of money I’ve talked about, actually; it’s significantly used by New Zealanders and it’s certainly something that needs to be addressed.

The next issue I want to touch on is the totalisator duty repeal. This repeals the betting levy, which will mean some $13.9 million, on current estimates, being returned to the sporting and racing sectors on a pro rata basis, with at least a portion put into the gambling harm prevention services. This happens over a three-year time frame and, again, creates some considerable concern for us as there are no legislative pieces to this bill which will distribute those funds in a regulated manner. They will be regulated, and those funds will then be distributed on the basis of that regulation. We feel that’s also a little unsatisfactory, as it’s not as transparent as it could be.

I want to briefly talk about the change to the distribution of racing and sports revenue. This, effectively, takes the distribution formula—well, it’s in fact the racing revenue—from section 16 out of the Racing Act 2003, and allows the application and distribution of racing funds to be determined by regulations. Now, I’m relatively confident that the three sectors will come to an agreement on this; none the less, if they don’t, it again creates risk for those sectors. So a lot of discussions have taken place in the industry over this potential change to the legislation, and I think it will be interesting to see where that gets to. Again, it’s a concern for us as to just how that is applied.

I want to turn now to sports betting which allows the relevant body, the TAB—and I’ll turn to the TAB again a little later—or the Racing Industry Board (RIB) through its agency, the TAB, to offer betting products on sports not represented by a qualifying domestic national sporting organisation, provided an agreement is in place with Sport New Zealand. Now, I think the challenge we have with this is that, again, it’s going to be subject to regulation. Whether the sporting bodies will receive the amount of money that we feel they should be entitled to or, in fact, that they feel they’re entitled to, will be a subjective matter, and, I think, a matter of concern to them all. I have no doubt my colleagues will address that further.

Currently, the Act has a detailed explanation of how those formulas are calculated. That’s being abandoned in the course of this piece of legislation, and that’s the challenge we face with it. We’ll need to be satisfied that sporting bodies are not short-changed by the changes to the distribution of racing sports revenue, outlined in clause 13 of the bill.

I want to refer back to the Messara report and the relationship between the codes, because the Messara report did concentrate on the thoroughbred industry to a large extent and that was the subject of some initial concern amongst the racing codes. Having got through a lot of discussion on that, and some 1,600 or 1,700-odd submissions on that fact, I think that the codes are relatively comfortable with where they’ve got to. None the less, they’ll need to be comfortable with this piece of legislation as it comes out of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and the following piece of legislation to be sure of that.

I said earlier I’d refer to the TAB, and I want to refer to it briefly because I’ve been around the racing industry for a long, long time and, in all the time I’ve been involved in that industry, there has been discussion about the ownership of the TAB. I’m pretty sure that’s not going to be resolved by this piece of legislation. None the less, that does create some of the complication in this legislation because I think that’s where the discussion, or the nervousness around the sporting bodies, comes from, because, effectively, the TAB was formed by an Act of Parliament but it was formed under the structure of the racing industry’s joint bodies many years ago—I can’t remember the exact date. I think that that is a challenge that the TAB and the industry have constantly faced and it’s a challenge that makes, I think, the sporting sector nervous as to just where that might get to. That’s why it’s so important that it’s detailed in whatever comes back to Parliament in the future. I don’t propose that we try to resolve the ownership the TAB, because I think that’s taking it a little too far.

Finally, I want to make reference to the current members of the Racing Industry Board. They faced a very challenging time in recent years and I think have come out of that challenging time in pretty good shape. I think they’ve started some work that, no doubt, the Racing Industry Transition Agency will carry on to a large extent, but, none the less, the industry has been challenged by a number of factors, not the least of which is the large amount of money going offshore in betting. I think that the RIB, or the members of the Racing Industry Board, have done a pretty good job and I think they could be well-satisfied as they hand over, at the time this bill sets in place, to the RITA.

Finally, I just thought it was ironic that you’re referring a bill to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. It’s a long, long time—probably the Minister might remember—since horses were used for transport in New Zealand. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to the first reading of the Racing Reform Bill. If anything is needed in the racing sector it is certainly reform and it’s well overdue, so can I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister for getting this bill to the House. My understanding of the sector, as a previous spokesperson in Opposition, is that they will be very ecstatic about the fact that this piece of legislation has arrived in the House, that it is comprehensive in the nature of the many challenges that racing, the totalisator, and also that the sporting codes that are encompassed within this bill, face at the moment.

There’s been some interesting and creative historiography about the challenges and some of the solutions that were proffered up by the previous Government. I couldn’t have put it better than the previous speaker, Ian McKelvie, himself that the previous Government introduced the bill in the dying days of the last Government, which is to show the priority that they gave to this industry. I think it’s also notable that they’re also being a little bit sticks-in-the-mud about some of the details of this bill that will be pointed towards regulation, because one of the challenges that the sector faces is actually being nimble. The ability to have some of these changes that are proposed in the bill, within regulations, will help that sector, which has historically found it very hard to change its ways, to be nimble in a market that is always changing.

So can I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister for getting this bill to the House. It’s taken 18 months and, I guess, when you look at the challenges that have been facing the industry and the sector for some time, and the lack of action by the previous Government, I think that the sector will be very happy with the speed and the rate of knots at which this has been brought to the House, and the strong leadership that the Deputy Prime Minister has brought to it.

Some of the issues that the sector faces—if we’re looking at racing clubs themselves—is some of the aging infrastructure within the club itself, and struggles and challenges within prize money for races. That then has a flow-on effect towards breeding and races themselves, and our ability to support an export market that is there. Mr McKelvie also pointed towards some of the challenges that were contained in the bill, in 2017, which we are dealing with here in a pragmatic way to ensure that revenue is gained from some of those bookies overseas, who are using races and sports based here in New Zealand to take bets on. The practice in the past was that no revenue has come to New Zealand as a result of those races and sports events being bet on by overseas punters. That will change in this piece of legislation. Also, an issue that has challenged the TAB and the Racing Industry Board for some time is the increased amount of betting that is happening by New Zealanders on offshore platforms for races and sports that are happening offshore, and that revenue has been lost to New Zealand. So an attempt within this bill to make sure a portion of that revenue stays in New Zealand, supports the New Zealand racing industry, and supports New Zealand sports codes, I think is extremely welcome.

Another thing that I think some of the members across the House have reacted to was the TAB levy. That will be reduced, and I understand that over the three years it will mean that something close to $14 million will be able to be injected back into the sector. Now, as I said, some of those racing clubs that have been struggling for prize money to promote themselves and to be able to get high-quality horses into fields, into their races, will welcome that reinvestment into their clubs and into the sector in general. But, I think, importantly, as the Deputy Prime Minister pointed out, there are social issues that we need to address within that as well, and a portion of that levy funding that will be going back into the sector will be sectioned aside to deal with some of the problem gambling issues.

So I think this is a great piece of legislation. It’s well overdue, and I think, as you’ve seen from the Deputy Prime Minister, there is some urgency to this, because the sector has wanted action for some time.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: You’ve been blocking it.

So I’m going to be very interested—what’s the problem with that, Mr Smith?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: You’ve been sitting on a bill for 18 months.

That’s right—18 months, compared to nine years. I was baiting Mr Smith to say that, because the previous Government sat on it for nine years. It took us 18 months, because by the time we got into office, issues weren’t dealt with so much that we needed to have another review because things had progressed so far down the track. We’ve got a comprehensive review by Mr Messara and a comprehensive piece of legislation. So I’m going to be very interested to hear some of the contributions from the other side of the House, who introduced—again, to the point that Mr Smith made—a bill in the dying hours of the last Parliament and furiously tried to get the Opposition to try to help, but they couldn’t even prioritise it within their own Order Paper. So that shows the lack of commitment from the other side of the House and the good work that has been done in the short period of time on this side of the House to make sure that our racing codes and our sporting codes will be futureproofed to make sure that they get the revenue that they need to survive and prosper. I support this piece of legislation.

Look, I am pleased to take a call on this bill. Firstly, at the outset, can I acknowledge the work of previous spokespeople within National on legislation improvements in terms of the racing industry. I want to acknowledge that we are supporting this bill, but as our sport and recreation spokesperson, I want to put a really major warning shot to the Deputy Prime Minister. The reality is that we have real concerns about the impact on national sporting codes, and I’m going to outline them in my speech. I also want to address this issue of the timing. It is clear—and I have met with Ian McKelvie, our spokesperson, and, for instance, the Auckland Racing Club—that there does need to be change. I want to acknowledge the huge amount of work that the Messara report has done in terms of the racing industry. That is why we are supporting this bill through to the first reading.

But we want to make a couple of things really clear. The first is: this is a shonky process. We have a very short time period for this bill, and there are going to be sporting codes out there, and mums and dads who care about rugby and cricket and netball, that are going to be asking the question: why are we taking a short couple of weeks on a bill that may impact thousands and thousands of kids who play sport, because of the impact to the national sporting codes? So as I said before, I do want to make a shout-out to the racing industry and say: look, National is really clear. We do support change. We do recognise the work of the Messara report. But because of the complex issues in some elements around what it means for the sporting industry, what it means for communities in terms of the racing board, what means in terms of that balance around gambling and, obviously, some of the social harm, we would ideally not be in this situation where we are dealing with a rushed bill in a truncated process.

So what I want to specifically go through—and I have gone back to, for instance, Netball New Zealand’s submission to the racing review, whereby they have raised several concerns. I have been on the phone to sporting organisations. Over the coming couple of weeks, not only will we be, hopefully, getting submissions from them, if people can make the time to be able to be in Parliament, but I will be going out as National’s sports spokesperson to raise the issue of certainty of funding for the national sporting codes.

I want to address that. Firstly, I think they will be very clear publicly that the process, whether it’s been through the Messara review or through consultation with Sport New Zealand, has not been ideal, and to now have this two weeks at the end of it is a major issue. The second issue is this fairness of the proposed distribution models. I have been, obviously, liaising with these sporting organisations, and one of the core issues here is the cost to New Zealand sports, who carry the production of an event, not being recognised against offshore product that comes into the market at no cost of production, including fair recognition of the value of their intellectual property. I am reading that from something that I have received from them. There are major issues of uncertainty by ensuring that some of these things are worked through regulation rather than having that upfront certainty that we had previously.

National will be very clear. We are going to be very clear to New Zealand over the coming weeks: there must be no net loss to national sporting codes—that’s rugby, that’s cricket, that’s football, that’s basketball—as a result of this bill. I want to ask the question: where is the Minister of sport? Where has he been while this review has been consulted on? We’ve had submissions from the national sporting codes. It is very important. We have been very clear that, while we are supporting the first reading, we have major issues when it comes to the sporting organisations, and we are going to need to get that clear—and I do put a plea to the Deputy Prime Minister. It would be really helpful if we could have a very clear statement from the Deputy Prime Minister or the Minister for Sport and Recreation that no national sporting code will lose, and, ideally, we’d get greater certainty around the funding formula.

