Tisch Lindsay: Racing Bill — Third Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Racing Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:4078] 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 The passing of this bill has been referred to in many quarters as the first leg of the treble. National has supported the progress of this bill. However we argued in the Committee about the haste in getting the bill through its Committee stage on Tuesday. [ 
Interruption 
] We have supported this right through as we did last year. But the point I want to make to the Associate Minister for Racing is that the industry is not all in one. While the codes have certainly done that this Government went out and commissioned a report—the Minister mentioned it—the PricewaterhouseCoopers report an analysis of where racing should be and it made some recommendations. One of those recommendations was that a working-party would be set up—the Minister referred to that. 
The process of that working-party was to travel the country so that stakeholders could hear what the working-party had come up with. I attended the meeting last Wednesday week in Hamilton where some of the participants were very vocal about what was in the working-party report but it was made very clear at that meeting that submitters had an opportunity to get their views through to the Racing Industry Board by tomorrow Friday 7 March. 
The point that I make to the Minister as I did in the Committee stage was why could the Government not wait 1 week so that we could receive the submissions that the Racing Industry Board and the chairman of the Racing Industry Board had made at that public meeting in Hamilton. I have been receiving them. They have been sending me copies of their submissions. I have one here today that has just come in. The point I make here is that the undue haste that this has come in in a week could have been put off for another week and we would have had that opportunity to read those submissions. But that has not happened. 
I am not arguing about the merits of what was in the working-party’s report. I am not arguing about the merits of what the submissions may say. What I am saying is that those stakeholders have wasted their time. Not only that the eminent people who were on this working-party those distinguished persons have also wasted their time. Why would people travel the country with the indication that they could have a say report back to the Racing Industry Board by tomorrow Friday 7 March and those points would then be taken to the Minister if appropriate—when on the other hand we did the Committee stage on Tuesday and here we are doing the third reading? 
I am concerned about that. If this is the first leg of the treble then I would say that much goodwill has been lost in some sectors over this last week. I do not know what the second and third legs of the treble are likely to be but I do pose the question: why is the Government involved in racing at all? I have canvassed this view over the last couple of years and in particular in relation to the Racing Bill. During the 1990s there was a reduction in Government involvement in businesses but racing has continued to receive and look for Government support. Deregulation of many industries required them to respond to market forces and most of them have thrived; but racing has not thrived and the needs for change are being driven by social and economic concerns. 
The introduction of casinos gaming machines weekend shopping and other entertainments is putting pressure on punters who are looking for greater choices to spend their discretionary money and time and the racing industry has not responded to that need. The Racing Bill is about governance. It does not do anything for the fortunes of the industry or attract investment into the industry to make it flourish the way we need. That will be one of the challenges that the new board needs to address. 
Racing has enjoyed a special status with its own legislation and Minister. Why do we need a Minister for Racing? Why do we need an Associate Minister for Racing? Why do we actually need them? We do not have Ministers for the icons of rugby and beer. Why do we have a Minister for Racing? Racing has been around for a very very long time—for 100 years. The special status it enjoys has probably held the industry back. Political patronage to please everyone has its risks and costs and politicians of the past have tended to preserve the past rather than prepare the industry for the future. With this in mind why can private companies not run race meetings? Many sports clubs corporates or private individuals with their own venues run sports events. Why should racing clubs have this monopoly? 
I was able to introduce clause 63A into the bill. That clause goes a little way down the road to giving the board the flexibility of being able to run special meetings but it does not go far enough. I had great difficulty in getting the clause introduced but at least it is there. The increasing importance of off-course betting now providing more than 90 percent of betting turnover has made access to the Trackside television channel a critical factor in race-meeting profitability. Everything is scheduled around being able to see the races on television. Why do we limit the number of race meetings? Is it because they have to be shown on television? We do not tell McDonald’s how many Big Macs they can serve from each outlet per day yet we are saying here we will limit the number of race meetings that are to be held. 
The TAB is a monopoly provider of off-course betting services to the industry and racing clubs and the question needs to be asked whether the industry and racing clubs are getting the best deal when we have the TAB as the monopoly provider. To my mind racing does not need to be run like a nationalised industry with its own legislation. Greater innovation and investment in the industry will provide for market development and this will allow the industry to diversify and give flexibility which will be paramount. 
This is a multimillion-dollar business that employs in excess of 33000 people. In the area that I represent in the Piako electorate and Matamata the racing industry is paramount. Matamata township owes its living to the racing industry and to Cambridge and other towns within the Piako district it is very very important. National supports this bill. We support the racing industry and we do wish the new board all the best with the second and third legs of the treble. I do not know what they are but there are challenges. We have not voted against the bill; we have supported it. We have recommended some changes but those have not been forthcoming. But we do wish the new board all the best in the challenges ahead and I for one will continue to have my flutter and enjoy the thrill and excitement that racing provides.