Hutchison Paul: Racing Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Racing Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3955] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak on this bill. Undoubtedly the title should reflect what the bill does. However due to the Government of the day often that does not occur. This bill is somewhat of a misnomer. The correct title should have been along the lines of the “Labour Government Stop Start Stagger and Stumble Bill 2001”. 
As my colleague Lindsay Tisch just pointed out the genesis of this bill goes back a long time but the more recent genesis really comes from the Ernst and Young report of 1997 or 1998. 
Hon Annette King 
: 1997. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: The Minister tells me it was 1997. I am glad to hear that she is alert on this chronology because it is important in terms of the way her Government has not managed it. After all here we are at least 6 years later finally about to deliberate on the bill. The reason the bill should be called the “Stop Start Stagger and Stumble Bill” is that it took a long time for the Minister and the Labour Government to get the Ernst and Young recommendations into the form of a bill and then to process it on to the Government Administration Committee. After the committee’s deliberations had taken place the Minister in her wisdom decided that it would be right and proper to get Price Waterhouse to make a report on the industry which it did. That was the first stop or stumble maybe both which is absolutely relevant to the title I am talking about. It was after its report recommending the setting up of a working-party to consider option 2 which was a rules-based commercial model that Price Waterhouse also suggested four meetings be held around the country all of which have taken place. The last of those meetings was held last Wednesday in Hamilton. Next Friday was to be the day that the submissions would be heard. What is remarkable in terms of this stop start and stumble process is the fact that the Government in its wisdom has suddenly brought in this bill without even having heard the recommendations of the working party. That must have cost a lot. 
An alternative title could be the “Labour Government Let’s Spend Money on a Serious Report then Ignore it Bill”. Undoubtedly— 
Jill Pettis 
: Stop mucking around—just get this bill through. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: This is a very serious matter. This is a Government that purports to be concerned about accountability and here it brings in a serious report and absolutely ignores it. This is the mark of the Labour Government—stop start stumble and stumble again which absolutely describes the name appropriate for this bill. That is what we have seen the Government do in terms of chronology from 1998—and the very report it ordered at considerable expense has been ignored. Although the submissions are due in on Friday the Government suddenly whips in the bill. Surely it would have been sensible to at least do what the working party recommended—that is look at what the report said and what the Government has spent its money on—and have a much more considered bill. 
Indeed either of my suggested titles would be appropriate. Sadly under this Labour Government the Racing Bill seems a misnomer of the highest order. As I have suggested we have had not only a staggering stumble exhibited by the Labour Government in the way that this bill has been progressed but also a serious worry about accountability in terms of the money the Government has spent on the Price Waterhouse report and the huge amount of time and energy that has been put into the report of the racing industry working-group involving some very respected New Zealanders.