I want to make another couple of other comments in terms of racing. Again, this issue does relate to what the sporting codes have said to me in terms of their submissions. They did raise a number of issues around the governance structure of the New Zealand Racing Board.

Again, it’s this issue that we’re not recognising the actual contribution of the sporting sector adequately. If you look back in 2003 and you actually look at the New Zealand Racing Board and the growing proportion of turnover that’s come from sports betting, it was about 10 percent in 2003 and 2004. It’s now gone to 27 percent, so you can imagine that if you’re the sporting codes out there and there’s been this absolute focus on just racing, in my view—and I do want to acknowledge the Messara report—but you’ve seen that huge increase, then, quite clearly, you want to have a genuine discussion about what proportion of the pie you get. Unfortunately, again, whether it’s the representation of the New Zealand Racing Board or whether it’s the issues around funding formula, it is my strong view that their voice has not been heard loud enough.

I do also want to recognise, as well, the work that Ian McKelvie has done with the racing industry. Again, obviously, it’s on the back of the Messara report. We understand that this legislation is only dealing with a few aspects, of which previous speakers have mentioned, and that National in 2017 had made steps to reform the racing industry, but, again, this issue that for 18 months—we’re now in a truncated two-week select committee process because the Government has sat on these issues. I do want to acknowledge the wider work that did kick off in April 2018 when the Minister for Racing commissioned an expert, John Messara, to assess the state of the New Zealand racing industry.

Again, the issues of streamlining in terms of funding and also this issue of representation are very important. I think the future of the TAB as well, whether it is that balance in terms of reducing social harm for gambling but also making sure that we have funds get where they need to in terms of the community—and no better organisations have an understanding of how that money should be spent than our national sporting codes, so their ability to be at the table instead of being cut out of these discussions is incredibly important in the future.

I want to mention a couple of other things about the real issues of funding in sport, and I’m looking at Louisa Wall right now because I think she does understand some of these issues. We’ve currently got a situation in New Zealand where we’re talking a lot about women in sport. Now, the questions for the Government are: if we have uncertainty around the national sporting codes, we can have all of the committees that we want around women in sport, but if rugby, cricket, netball, football, and basketball can’t get that certainty of funding, then we will literally have less kids playing sport. I don’t understand why, in an 18-month period, when I am looking at Netball New Zealand’s submission to the Messara review, Grant Robertson and other colleagues couldn’t have taken the head of Netball New Zealand’s submission seriously and come out with some policy that would give greater certainty. It is not acceptable, and over the coming weeks, parents, the national sporting codes, and other people involved in the industry will need to get absolute clarity and certainty that no national sporting organisations will lose as a result of this.

Look, finally, I just want to make a general comment in terms of racing, because I have talked, obviously, quite a bit about sport. I do acknowledge that David Bennett, learned colleague, but also Ian McKelvie have been doing a lot of work with the industry. We both understand the importance of understanding New Zealand’s role around racing and innovation, actually. There’s a huge amount of work that is going on, and I found, when I met with the Auckland Racing Club, in particular to be briefed around the innovation in terms of the industry, that it is pretty massive, and I think we need to acknowledge that.

I also want to acknowledge that for many small-town communities—and excuse the pun but racing is actually the lifeblood of those towns. Again, for those people listening, particularly the racing industry and the sporting industry, look, it’s been a bit of a line-ball call around this bill, because we do understand the importance of the racing industry, and we didn’t want to send a message that we weren’t supporting them. But this issue of the fortnight truncated process after 18 months of sitting on the Government’s hand, and this issue of uncertainty for the national sporting organisations around funding—I am going to be fighting incredibly hard over the next fortnight to get basic clarity, from the Deputy Prime Minister to the Minister of Sport and Recreation, that no national sporting codes will lose, because that matters. We’re a nation of sportspeople and we deserve to have that clarity.

And we’re off. Yes, we’re off to a great, flying start with the Racing Reform Bill. I want to acknowledge the incredible work of our Deputy Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, because in 18 months—in 18 months—the Rt Hon Winston Peters has managed to (1) pull a review together—and then we had the Messara report—(2) establish the ministerial advisory committee. I want to acknowledge those members that were on that group: Bill Birnie, Liz Dawson, Kristy McDonald, and Sir Peter Vela. In that period, he is now delivering not one but two bills that come as a great answer to those within this industry that have been seeking reform of the sector for not just 18 months, not just the last couple of years, but for the last nine years prior to this Government coming in. This industry has been calling out for change.

Now, for those of us that are from rural and regional communities—I have the fantastic Te Teko Racecourse just down the way. I’ve got Gisborne—that track is just up the way—and we know how important those tracks and those communities and this industry is for our region, but we also know that there has been an incredible amount of call from regional communities saying that no longer is this industry sustainable. It was getting to a point, as was said in the report, of no return.

So the Deputy Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, today is introducing into this House the Racing Reform Bill, and it doesn’t just tinker with the edges, like the previous bill that was entered into this House in 2017. No, no, no, it doesn’t just tinker with a few minor amendments. This is a fundamental overhaul for a sector that we say contributes immeasurably to our region’s economy—as the Rt Hon Winston Peters said, $1.6 billion injected into the economy in the 2016 and 2017 year. What these reforms are intended to do is ensure that the industry becomes more profitable, and in particular in those regions that need it the most. And what does that mean? When we have a more profitable industry within our regions, it means that we’re creating more jobs. It means that we are encouraging people to live, work, and contribute to the region.

This bill will establish the Racing Industry Transitional Authority. Now, that authority is going to be the driving force behind enacting the transition and leading, driving, the transition in the industry that is required. Of critical, fundamental importance to all of the members, at least on this side of the House, is that it will require that offshore betting agencies will be required to contribute to our domestic racing industry here, that the proceeds don’t all just fly off overseas but they’re actually invested into our communities here.

So I only want to say that there will be a few smiling faces around the country. I’m thinking of Robin Hape right now, I’m thinking of those up in the Ōtaki-Māori Racing Club. They have been calling out for this overhaul of the industry, and I stand here to commend this bill and commend the work of the Rt Hon Peters for bringing this piece of legislation into this House.

The National Party is supporting this bill through the first reading, but as has been already stated by Ian McKelvie, we are doing so with a huge number of reservations. I listened to the Rt Hon Winston Peters explaining to the House that this was a $26 billion industry and it contributes very significantly to New Zealand’s export earnings. I agree with him, but it is in two parts that we should look at that particular contribution to our economy. The first is in the direct export of horses that are bred here for the racing industry and horses that are trained here that, ultimately, have the success that leads to the breeding industry itself having a basis to work on.

But it’s the product of racing that is in the greatest trouble, and has been for a very long time. The problem with this bill is that it sets out to almost replicate a structure that’s been a problem for the industry for some time. Now, certainly it’s true that they’ve been able to give out more money in stakes in the last couple of years, but during those years, their total revenue has also fallen. So they’ve been living off some kind of fat-of-the-land arrangement to keep the interest up for those who do depend on the industry for their livelihood.

What I think is a little bit worrying about this is the statement in some of the material here. It says for the racing industry to thrive and survive in New Zealand, it needs supplementary income. Now, that might be that it takes a share of offshore betting. Let’s make it very clear: clause 21 of this bill will not achieve the objectives stated in the explanatory note. Anyone looking at new section 65AU, inserted by clause 21, will, within seconds, work out that a huge walkthrough is going to still exist for people who want to take the product of New Zealand racing, offer it to their punters, and make a dollar out of that part of the gambling—you’d say—continuum.

The select committee is going to have to do an awful lot of work to come up with a regime that goes a little bit beyond empowering the new organisation to bring legal proceedings in a New Zealand court against an offshore gambling operator. That is just sophistry of the worst kind. It is total spin and will make absolutely no difference to the revenue stream coming into the New Zealand racing industry.

The second part of that is the concern that it’s going to be the racing industry that controls all gambling on all New Zealand sport. Now, people will say, “Well, that’s what happens at the moment; it’s done through the TAB.” But the question that’s never been answered—and I think it needs to be answered—is: who owns the TAB? How independent is that body, and who is it that gives that body licence to have a monopoly over all gambling in New Zealand? The idea that it’s owned by the racing clubs is a total nonsense. The idea that it’s owned by the racing board as it’s currently structured is, I think, untenable. So to continue with that arrangement, pretending that there’s nothing wrong and not worrying about what that structure is, I think leaves those other sports seriously vulnerable, because in the end it will be the Minister’s appointees to this transitional body who will make the decision about how the funds that come in from racing, or from rugby, or from soccer, or from any other sports that are gambled on are distributed.

So while everyone is sort of saying, very nicely, “We trust that everything is going to go well.”, there will be a legislative structure here that takes away their voice, takes away any right to expectation they might have, and takes away any right they have to representation on that body and leaves it entirely in the hands of the board itself, who all serve at the pleasure of the Minister. So let’s not make any bones about it. This is, in fact, a very, very clever bill designed to just simply pick up on all the problems that have been there for years—a bit of paste-over-the-top, magic sprinkle dust, all sorts of flash words about what we’re going to do to fix it, but absolutely no solutions to the biggest problem here, which is: why is it no longer the great attraction to the public that it once was?

Part of that reason, I think, is because it’s dull. Sitting around in front of your television and watching racing might be entertaining for some people, it may be fun for some people, but for most people it’s not. They do attend the big days out at Addington, or at Riccarton, or at Ellerslie, or here in Wellington—I’m sorry; I can’t remember the name of the course here—

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: Trentham.

—Trentham—but those are few and far between. Those are few and far between, and all this idea that “Well, look, come along to night racing; it’s exciting.”—it’s dull as dishwater. I think every effort that they’ve made, commendable as it is, falls short because the industry itself have never been prepared to take into their number—to put on their boards, to bring into their fold—people who have a bit of an entrepreneurial bent and a considerable love for the horse racing sport.

I’ve outlined a number of our concerns. Firstly, there is no guarantee in here that offshore betting will be able to come under a control from New Zealand that will see other offshore agencies contributing to the profit pool that the racing industry and those other sports rely on. Nothing in clause 21 can give anyone any confidence that that will be achieved.

💬 Hon Kris Faafoi: It was in your bill.

And then there is the interesting—well, Mr Faafoi over there, the most decent Minister in the current Government and, no doubt, the next appointee to the Cabinet—and boy do they need him in there, because he is so good—has just pointed out that it was in the previous Government’s bill. Well, he might have noticed that the previous Government didn’t move on it, because that was one of the problems that we wanted to see fixed before we put it in front of the Parliament.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: You didn’t move on anything—you didn’t move on anything.

Well, this bill doesn’t either, Mr Peters. All this spin, all the nice words, all the gloss, and all the “I care”s in the world make no difference at all to the industry.

I would like to talk about the other aspect that is of concern to me, and that is the transitional committee—the Racing Industry Transition Agency that’s being set up. Well, what happens if the next bill doesn’t go through, and how do we in this House know whether or not the next bill will remove the absolute authority of the Minister for Racing to make appointments to whatever new board might come after a transitional period? And while the transitional period is said to be for three years, how do we know it’s only for three years? There is no sunset clause on this bill, no drop-dead date. It could just linger and not be dealt with, and if it does, it just endures and the Minister of the day has all the say on it.

Just returning to my core theme, why has this bill not addressed the issue of who owns the TAB? Throughout New Zealand, community trusts are now under pressure and all sorts of Government agencies are under pressure to come up with extra funding for all the things that New Zealanders would like to see happening in their community, whether that’s sport, or whether it’s cultural, or whether it’s of a conservation nature or some other environmental nature. It would be nice to think that where people use the licence that society gives them to gamble, some of the profits from that are made available on a greater basis than we can see in this bill for that community use.

It’s no surprise to me that the Rt Hon Winston Peters has not been able to tackle that problem, because it is quite big. I accept that. But perhaps in another bill—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Ha, ha! Oh dear!

Well, there you go, see? I’m looking across there; the Rt Hon Winston Peters is laughing. I think that’s because he thinks it’s simple. In that case, why isn’t it here? Why is there so much fear about taking on the totalisator board? It’s unbelievable—unbelievable. And why would it be that we’re expected to, after the whole of the select committee process, continue voting for a body that has a total monopoly on gambling in New Zealand and now, through a very shonky clause 21, a very weak clause 21, a very timid clause 21, is apparently going to frighten all those offshore gambling agencies into voluntarily paying some contribution into this new body so that they can distribute it across those agencies?

Finally, the process that sees this going through in two or three weeks is completely unacceptable. There are too many things here that could go wrong, far too many community groups out there who should be heard, and that is something that we’ll be discussing very shortly.

Talofa, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’m pleased to stand on the Racing Reform Bill, which the Green Party will be supporting. It’s interesting; the Opposition recognises that there is a need for change in the racing industry, but the Hon Nikki Kaye was effectively suggesting that this was going too fast, a theme that was also returned to by the Hon Gerry Brownlee. What neither of those speakers appear to recognise is that this is a transitional organisation, the Racing Industry Transitional Authority (RITA), and so the racing industry transitional agency will probably form around about June next year. So if you are making change in an industry, you have a transitional agency to get on with the business of making that change and doing that reform. Hence the need for it to go through select committee in an expedited process, so that we can get that change happening.

Mr Brownlee, your comments, your concern about the fact—what the member seems to be saying was that there should therefore be no need for change, and that it wasn’t interesting to watch racing. That is why, if you read clause 11 of the bill, the membership of RITA specifically provides for those members who are appointed by the Minister, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, to have expertise in business, marketing, or economics, to have knowledge and experience of the racing industry and sports administration at a national level. So I am trusting in the Minister that the appointments to the Racing Industry Transitional Authority will have the expertise to recognise what needs to be changed in the industry to make sure that you do get a bigger audience now, whether it’s at the track or whether it’s watching television. That is why there are those specific criteria in there about what the membership of the new Racing Industry Transitional Authority should be. Amongst those up to seven members, I am sure there will be the expertise to actually initiate this change process.

One of the reasons the Green Party has supported the bill, also returning to a theme the Hon Mr Brownlee mentioned, is because there is specific provision in the bill for some of the proceeds to be used, via regulation setting out the amount, for the minimisation and prevention of gambling harm. That is absolutely critical, and that is one of the agreements that was made by the Minister that we appreciate—that the revenue should be used to minimise and prevent gambling harm. That is being used for a community purpose.

So this agency, I understand, is expected to operate until at least the middle of next year. In the meantime, we will also see some quite significant changes that seek to recover from offshore betting operators a charge for their use of betting and sports code information from New Zealand, so that it is, essentially, moving to more of a user-pays model, which is good. The other thing that I think should reassure members of the Opposition is that there is to be consultation in relation to Sport New Zealand about the proceeds that go there. It’s not something that RITA will just be making a decision on on its own account; there will be consultation.

So yes, there will be significant community interest in this legislation, but this is the first step. There is to be further reform. If change is to happen, it needs to start promptly, and that is what this bill, with the transitional agency, is all about. It’s ensuring that that agency has appropriate expertise on it to actually improve the governance of the industry as a whole, to improve the way in which it generates revenue, and to make it quite certain that some of that revenue has got to be used for the prevention and minimisation of gambling harm. So the Green Party supports the bill.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. The National Party also supports this bill, and I would like to first acknowledge the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who has always taken a very active interest in racing over many years, and has seen himself as a bit of a saviour to that industry. I wish to dispel some of those doubts that people may have—himself included—in his potential role in saving the industry.

But I would say this: the New Zealand racing industry and the breeding industry have an exceptional future ahead of it; that it is an industry that will take on the Asian markets and deliver a product that will be bought by those communities. You don’t need thousands of people at racecourses these days. We see what the international developments are in racing. Just go look at Singapore and Hong Kong and you can see what’s out there in the market. The Chinese market will open up, and when it does open up, there will be billions of dollars that will be bet on racing. There are only three or four countries in the world that have a good product, and they are New Zealand, Australia, Ireland, and, probably, America. We are situated as one of the best countries to take advantage of the world racing and betting market when it opens up, and it will, and I implore the New Zealand Parliament to support reform in racing, because we need it so our racing community can take advantage of that opportunity.

Now, in saying this, we had legislation that we put in front of this Parliament before the last election, and we did it through the Primary Production Committee. I’d like to thank the select committee members that were part of the process to make sure that went through quickly—and, Kieran, you were part of that, and thank you. Then we had the Messara report, and I could understand a new Minister coming in, wanting to get a report, and he got the leading Australians to come in and make that report. Now, when that report came out, I remember the Minister was in Hamilton and he said, “It’s an all or nothing thing”. Those were his exact words—you had to do it all. Well, that was never going to happen, because the Messara report was far too detailed. So what actually happened was the Minister had to take a step back, and he had to create a new body that would look into the Messara report and work out what could and what couldn’t be done at this time.

Now, I’m not trying to attack the Minister or anything. I’m just putting out the history of what’s happened. That body has come back with, basically, a two-part process and what they want to do around the racing industry, and that’s where the Messara report should’ve been in the first place. It shouldn’t have all been in one hit. The Minister should have gone out there and said, “No, there’s going to be a staged process”. The first stage is race fields. That is the legislation that had been started by the Hon Nathan Guy and we had completed the work on it, and, effectively, it’s not much different here now. The race fields part of this bill is not much different. It’s still got an information charge, it’s got a consumption charge, it’s got those basic things that race fields had in it.

That’s one part of this bill. It’s not all of this bill, but it is one part, and that effectively enables us to be able to take bets overseas to make sure that New Zealanders get the value for our product. I realise there are issues that the Hon Gerry Brownlee raised, but this is something that has been put in most racing countries now. Australia has consumption information charges in some of its states, and there is that buy-in from those big betting agencies to pay that money, because they realise that they want to be part of that community. So although you can’t legislate overseas and make someone else pay a tax overseas, there is that agreement by those agencies to do so. That has shown to be working in the Australian model, and when we did this bill we had those commitments from those agencies when it came through.

Now, that race-fields legislation could have gone through a year or so ago, and, as Mr McKelvie said, a million dollars a month has been lost out of this industry because that legislation hasn’t gone through. Now, the Minister might want to have his name on it, and not the National Party name; that’s fine. But putting that ahead of an industry, and $16 million or whatever it has been in that period of time, just isn’t good enough. That race fields part of the legislation could have been passed last year, or the year before.

There’s a duty that is on racing, and a new part of this bill was to take away the duty. Most in the racing field will want that duty to go back into the industry. I think it is a good idea that it goes back in the industry, and I would support that. But we don’t want that money to go back to just the pool of bets, and that’s where the Rt Hon Winston Peters doesn’t understand what he could do in this area. By putting it just in the pool of betting funds, it’s going to bring a couple of hundred bucks to an average race meeting. That’s not going to make any difference to the owners, the trainers, the jockeys—all those people that are out there. It’s not going to encourage that breeding industry. That $13 million to $14 million dollars should be allocated to a fund which is out there for clubs to go and to apply for if they’re making strategic change in the industry, if they are willing to make that change around having new race tracks that meet the new needs of the market, if they’re willing to have races that actually pay a value, that encourage people to have a horse at that track, at that race.

That middle tier of racing is what the opportunity for that money is, not just to put it in the general pot and let it go. This Minister hasn’t worked that out, and that will be his failing in these reforms, because all he’s doing is just moving it to the bigger pot, as the Hon Gerry Brownlee said, which is a model that hasn’t worked in the past. We need to use that money strategically, in a way that will develop this industry. That is the opportunity that is in front of us now.

There’s another opportunity in front of us—and I think the Hon Nikki Kaye raised it very well—and that is that sports betting is now, effectively, a third of the TAB turnover, and that will continue to increase. As a great football person, the Champions League is the greatest sporting event in the world. That will have billions of dollars of money bet on it. In the future, you know—you look at the New Zealand under-20 World Cup football team. It will probably have more money bet on them around the world than in a major race in New Zealand. That is the future of betting, and it is the future of sport.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Do they get the money?

They do get the money at the moment—they do. But the problem is, under the bill, it’s all through regulation. So those sporting codes are now told they need to trust the Rt Hon Winston Peters: “Trust me, I will look after you.” I challenge the Rt Hon Winston Peters to put a Supplementary Order Paper up, because you’re only going to give two weeks for this House. I want you to put a Supplementary Order Paper up, in those two weeks, which says there will be no net loss to those sporting codes from the percentages they are getting now. I want you to give them a recast iron guarantee that they are not going to be subsidising the racing industry. They don’t deserve to do that.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Subsidise the racing industry?

Well, the potential is that that could happen, and that is the risk. The Minister can easily mitigate that risk now through the select committee, and also the Supplementary Order Paper process just to give that one clause—it won’t hurt anybody. That will leave a lot of comfort to our side of the House. It will leave a lot of comfort to the rugby—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Was it in the member’s bill?

—the cricket, the football, and all those others. The Minister says, “Why wasn’t it in our bill?” Well, in our bill, we had those clauses in the bill, so you knew what percentage they were going to get.

💬 Hon Member: No, no, no.

They did, because you had that in there in the race fields. The Minister’s put that into regulation now, so that can be debated in the future, once the bills passed, but those codes have no way of coming back.

I implore the sensible members of the Labour Party over there to support sport as well, because that is where the TAB is going to grow in the future—it’s going to be a big area of growth, and there is that opportunity just to put that one clause in, which I think would give a lot of comfort to a lot of people in the sport sector, and also wouldn’t hurt this bill at all.

So this is a bill which we need to do. The racing industry is bigger than those that are just in the industry. It’s bigger because it represents part of the New Zealand psyche, and, in provincial New Zealand, it is part of the lifestyle of being a New Zealander. It’s also part of being proud to be a New Zealander every time we win a Melbourne Cup or whatever. But the reality is that we need smart reforms. We don’t just need patched-up reforms from a Minister that couldn’t work it out in the first instance, had to redo it, and is looking at doing a two-stage process. The second stage is going to be the difficult one because that’s, effectively, where you outsource the TAB. The Minister has put a value on the TAB and, in putting that value on the TAB, he has made it very difficult for that second stage.

So I would encourage the Labour, New Zealand First, and Green members—

Order! Order! I apologise to the member, your time has expired.

I call the Hon Clare Curran. I understand this is a split call.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Well, I must say, I don’t think I’ve ever said this in the House before, but I actually agree with quite a bit of what David Bennett said. I thought it was actually, mostly, quite a reasonable speech. But I have to say that the National Party’s speeches in the House on this bill this afternoon have been all over the place because, while David Bennett said it needs to happen, it has to happen, and has a few beefs with various parts of the bill, Gerry Brownlee says the racing sector is boring, and he asks what’s wrong with it. Nikki Kaye barely talked about the Racing Reform Bill; instead she talked about the adverse effect on sporting codes.

So I haven’t been a racing spokesperson in my time in Parliament, but I will tell you this: I’ve got two quite significant and historical race courses in my electorate. Forbury Park Raceway, formed in 1870, started off originally as a galloping and saddle-trotting raceway. Then there was a split from it that went off to a place just out of Mosgiel, at a place called Wingatūī, which is quite a famous raceway that is also in my electorate. Forbury then became known for its trotting, and particularly its night trotting, in the 1960s. Certainly, I would say that both those race courses are past their prime, and that certainly feeds in to what the Minister has said in a speech this afternoon on this—that there is a serious issue in the New Zealand racing industry, that it is in a state of decline, and that urgent action is needed.

One of the other things that Nikki Kaye actually said in her speech earlier was that this was a terribly truncated process—and yet there was previous legislation apparently sitting around by the last Government. So since then, there’s been an extraordinary process to get to the point where this report—the review of the New Zealand racing industry, the Messara report—was produced. There were 1,700 submissions. That’s not a terribly truncated process in my book, and it shouldn’t be in anyone’s book for those who are listening to this. That was carried out last year. There were 1,700 submissions received, and then the Government established an advisory committee to guide the implementation of the recommendations—I think there were 17 recommendations made by the Messara report—and this is where this legislation has come from.

The Deputy Prime Minister has made absolutely clear that this is step one, and that there’s a further step to come. This piece of legislation establishes a transitional body which will see that process through, as well as those other financial gathering measures which, interestingly, were actually based, more or less, on the previous Government’s work. So that doesn’t sound like a terribly truncated process to me. It sounds like a responsible process that’s actually about dealing with the big-picture issues in the industry, which is worth a lot to New Zealand, and which does have some significant issues that do need to be addressed. So it’s not piecemeal. This is a stepped process.

I think it’s responsible. I think that the National Party needs to work out, actually, what its real position is on this. I think David Bennett obviously seems to have more of an idea than the rest of you—not you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I think it’s very responsible. I commend the bill to the House.

No industry, internationally, is as vulnerable to corruption as the gambling industry. In the Racing Amendment Bill, we are talking about $2.7 billion a year of gambling. We are talking about hugely increasing the powers of the Minister in that we are giving him carte blanche to appoint the board. We are giving a repeal of the law that sets minimum amounts of gaming to go to sports, and we’re removing the law that sets out how that money is to be distributed between the codes.

It is my view that a two-week select committee process on a 40-page bill, deliberately sending it to a select committee—not the Primary Production Committee but the committee that is chaired by New Zealand First—and having a process of which there can be none of the scrutiny that is properly deserved is a total disgrace. I remind the House that at the last general election, the electoral law was breached by New Zealand First and the racing industry. So scrutiny of this legislation is absolutely required.

My first question, which I’d love the Minister to answer is this: why are we extending the monopoly of the racing industry to take revenues from sports that have nothing to do with racing?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: That’s not happening.

Well, yes, it is. The bill very specifically—why should the racing industry get revenues from others? Let’s be very clear: the current law sets a minimum 5 percent of revenues that have to go to any other sport. That is being repealed.

The second point I want to ask about is this question: why is it that if a New Zealander lodges a bet on the Lotto, a bet on a gaming machine, or a bet at a casino, they pay the gaming levy? Why is the only form of betting in New Zealand—sports betting and horse betting—to be exempt? Are we really? Someone in the Government please give me a reason why betting on sports should be exempt of the gaming levy when every other form of gaming is not? I think actually every member of the House does know why the gaming levy is being exempted for the gaming industry, and that is because of the contributions that are made to New Zealand First by members of that industry.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That is totally disorderly. It is outrageous, and if he wants to talk about corruption, go look in the mirror, but he won’t get away with it here.

Madam Assistant Speaker?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): OK. It is actually a point of order, and I will rule on that. I think, Dr Smith, you are sailing very close to the wind. I would ask you to pull back from that.

Madam Assistant Speaker, the parts of this bill that are really good have been sitting before the House for over two years, and they are the parts—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. He made an allegation about a party being corrupt. He thinks he can slide past that with his background and for us not to have a protest. We want an apology right now.

Speaking to the point of order, it is a matter of public record that the New Zealand First Party and the racing industry were found by the Electoral Commission to have breached the law at the last general election.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I will allow the Rt Hon Winston Peters to speak to that. We are drawing this out a little.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Madam Assistant Speaker, now he’s compounded the matter by making a false statement, and you’ll know that because there was no such allegation that materialised into an action against New Zealand First. It’s the kind of allegation he makes but without any base to it, and now he’s compounded his error twice. We are asking for an apology. We do take offence, and he’s outside of the Standing Orders.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): As the right honourable gentleman knows, it is whether the House has taken offence. I have to say that the Hon Dr Nick Smith has indeed compounded the disorder that was created with the initial statement that he made. I will ask him to stand, withdraw, and apologise—

I withdraw and apologise. It is a matter of public record.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I will also ask the honourable gentleman to just be a little more circumspect in his—[Interruption] Just a moment, please. I’m just finishing with my ruling—only a couple more words. I would ask the honourable gentleman whether he could just be a little more circumspect in the rest of his contribution for the next one minute and 51 seconds.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I hope this is not on this matter, which I have just ruled on.

The right to speak freely in this House is one of the most important freedoms—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): You do, indeed, but not to create disorder, and by challenging the ruling of the Speaker, you will be—[Interruption] No, just a moment. I’m still ruling on the previous matter. So can we just come back to the matter at hand? I’ve actually called you to continue to speak. You’ve asked for a second point of order.

I seek the leave of the House to table the decision of the New Zealand Electoral Commission with respect to the breach of the Electoral Act over advertisements at the last general election urging people to vote for New Zealand First, and funded by the racing—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I speak to the point of order? I can help. Now I know what he’s talking about. You see, the offence—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Is this a point of order or is this a matter of explanation, because I could clear it up by putting the leave to the House?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: We are not going to support leave, because what he is putting—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you. I will put leave and the House can determine it. Leave is so sought. Is there objection?

💬 Hon Members: Yes.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): OK. I call the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

The parts of this bill that provide for the gaming industry, developed by David Bennett, to be able to generate revenue from the provision of racing events in New Zealand and offshore are entirely appropriate and strongly supported by the National Party, with the disappointment that that bill has sat around with this Government for more than 18 months and has cost the racing industry over $16 million.

The parts in this bill that are quite wrong are that, currently, in the law we set a minimum of 5 percent that is to go to sporting codes. That is being repealed. There is no justification for the racing industry unfairly grabbing profits from the monopoly that is being extended with this bill from betting on other activities, and I challenge the good conscience of members opposite to answer the basic questions: why should the racing industry gain profits from sports which they have nothing to do with? Why should a person who bets on any other activity—the lotteries, which provide huge money for our communities; they pay a gaming levy. Why should those who go to the casino or to a gaming machine pay a levy and the only people to be exempt are those on sports betting and gaming? This is a Government that has repealed over $1,000 a head of tax reductions for workers, and what they are proposing here is a tax reduction for gamblers. I simply say to members opposite: why would Parliament want to provide a tax cut for gamblers? Is that the highest priority—

Order! I apologise to the member. Your time has expired.

If I could just begin my presentation by acknowledging a recently passed journalist in New Zealand, John Costello, well known as “Cos”, who would have been watching this debate with great interest. Can I just say that he was the only journalist who was ever a member of the Racing Hall of Fame, and in his very last article, published not hours before his death, he said something that I think the House may enjoy: “My only modest vices have been to smoke like a chimney, drink like a drain and gamble as if there was no settling day.” In that same article, he did talk about the need for reform in the racing industry, lamenting the state which it had reached, and so to be here today speaking on a bill which is called the Racing Reform Bill, I think the timeliness could not be better. I’m listening to the contributions from across the floor. There seem to be more factions than at an anarchists’ conference, and especially those of the last speaker, Nick Smith, seem to be as extreme as they could possibly be.

Racing is part of the lifeblood of New Zealanders. I think most New Zealanders will, at some stage in their life, even if they haven’t partaken in gambling—or even betting—also be well aware that in their own communities the race meeting took on a very important part of the social fabric, even if it was to lament the amount of money that had gone in there, which was a fair enough thing. I know, in my own case, my family had a great uncle who was one of those so-called vets on the race course—dear, old great-uncle Frank—who was apparently quite expert at ensuring that just the right amount of arsenic went into the horse to ensure that it did win the race and didn’t die in the straight leading up to the winning post. Things have moved on, but it’s tales like that that, again, have ensured that not only were they part of the great New Zealand folklore but also they contributed greatly not only to the economy of New Zealand but also to the reputation of New Zealand.

Who can forget, certainly those of my era, those great wins by Kiwi and Waverley Star, when we felt very proud—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: And Phar Lap!

I know my colleague did mention Phar Lap. I have seen his heart in the museum. It belongs in New Zealand, I know, but as someone who probably is a size sufficient to be a jockey, he does have some expertise in that area. However, I do go back to what this industry has contributed and can contribute.

Again, if I take some of the contributions from across the House, across the floor, there is a general acknowledgement that if we get this right and ensure that we not only look after our own industry in New Zealand, particularly the racing industry, but also that we can partake in the growth. Because when we talk about reform in any aspect, the greatest reform that we have to address, of course, is online: the internet. If we look at the figures—just looking again, I think it was Mr Brownlee who mentioned that people don’t need to go to the races any more. Certainly, that is borne out by the figures. In 2003, there were 1,000,040 people who attended race meetings in New Zealand; in 2016-17 that was down to 614,000 and dropping.

Of course, the revenue from gambling hasn’t had the same sort of a drop. But if we’re going to—and again I go back to Mr Brownlee; the odd gem does come out. He does at times look like one of those old blokes standing in a corner lamenting time’s past which he was a part of. However, he’s saying that the product itself does need some enlivening—the product itself—to draw people to the industry, to make sure that we can tap into that for New Zealand’s sake. Yes, there may well be something in that, but to do that there’s got to be an industry, there’s got to be good horses there, there’s got to be good stakes, and there’s got to be good exports and imports, and this is what this bill really does seek to address.

More and more of that gambling dollar is being spent around the world. More and more of that gambling dollar is being spent outside racing. And if we get this right, and I look at this bill—this is a bill that does address much of what ails the industry. We’ve been criticised that it’s taken 18 months to get here. Well, 18 months is not very long in this industry. Charleston—my grandmother showed me the racecourse in Charleston at the turn of the century. That just shows how long—and long before that races have been part of this. So to stand and criticise the fact that it’s taken 18 months to get here really does show an ignorance of just how important it is to get it right.

So I have no hesitation in standing here, commending this bill to the House. I think it is something that does seek to—and I think will—address those issues which plague the industry and which ensure that going forward we are in a position to not only keep racing as part of our lore in New Zealand—l-o-r-e—but to ensure that it actually contributes financially to New Zealand. So thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Thanks very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a great opportunity to take a call on what is a very important bill for the New Zealand racing industry, the Racing Reform Bill, and we’ve had a lot of discussion this afternoon about how we got to this point. I want to take us back a bit because, as a former racing Minister, I worked very hard to get the Racing Amendment Bill into this House through the Cabinet process, into the select committee, and then in the Primary Production Committee it just stalled. It stalled for months on end and we kept asking Mark Patterson, who sits on the Primary Production Committee, “What’s happening—what’s happening? You better talk to your boss. This has just stalled.” It stalled and what happened was somewhere in the middle of all of that there was the Messara report, and then that kicked off. So then we had a very interesting discussion in the select committee, where we had to report back on a bill that had, effectively, been discharged. All of the work that we did to get it to that point—I was so disappointed. We had the racing industry virtually begging the select committee to get it—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Assistant Speaker. Look, as illuminating as this is, this debate is about this bill, not the last bill that was dealt with by the committee, and, frankly—I mean, he’s well into his speech and it’s this bill he has to be talking about.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I thank the honourable gentleman; that is a debating point.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I know that the Minister’s very sensitive, and—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, I’m not.

Yes, because he just got to his feet and raised a point of order which was really just a debating point, and I’m sure he’ll have quite a bit of time this afternoon to actually get to his feet again and make a contribution, instead of making tacky points of order—if I can, please, get back to where I was, because it’s really important when you look at the context of this bill.

We had a very similar bill in the select committee. The select committee debated it, we had submissions, and then it came to the point of reporting back—and I’m looking forward to hearing from Mark Patterson this afternoon, because he was sitting in the select committee running errands back to the Minister for Racing, and he couldn’t report back and say what was happening. It stalled. As a result the racing industry suffered—we estimate $15 to $16 million—while we waited for this bill.

Now, this bill is a cut and paste of the National Government’s bill and he’s added some more things in—the Minister has. So pretty much you can do it—I think it’s control, alt, 7 or 9 on the keyboard—you can cut and paste documents and bring them into the bill. Well, that’s what a lot of this bill is. It’s a cut-and-paste bill of the National Party’s bill that was in the select committee, which we had a robust debate on, then everything stalled. Now, that’s the history, a very important history lesson for the Minister.

Then we think about this bill now, and there’s been wide discussion about some of the additional pieces of this bill that the Minister has added in. We heard this afternoon from our sports spokesperson, Nikki Kaye, saying “Are the codes aware that, effectively, what is currently in the Act—how disbursements are made—is going to come out of the Act and be set by the Minister through Order in Council and the Cabinet process?” Are the sports bodies aware of that fact? If they are, what do the parents think of this?

At the moment, you have something in the Act that is, effectively, going to come out and be a regulatory-making power. I think that when sports codes and mum and dads who stand on the netball court or the rugby field on Saturday morning supporting their kids realise this, they’ll want to come and make a contribution through the select committee process, but of course there isn’t time. There’s only two weeks for this bill, when the Messara report has been out and about for months. So this is a truncated select committee process, when a lot of the people that it’s going to impact aren’t even going to realise that they’re going to have an opportunity to submit, because within 13 or 14 days the select committee have to report back by 11 June.

Also, when we have a look at the Messara report, we know there’s a lot that isn’t already in this bill that the Minister wanted to get in, but because of the way the coalition works he’s got support by Labour and the Greens on this one—and I’m not sure if the Greens are sticking with this one right through or just for first reading; we’ll need to wait and see on that. But there’s a couple of other aspects in the Messara report that are going to be following through in another bill, and they are: floating the TAB, effectively allowing—it could be—Australians to come in and own part of it. I wonder what the Green Party think of that. I’m not sure that the Minister will get the support of his coalition partner to get that part of the next bill through.

What about all this rationalisation of tracks that is being proposed in the Messara report? I can’t see that sitting anywhere in this one, because that’s very hot politics and I’m sure the Minister knows that one.

There’s another aspect that’s not in this bill, which is about product mix, because to entice people to come and gamble via the TAB you need to have a fresh product, and product mix is not part of this bill. But wait, I think that it will be in due course—potentially, in this Parliament—that we may be back debating a racing reform bill, part 2, and then, of course, the Minister will need to reach out to this side of the House to get that bill passed. So we’ll wait with interest to see about that.

Also, there is an aspect in this bill about the three codes, and the three codes are very important: harness, thoroughbred, and greyhounds. Of course, the issue’s always been: is one bigger than the other? Well, the reality is yes. Then, if you’re going to smash the three codes and have one stand-alone body that doesn’t acknowledge the codes and have the same respect for the smaller code, which, of course, is the greyhounds and the dogs—which, in terms of return on investment, when I had a look at the money, they actually return the most. When you think that they have a dog that travels around in the back of the car, they don’t have big fixed costs. So my challenge back to the Minister—and this will play out in the truncated select committee process—is that if he’s going to meddle with the three codes and how it works at the moment, he needs to be mindful of the fact always that racing is not just about the big end of town; it’s about the small end, as well.

Finally, there is a part to do with repealing the tax duties, and the comment I want to make here is that this is likely to be the only tax cut for 2019. This bill is a tax cut for the racing industry, and whether it’s worthy of it or not, I think it needs to be acknowledged that there will be no other tax cuts for hard-working New Zealanders, apart from this one that’s in this bill. So what we won’t hear in the Budget this week is that a tax cut is proposed in Budget 2019. This bill here is a tax cut. So let’s not try and gloss over it: it’s a tax cut for the racing industry. So we have the coalition Government, which is against tax cuts for hard-working New Zealanders, but in this bill, there is a tax cut for the racing industry.

So, in summary, I think the truncated two-week select committee process doesn’t do it justice for the 50,000 people that are associated with the racing industry. Now, the Minister has been in the chair for about 18 months now. He’s had the Messara report for I’d say about five or six months. He’s had ample opportunity to bring this bill into the Parliament and before the select committee—and I think it’s going to the wrong select committee. It’s only going there because, last time I checked, there’s a Government majority. It should have come to the Primary Production Committee, where we could have worked on it effectively. But it’s going to the wrong select committee, it’s a truncated process, and the 50,000 people that want to have their say won’t even wake up and have the opportunity.

Talofa lava, Madam Assistant Speaker. We have been treated today to a pantomime on the other side of the House. The question is: does the National Party support this bill? On one side of the National Party, they say, “Oh no, we don’t.”, but on the other side of the National Party, they say, “Oh yes, we do.”, because over there, on that side of the House, they have no idea what they are talking about.

There are members standing up and saying that this is a travesty of a bill, and then you’ve got David Bennett standing up and saying that he supports the bill and that he congratulates the Government for doing what he was doing. So you’ve got a bloke claiming credit for the bill and the bloke standing next to him, the Hon Gerry Brownlee—who didn’t even know where Trentham was—is pretending to know about racing. I suggest that the Hon Gerry Brownlee is getting some practice in, because very soon he’ll be a backbencher and he’ll have to get used to talking about things he doesn’t know anything about.

This bill is very important for the racing industry, and I would say to those that are involved—just like myself, who worked in the racing industry in Ireland and New Zealand—the thousands of people who work in the racing industry now, and the thousands of punters, to take the opportunity to listen to the National Party’s speeches today. You will hear the Hon Nick Smith call the gambling industry corrupt, you will hear the Hon Gerry Brownlee call racing boring, and then—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! You’re sailing a little close to the wind there, Mr McAnulty.

I apologise, Madam Assistant Speaker. You’re right. Even if they say it, I shouldn’t repeat it—you’re dead right. The point here—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): No, no, that’s just compounding the issue. Let’s just get back to the matter at hand. Thank you.

You’re dead right. This bill here gives the industry what they’ve been screaming out for for ages. Rural and regional New Zealand rely on the racing industry in many respects, and our economy, in many respects, relies not only on the racing industry now but on the potential that it has to fulfil in years to come.

But in the entirety of the previous Government, the racing industry was screaming out for support, and then, in the dying days of the last National Government, they finally brought a bill in, which the Hon David Bennett said was going to be its saviour and the Hon Gerry Brownlee said was useless, as did many other speakers. Then you’ve got the scaremongering. You’ve got the Hon Nikki Kaye saying that sports are going to miss out, and then you’ve got Ian McKelvie and David Bennett saying that sports are an important part of gambling and that this bill is going to assist the wider racing industry.

Make their minds up—that is the message to the National Party today. They should make their minds up. They should read the bill, they should know what they’re going to say, and they should make their minds up. Even if they don’t know what’s in the bill, for the love of God, at least say the same things. You mustn’t have the same members from the same party criticising each other and contradicting each other, because it sends a very clear message.

When the racing industry looks at this Government’s bill and looks at the Government’s stance—total unison, total support, and getting behind that industry—they have a very clear choice. They’ve got an Opposition who doesn’t care, doesn’t know, and doesn’t give them the respect that they deserve, and they’ve got a Government, led by the Minister for Racing here in this instance, who is actually delivering to be the saviour of this industry.

Bill read a first time.

The question was put that the Racing Reform Bill be referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

I move, That the Racing Reform Bill be reported to the House by 11 June 2019 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 191, 193, and 194(1)(b) and (c).

Bill No. 1 seeks agreement to repurpose the New Zealand Racing Board as the Racing Industry Transition Agency (RITA). It’s an initial step. A shortened select committee period is requested to allow RITA to start work immediately on transitional arrangements. The House can anticipate a second racing amendment bill during RITA’s work, which will contain the substantive changes recommended for the industry.

The Racing Amendment Bill (No 2) will proceed later this year and will be subject to a fuller select committee process. But I can say this: the bill which was a precursor to this, the Racing Amendment Bill, was substantially consulted on—the National Party is claiming that this is their bill; it was substantially consulted on—and the Messara report was, again, substantially consulted on and received over 1,700 submissions. So there is the matter of consultation dealt with.

But I want to say this: I was actually astonished today at the reaction of the National Party. Out there, when you are shovelling you-know-what at 4 o’clock in the morning in the back of the stables as a young person because you believe in racing and you know that your whole employment is dependent upon the industry and the stud farm where you are being a success—if you are that person, you would have been in despair today to hear the National Party’s lack of understanding and sheer contempt for the plight that they’re in.

If you are a person out there rounding up and harnessing up the horses, whether it be a trotter or a pacer, or dare I say, walking the dogs if you’re a greyhound owner, you’d be concerned to see just how arrogant members of the National Party were today. It’s as though these people don’t matter. I’ve seen them, of course, at the racecourse, and they’re all over them like a rash, but when they get here, they can’t and aren’t prepared to show one bit of unity to help an industry that has been static on $1.6 billion for nine long years before the National Party went out of power. Nine years of static performance, with all the opportunities that this industry needs to provide employment for young people in particular, whose only dream is to work in an industry with an animal that they love, which is part of the magnificent history—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Could I call the right honourable gentleman to order, please. We are debating the ability to truncate the select committee process.

Yes, exactly.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Yes, so let’s stick to the matter at hand, rather than being wide-ranging.

I’m trying to ensure that the people who made that claim today have to face the fact that the people who are most concerned with this bill were utterly and seriously consulted. Personally, I went around the country, from Invercargill to the most northern racecourse at Ruakākā, to speak to people. So did my colleague Mr McAnulty from the Wairarapa. A number of my colleagues, like Mr Faafoi, went around the country. I have got no doubts that the Minister for primary industries, Mr O’Connor, did that as well. So we consulted extensively and it’s demonstrated in this legislation at the level of consultation.

But I want to say this: take the thoroughbred industry. It used to have 8,000 mares; now it’s got less than 4,000 and falling, unless we can turn that around. It used to be a huge industry once, employing so many people and in a much smaller population. That can all be revived, but we can’t get there if members of Parliament are going to blow hot and cold, say one thing out there in respect to the industry—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): We are straying from the motion, so please—thank you.

All I’m going to say, on the question that was raised in the debate, of course—it was one raised by Nikki Kaye about the pie itself. Well, before we dance around, trying to demonstrate how keen we are about other sports and codes, and before we start talking about the pie, how about growing it?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I apologise to the member—

That’s the end of my speech.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you; I’ve asked you three times now.

The Standing Orders do allow me to rebut a couple of comments that were made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters in relation to my commentary in the previous debate. Firstly, there is nothing I have said in the House today that I haven’t said to the racing industry.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Why is he giving two speeches in this debate?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I think that’s a little rich coming from the honourable gentleman, but I thank you for your advice. I won’t take it, however.

He’s got a very short memory. He should apologise for his first speech. There’s nothing I’ve said here this afternoon that I haven’t said to representatives of the racing industry. The sad thing here is that no legislation will change the product, and it’s the product that’s the problem. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t have heard those statistics from the Rt Hon Winston Peters about the fall in the number of brood mares, the fall in the number of people who derive an income from this particular industry, and from the decline of the export side of the industry as well, or potential.

So let’s not kid ourselves. This is an industry that’s in some difficulty and this bill does not go as far as it should to protect it or to encourage it. By having this shortened, truncated select committee process, the expectation is that this bill will be returned to the House without any changes at all. Just look at clause 21, which inserts new sections 65AA to 65AX. This is where the great hope is held out that the New Zealand system will be able to extract money from those who offer the opportunity to gamble on New Zealand racing and sporting events from offshore, and some of that funding will flow back to New Zealand. This series of new sections under clause 21 won’t do it. While we’ve got the glossy language that’s being talked out there at the moment, it will only be when there is a select committee analysis—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You were rightfully assiduous about bringing me to the point of order on the nature of this debate and I ask you to do the same in respect to Mr Brownlee.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you, and I shall do so. Mr Brownlee, if you would oblige.

I am referring directly to matters that should be considered by a select committee over a longer period of time. I’m very interested to know what the racing and sporting fraternity in this country would be keen to tell us about the idea that you can have a clause 21 holding out the hope that there’ll be a funding stream from those who offer New Zealand sporting and racing events for gambling offshore, when, at the same time, there is an exemption in here available that can be granted by the Minister—the same Minister who appoints this interim body, the same Minister who will appoint any successor body. Those are points that should be known to the public and will only be properly considered by a select committee.

Another small problem, of course, is that this is a bill that’s being sent to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, which has one of Mr Peters’ closest lieutenants as its chair. Now, I’m not suggesting that that’s inappropriate, but it does indicate, again, that the intention is that there should be no change to this bill. Much as poor old Mr Patterson had to hold the line through 18 months in the Primary Production Committee, so will be the case here.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I don’t think it’s proper that you are suggesting, Mr Brownlee, that the select committee process isn’t robust.

I am certainly not suggesting that; I am suggesting that when a bill is only going for a short period of time in total to a select committee, the actual time that a select committee devotes to it is largely determined by the chair or the majority of that select committee. It is there that is the problem, because the opportunity for people to make representation on this bill is so very curtailed. So I would like to move an amendment to Mr Peters’ motion that this bill be reported back to the House by 20 November 2019, and that the committee can sit any old time it likes, except a Friday or when there’s a sitting of the House—and, of course, to make sure that they get it done in that time, in a reasonable fashion, and it allows the whole industry to make their points known.

I move, That “11 June 2019” be replaced with “20 November 2019”.

The other point is: how many people know that this affects so many other sports in this country? It’s called a Racing Reform Bill—a Racing Reform Bill. Does that affect the rugby union? Yes, it does. Does it affect New Zealand Football? Yes, it does. They are reasons why this select committee process should not be truncated to such a short period of time. All of those bodies rely on the quality of their competition for any sports betting that might result from it. To have all that funnelled into an authority that is, effectively, going to be a racing authority is quite wrong. I believe strongly that this select committee process is too short, and I look forward to the House taking a more reasonable view and saying that it should get at least four months, if not six, for consideration by the wider community.

To say that it’s been consulted already and, therefore, no need—well, those consultations were done by one gentleman and then the Minister himself. Wouldn’t it be a good idea to allow the whole of a select committee and therefore the consultative arm of Parliament to actually ask those questions of the public, to hear what the public is saying, and, in particular, hear what those who are most affected by this bill are saying? This is not a transparent bill. It’s not a transparent process; it’s secretive. When you look at this clause 21, and you look at the huge volumes of money that can be involved, and also the potential for exemptions for some of the compliance in this, there is a need for deep select committee scrutiny—no question about that.

So I think that it is only fair that the House insist that this bill is in front of a select committee for a much longer period of time. If, in fact, all the claims made about the importance of this industry are true—and I believe most of them are, particularly when it comes to employment and export opportunities, but not product because that’s really in a bad way and needs to be sorted; but the bill won’t do it so there’s no point talking about this, because this bill changes nothing in that regard—then I think it is even more important that there is a proper public process for the widest possible consideration of this bill. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I intend to take a brief call on this motion. I guess I’m not a particularly religious person, but Luke 23:24 says “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they say.”—and that’s what worries me most about the truncated select committee process.

I think if you listen to the Minister’s introduction to this section of the debate, he talked about the number of people that have been round the country consulting. The issue that worries us the most, I think, is the one that was raised by the Hon Nikki Kaye earlier on—and that is the fact that the sporting sector doesn’t appear to have been widely consulted on this. I know that they did submit at length on the earlier stages and on the call for submissions on the Messara report, but none the less we’ve heard nothing from the Government on the fate of the sporting sector. I think that is a major concern for us and will be as we go into the select committee process. That’s one of the reasons that we think the select committee process needs to be run over the normal course of time—and it’s unfortunate that it’s not.

The industry is an interesting industry—and, as I said earlier, I’ve been involved in this for a long, long time—and it is a very complicated industry. The great value to New Zealand is not in the gambling and the gaming part of it; the great value to New Zealand is in the breeding. It would be very useful for us to have the opportunity, during that select committee stage, to hear extensively from the breeders of New Zealand, which I very much doubt will happen with any length given the shortness of the time that that select committee is going to be run for. I am also a great fan of the late John Clarke, and he was most famous for “Rugby, Racing and Beer”, “down under, they’re mad over”, and of course, that is what grips most New Zealanders—

💬 SPEAKER: Yeah, “Kick it in the guts, Trev.”

—and most New Zealanders, therefore, have a very serious interest in the process that this bill undertakes. Whilst they have had the opportunities to submit earlier to it, I think that the truncating of the select committee process and the fact that it’s going to run for two weeks will preclude a whole lot of people who have a great interest in making this industry the great industry it once was—they won’t have the opportunity to submit on it. We may well miss out, as a result of the shortened select committee process, on a whole lot of information that could otherwise have come to us. If the Government had moved on this earlier, there would be no need for a truncated select committee, because one of the primary factors that drive this is the fact that the racing year runs from 1 July, and it’s necessary to have this in place by the time the racing industry starts its year. I think that that’s unfortunate and, probably, the Government should have done a lot more work a lot earlier on this given that they’d had the Messara report for at least six months. So those are the factors that I think are very concerning for us.

The offshore betting charges are another very complicated matter. When you think that this is being sent to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, a large part of this bill is a tax bill—and tax bills, as anyone in this House will know, are very complex matters and they do need a lot of consideration. I’ve not seen a tax bill go through this House yet that hasn’t had significant alteration in the course of the select committee process, because you get all sorts of people who understand tax very well submitting on it. That’s another thing that we’re going to miss in the course of this, and I just hope that the bill as a result of that doesn’t get sent back to the House at a later date for amendment—as many of them do. So we are opposed to the shortened select committee process. I think it’s a shame for the industry.

I think that some good will come of this in the end. But we’re very concerned about, particularly, the sports betting part of this bill and where it ends up. The other piece we’re very concerned about is the RITA—or the Racing Industry Transitional Authority—and the fact that there’s no definite end date to that authority’s appointment. I think appointing the RITA is a sensible option; the problem is that it doesn’t have a finite date. That’s an issue that we’re very concerned about, and we’d like to see some discussion on that in the course of the select committee process as well.

So that’s my short contribution to this. I do think it’s a concern to us all that it’s been truncated in the manner it has.

I move, That the question be now put.

The Parliament is being asked to hugely truncate its capacity to scrutinise this legislation that is about the allocation of $2.8 billion a year in betting; it’s a very serious issue. If the Minister had proposed to pick up the provisions that my colleague David Bennett developed—very important provisions in this bill—that provide for New Zealand getting a fairer revenue from overseas where there’s betting on New Zealand, for the provisions that allow for the racing industry to get income on bets on racing events overseas, if that bill had been through a full select committee process and public submissions, I would have been quite relaxed. I think members on our side of the House would have said “Those provisions have been well debated and we’d be happy to support those.” This bill goes well beyond that. This makes radical changes of which there are very substantive interests of which New Zealanders need to be able to have a say.

Can I start with the first of those, in respect to the appointment of the board. The current racing board has representatives of all of the three codes—thoroughbreds and the like—and there has been no opportunity for those sectors to have any say. I’m sure they’ll be very interested to know that we are moving from a board where each of those codes appoints members to the board, to one where the Minister has absolute control and absolute discretion.

Here’s a really big change in this bill, of which there needs to be proper scrutiny and the opportunity for public submissions: an issue, I suspect, as a former Minister of sport, and others in the House, will have a strong interest. At the moment, there is a guarantee in the law that for any sports bet, 5 percent goes to that national code; that’s being repealed. Now, do the netballers, do the basketball association, do the mums that stand on the side in the winter and watch the rugby games, do the people that support hockey, do all those people know—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I want to remind the member that this is a very prescribed debate. It is a matter of the length of the submissions, length of the period for the report back, where the committee can meet, and similar things. We can’t go into the substance of the legislation.

Just speaking to a point of order—

💬 SPEAKER: No, there was no point of order; there’s a ruling.

The Minister in charge of this bill gave a very wide-ranging speech in respect of the shortened select committee period, and I just simply ask for the Chair to apply a consistent approach. The issue is—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! I told the member that there is not a point of order; there is a ruling. He will speak to the bill if he wants to continue.

This is a very shortened period, of just two weeks, of which to give the opportunity for over 150 different sporting codes around New Zealand that are affected. With a period of just two weeks, how much, realistically, will there be the opportunity for all of those sports organisations to get their heads around these very significant changes around their current guarantee of 5 percent and for them to be able to make submissions and have proper input into that process, when the House is giving the select committee a period of only two weeks?

I’m also concerned about the information the committee will have. This Government says it’s the most open and transparent Government, and yet the entire regulatory impact statement has been blocked out. How is the select committee, in two weeks, to get to the bottom of the very critical issues when the Government has chosen to block out every single page of the regulatory impact statement on the issue of removing the levy or the gaming levy that applies to the racing industry? I put it to the House that there is no way that the select committee can do justice to those very significant provisions repealing a gaming levy that has been about since 1972, in just two weeks.

Now, the Minister, who has promoted this very short submission period, has said that “Well, everybody who’s affected has been consulted.” Well, actually, there’s a very significant group of people who have not been consulted. This bill proposes to give an exemption to the gaming levy only for sports betting and for horse racing, and leaves the levy for all those that are in either casinos, Lotto, or any other industry. Of course, they will be affected. We are setting up an un-level playing field where one sector is exempted from the levy but the others are not. The Lotteries Commission, those that receive funds from the Lotteries Commission, those that are affected—in terms of those other industries that are involved in gaming—who will be disadvantaged by this bill need a reasonable time frame to get around the 31 pages of this bill and the 14 clauses that directly impact on those others that provide gaming services, because this skews the level playing field heavily in favour of one form of gambling. The others? The others need to have the opportunity to be able to have their say.

I also want to point out that it is equally important for the racing codes to have the opportunity for submissions. That is because this bill repeals the formula by which there is the allocation of funding between the different sorts of racing codes. So rather than them having definitiveness around the amount of money that goes either to our greyhounds, to our harness racing, or to our thoroughbreds that’s going, it’s a matter of discretion. There needs to be the opportunity for every one of our thoroughbred clubs, every one of our greyhound racing clubs, every one of our harness racing clubs to get into the detail of this bill that makes very substantive changes to the repeal of the funding formula that affects hundreds of millions of dollars for that sector.

This is a 31-page bill. This is a bill that has three schedules. This is a bill that has 100 subclauses. Does any member of this House really believe that two weeks is sufficient to be able to scrutinise a bill that is involved in the allocation and the distribution of $2.8 billion a year of betting activities? It is an insult. I want to point this out: why is it that the Government has 12 months to consider it? Why is it that in terms of the Messara review, there’s six months of time and just two weeks for the Parliament? It is an absolute insult to the Parliament to be saying, “Well, you get two weeks to test these issues but an independent review gets six months and the Government has actually had these issues for 12 months.” Now, the Standing Orders set out and say that if a bill is provided for less than four months, we need to have a special debate. I’ve seen bills that have said that they’re set down for three months, maybe two months. Anybody who thinks this bill is going to have any substantive level of scrutiny in two weeks is really kidding themselves. It’s deliberately being sent to a select committee that has no experience in the racing industry. It’s solely being sent there because it’s a chair of the committee, but the time frame they have to consider it is—they did not consider the previous racing bill; they have no expertise in that area. The idea that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, that has nothing to do with racing, is going to be able to give adequate scrutiny to this bill in two weeks is inadequate.

I do make this point absolutely seriously: if there is any industry in the world that is open to corruption and needs transparency, it is the issue of the gambling industry. It is, more than any other, open to the risk of skulduggery, and yet this legislation is making huge changes to the way in which those hundreds of millions of dollars are being allocated. It is absolutely proper, if New Zealand wants to hang on to its reputation as the least corrupt and most transparent country in the world—if we want to hang on to that reputation, by goodness, we need to make sure that legislation in the gaming industry is scrutinised properly, that we get the detail right, that we get the checks right. That simply is not possible with a two-week submission process.

The process of this bill brings into huge question the probity of the way in which this country manages the $2.8 billion a year in the gaming industry.

I move, That the question be now put.

No, I’m not going to take it. Frankly, this is a very serious motion and we don’t need that every 10 minutes.

It’s really important for me to be speaking on this, as National’s sport and recreation spokesperson. As I’ve previously said, please be under no illusion, National does support the racing industry. I want to acknowledge David Bennett, Ian McKelvie, other members of our caucus, Nathan Guy, who have been around New Zealand talking to racing clubs, talking to other people in the industry, and discussing the real issues of financial viability of the sector. That’s why we’ve been very, very supportive of some of the work in the Messara review. That is a massive report. I want to acknowledge the work that has happened in the Messara review; it’s crunched through some real issues of financial viability.

However—and I do want to acknowledge the Speaker, who is in the Chair, who is a former Minister in the sport area—we live in a nation that is very proud of our sporting success, and in order for us to be proud of our sporting success we acknowledge that many organisations in the sporting area run on the smell of an oily rag. No more important, then, could be our national sporting organisations—that’s New Zealand Rugby, Netball New Zealand, cricket. But it is incredibly relevant to this motion because we have been given, instead of the normal select committee process—and I’ve been on the phone to the sporting organisations—effectively, a fortnight; a truncated bill.

The reality is we will be, on the National side of the House, absolutely raising the issues for rugby, cricket. I’ve heard from tennis. I understand they had $1.179 million—it’s about 40 percent of their revenue. We will be raising—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to do two points. One, I’m going to remind the member that this is not a debate about the substance of the bill. It’s about which committee it should go to, the time it should be there, and going around the country. But while I’m on my feet, I’m reminded that I should not have taken a call from Kieran McAnulty; we’re not currently in the committee stages and, therefore, members can only have one call each on the question.

So just coming back—and I take the Speaker’s point—the reality is: this is about the time period that people will have to submit. Let’s work through what that actually means for New Zealand rugby, New Zealand cricket, New Zealand netball, tennis, basketball, football. How will we ensure that they will have the ability to submit in a truncated time period? The reality—and it is relevant to this truncated time period—is there are many volunteers out there that might want to have their say, but the reality is: are they going to have the ability to have their say in a fortnight? That is why the members on this side of the House have, quite rightly, raised the fact that for 18 months the Government has, effectively, sat on a number of these changes.

It is not as if many of the sporting codes have not raised these issues. The reason that they’ve raised these issues—it’s been through the Messara report, and it’s very relevant to the two-week time period that they will have to submit. They’ve raised these issues before, and there are many thousands of volunteers as well who might want to have their say. National will be going out there ensuring not only the major sporting organisations know about it but also those thousands of volunteers on the ground—whether they’re coaches, people involved in these sporting organisations—know about this legislation and the potential impact to kids’ sport as a result of this, but also our major sporting organisations.

I also want to mention the select committee that it’s going to. Now, again, this does feel like a shonky process. It does. The reality is it’s going to a member of New Zealand First who is chairing the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. This is incredibly relevant, because we do believe the major problem with this is that the bias has been to the racing industry and we haven’t had the balance with the sporting industries.

The reality is that New Zealand First is on record as basically—and, in fact, I can’t quite quote. I’ll go back and look through Hansard at what Winston Peters said in terms of the racing industry, but he said they were all over him like a rash. Well, the reality is that New Zealand First have shown, in my view, that they have been biased towards the racing industry. They haven’t shown the balance with the sporting industry. That is not about National not supporting racing. Actually, what we can argue as a nation is that, actually, we should have balance when it comes to our sporting codes, and we should properly recognise them. So this issue of who chairs the select committee is incredibly relevant, because we feel on this side of the House that this has been—I hate to say the words, and I might be running pretty close to the wind—

💬 SPEAKER: The member already has.

It feels like a little bit of a dirty deal that’s been done to ensure that New Zealand First gets its way, it chairs the select committee, and I need to make—

💬 SPEAKER: I am now going to interrupt. I think the member is continuing to reflect on an officer of the House, a chair of a committee, and I think she should steer away from that now.

OK. I won’t. Basically, we want balance, and we are concerned that this is being sent to a select committee which suits members opposite, particularly New Zealand First. We want to ensure that we have that balance, and so we’re not only concerned about which select committee it’s going to but also this issue of the time of the select committee.

We heard from the Hon Nick Smith—you’re looking at, potentially, 100-odd clauses in this bill. You are looking at real issues of gambling within the community, real issues of viability of the racing industry, real issues of viability of the sporting industry, and it is not OK for members opposite to say, “Oh, well, we’ve had another review, so that equates to the select committee parliamentary process.” If we are really serious in this House, then we will not prop up a two-week process.

Now, look, National has gone over the line to support this in the first reading only because we actually do support the racing industry and we recognise the real issues of viability. But we are absolutely within our rights—and I acknowledge the Hon Gerry Brownlee and the amendment that he has moved—to say we need to do this in a considered way over a time period that enables the racing industry and the sports sector to have their say. That is why, you know, the Hon Gerry Brownlee has talked about a November time line, because that is reasonable. We have not heard from either the Deputy Prime Minister or from members opposite, in my view, the extent of why this is now so urgent 18 months in. Of course we understand there are longstanding issues of viability, but it feels like we have the Deputy Prime Minister sending something to a committee that they chair, where they’ve got bias, potentially, around the racing industry, and we—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I have warned the member about reflecting on officers of the House, which includes select committee chairs, in that way. She can’t, as part of this debate. Second warning—last one.

Mr Speaker, I’ve taken on board that warning, and I will not use the word “bias” around a select committee chair, but I would point out that New Zealand First has made a number of positive statements regarding the racing industry, as has National—as has National. There have been a range of questions that have been raised publicly about the balance between sport and the racing industry.

So what we will be doing on this side of the House is—obviously, we have opposed the truncated time period, because we believe there are going to be mums and dads, volunteers, heads of sporting organisations, coaches, and other people on the ground from sporting organisations that will not have the ability to have their say in the select committee. It is not about not supporting the racing industry; it is about doing the decent thing as a country that’s supposed to be built on the basis that sport is a great thing, to give them a chance to have their say. That’s why we are opposing the truncated process, and that’s why we are also asking very valid questions—I’m being very careful here, because I know I’m on my second warning—to say that we don’t think it’s right that we are sending it to that particular select committee. I will not repeat the statement that I previously made, but I would ask New Zealanders watching this debate to ask that basic question.

It is important in the parliamentary process to have balance. It is important to recognise that this is not just about the racing industry; it’s about sporting codes as well—real issues of millions and millions of dollars of funding for kids playing sport, and that is why we oppose not only this process in terms of the truncated time period, but we also have major concerns about the select committee that it’s being sent to. We have every right, as Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, to raise these issues around sport and racing, and that means, actually, we are doing our job. It does mean that we support not only racing but sporting organisations, but it means we believe in an integrity and an honesty of the parliamentary process above anything else, but also the ability for people to have their say. That’s why I came to this House—to ensure that people have that democratic right—and members opposite are denying that.

Mr Speaker, thank you. I came down to this House tonight not necessarily thinking I was going to give a speech, but I have reflected on what I’ve heard from the Government and it’s got me slightly worked up. I actually detest—I detest—this process that is being followed. Here we are: all the Parliament is agreeing to going to first reading. As the Opposition, we are talking about the concerns that we have, and, largely, they are being laughed off.

So here we have a piece of legislation that is going to a select committee for two weeks. Equally, it’s going to a select committee that has no real or perceived expertise in this area, for whatever reason—and I think my colleague the Hon Nikki Kaye has alluded to some of that. We came to this Parliament, and I came to this Parliament, to make the best possible legislation we could, and here we have, at the 11th hour, legislation that’s introduced—when it could have been introduced months ago into the House—that has ramifications not just for the racing history but for a whole lot of sporting codes in New Zealand. If we appear passionate, it’s because those sporting codes have no idea what’s going on here, and all we can do is ask them to come and submit in a very short period. I’ll remind this House: the Budget this week, the long weekend—it’s not going to be many days it’s available to the select committee, despite all the resolutions that have been passed to actually get this legislation in a better shape.

I have been around New Zealand and I have talked to the racing industry, and the National Party does want to do its bit to support this industry. It has got some real difficulties, but as we do that—as we do that, Mr Speaker; I’m coming into it—it is pretty unfair of this Parliament to bring in a whole lot of other people as part of this legislation and expect them to have a say on over a hundred points and a whole lot of sporting codes in two weeks. So I cannot understand, and cannot sit in this House without saying something, that legislation shouldn’t be made in this way. This Government has had months to do this and has chosen, at the 11th hour in Budget week, to have a two-week select committee period—

💬 SPEAKER: I’m now going to interrupt the member and give him a warning. Repetition is not only internal to the member’s speech but it’s what other members have said. He’s got to show some originality.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ll consider that warning one; I don’t think I’ll need much more time to generate other warnings. My point is this: we in this Parliament are charged with making the best possible legislation we can. A two-week period is not enough. If you look at what the periods of consultation up until this point have been, there has been significant consultation on the bill. It came through first reading, it went to select committee, and then the Messara report had months. This Parliament, the decision-making body for the New Zealand people—and all the consultation is being asked to be done in two weeks. Frankly, I don’t think that’s good enough, and I’d be destitute in my obligations if I didn’t say that to this Parliament. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. We’re debating this evening a truncated select committee process of just two weeks, and for a bill that is of this size—three schedules, 31 pages, numerous changes—it’s worthy of a longer select committee period. I support Gerry Brownlee’s amendment that says it should go out to November. That’s fair enough for a bill of this size and the magnitude of the changes that this bill encompasses. I think that the 50,000 people that are associated with the racing industry deserve to be heard, and for the Minister for Racing to stand up in the House earlier and say, “Oh, well, there’s already been widespread consultation on the Messara report that generated 1,700 submissions. There’s already been consultation on National’s bill that we head through the Parliament and the select committee, the Racing Amendment Bill, so therefore we don’t need to have widespread consultation.”—well, that’s not the way that it’s meant to work in this Parliament. How it’s meant to work is that it’s opened up for a decent amount of time so people can submit.

I’ve been in this Parliament long enough to know that rushed legislation means that at some point in time, it’s likely to be back in this Parliament to be fixed up, because how can it be that just the 10 hours that the select committee is likely to be sitting over this period of time, when you take out the weekends and things—that 10 hours can do justice to a bill of this magnitude. It can’t. The select committee can’t, and I don’t support that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee is the right committee, because part of this bill is, indeed, it repeals the tax changes and taxation to do with gambling for the racing industry. So, surely, a bill that encompasses taxation should go to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I would’ve thought that that’s a logical place, but instead it’s heading off to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. Normally, a bill of this magnitude would go to the Finance and Expenditure Committee or, indeed, across to the Primary Production Committee, where the bill that preceded this one indeed went to.

So we’ve had quite a debate on the truncated select committee period—

💬 SPEAKER: Yep.

—and what I want to conclude with is I don’t think it’s fair that the 50,000 people that are associated with the racing industry—17,000 jobs are created by the industry. I’m not saying that all of them want to trundle into Wellington and be heard, but they’ll need time to submit. They’ll need time to read the bill. I just refer members to the two—there are three schedules. Schedule 2, “Consequential amendments to principal Act”; Schedule 3, “Consequential amendments to other enactments”. The big one—and you’ll remember this from your time, Mr Speaker, as the previous Minister of sport—takes the distribution section that’s in the Act out of the Act and plonks it over in a regulatory-making power that the Minister and Cabinet can decide. Now, the question for the select committee and for those that no doubt want to submit: is this appropriate? Is it, indeed, going to be fair? I think—

💬 SPEAKER: Now, I’m going to do the last warning to this member, because he’s very experienced, and that is that he’s to talk about the time period or the committee, not the substance, and certainly not to draw my work on the select committee setting up the regime into the debate.

In summary, this truncated select committee I don’t think is fair on the racing industry. Some of them will think that it should go through in two weeks because the racing season is just around the corner, but the reality is the Government’s had a long period of time to get this bill ready and get it into the Parliament. They have had four or five months since the Messara report, so now, because they’re—

OK, OK, we haven’t heard anything new for a while, so I’m truncating the member’s speech.

I move, That the question be now put.

💬 Chris Penk: Oh, Mr Speaker.

Chris Penk—last try to get something new.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for your vote of confidence in that regard. Without going too far down a philosophical rabbit hole, the question is: how long is a piece of string? The answer, in this context, is that the piece of string needs to be long enough for the purpose. The purpose here that we’re considering today is whether the select committee process will be long enough for its purpose—namely, scrutinising this piece of legislation. To answer that—my somewhat rhetorical question—five key points. The first goes to fairness, the second is the non-obvious nature of the bill, the third is its complexity, the fourth is its length, and the fifth the interests involved.

So the first of those is an issue of fairness. It’s an issue of fairness when there is not enough time allocated by this House for those who have rights that are tied up in this legislation to have an opportunity to make their views heard. The interests of natural justice require that all relevant voices do have an opportunity to be heard, and it will simply not be the case that there is enough time, physically, to allocate for the select committee members to hear from any such people within the time being proposed on the Government side of the House and against which we are pushing back very strongly indeed.

The second is the non-obvious nature of the bill. It doesn’t do what it says on the tin only; it also does a number of other things. I refer to the fact that we have in front of us something entitled a Racing Reform Bill that in fact affects and, essentially, amends a lot that is beyond the scope merely of racing within the realm of sport and, indeed, gaming as well. That point’s been made by others on this side of the House, so I won’t belabour that point any further. But it is a really key point in relation to allowing enough time for the select committee to promote the fact that there is this piece of legislation being considered by the House and that those who may not realise initially that they are going to be affected by it will have an opportunity to appear before the select committee of Parliament to have their say.

My third point, as promised: complexity. There are a large number of moving parts in this bill. It’s not merely one aspect of racing reform, or reform broader than racing, as I’ve alluded to. Within the realm of racing itself: gambling aspects, the nature of racing as a sport, the rationalisation of assets, and other aspects of reform of the industry that have been touched on by others on both sides of the House, including in the substantive debate. That complexity indicates that a reasonable period of time is needed by members of the public and, indeed, vested interests, quite rightly so, to be able to put their case forward.

💬 Fourth: the length of the bill. Others have touched on the number of pages and the number of clauses. It’s worth noting, in respect of the amount of time that’s going to be allowed for people to have their say on this bill in front of the select committee, that multiple other Acts and legislative instruments are going to be amended by it. My favourite Act that’s going to be amended by it is the Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act 1981. So those who need sufficient time to gather their thoughts on that important piece of legislation should be afforded the opportunity to do so. My favourite non-statutory legislative instrument that will be amended is the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Definitions) Amendment Regulations (No 2) 2018. I see lots of nods of recognition across the House, but those outside this House may need a bit more time within the select committee process to know that that’s something that’s dear to their heart, along with racing, and to know that the intersection of those two is such that they will need sufficient time to appear before the select committee and make their case. There’ll need to be some very fast talking if that’s to happen within two weeks, and I speak in the literal sense of fast talking as well as the metaphorical one in terms of the sleight of hand that might be performed by Government members if we allow them to perform such a truncated select committee process, as has been put in front of us today.

My fifth and final point—and I don’t think that I’ll need all of the time of my contribution—is to note the interests involved. The fact that there are such high stakes, not only in the racing sense—

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Pardon the pun—pardon the pun.

My colleague Scott Simpson asks me to pardon the pun, or rather, perhaps, that I should ask others, but it’s quite deliberate and unapologetic that I say there are high stakes involved when racing is concerned, for “New Zealand Inc.” as well as for individual punters and their many runners and riders—but I’ve talked about the complexity.

But when we’re talking about billions of dollars, there are a lot of interests involved. They are significant interests, and to do due respect to that, not only from a purity of process point of view but also recognising what is involved here, a decent select committee process is highly essential. A key aspect of that is time, and, along with others on this side of the House, I submit to you that the Government should reconsider such a short period of time, as they are proposing, for the select committee consideration of this bill.

I move, That the question be now put.

It’s pretty unusual to do that when there’s no one else going for the call.