Tisch Lindsay: Racing Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Racing Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3966] 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 Madam Chair— 
Dianne Yates 
: Give it a rest. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: This is important legislation we are debating tonight and comments by the member do not add to that. 
David Cunliffe 
: Don’t filibuster then. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I am not filibustering at all. This is important legislation and we have to get it right. In relation to the amendment to clause 15(3) on Supplementary Order Paper 282 I want to pick up on the Minister’s point that two out of the three codes can change the policy. At the moment there are only three codes—thoroughbred racing harness racing and greyhounds so it could well be that harness racing and the greyhounds codes could out-vote the third code the thoroughbred racing code. The difference between the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper and my Supplementary Order Paper is that mine talks about the board which comprises seven members making the decision whereas the Minister is saying that the decision is made by the three codes. That is the difference. I am saying that there is more discretion and flexibility with seven members of the board making the decision as opposed to two out of the three codes making it. I do not think that what the Minister is suggesting will work. 
I make that point so that it will be very clear when we come to vote on it. I am saying that a board of seven should make the decision not the two or three codes. I do not think it will work. I ask The Minister to reconsider that in terms of Mark Gosche’s Supplementary Order Paper. 
Hon Annette King 
: But the member set out his agenda when he spoke on overseas racing. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I am saying there needs to be clarity here. It should be remembered that the board has seven members not a board of three members or three codes—which is what the bill states. The board has much wider interests. Why would only three people or two of the three codes have the final say when the board has seven members? I tell members it will not work. I ask the Minister in the chair Annette King to delete the amendment to clause 15(3) on the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper because I tell her now that it will not work. It is not fair. It does not actually change what is in the bill now. The bill states there can be discretion but Mark Gosche’s Supplementary Order Paper states that two of the three codes can determine what it will be. But what about the other members on the board? There are seven members on this board not three members. It is important that members realise the difference. I am telling the Committee that this will not work and the proposed amendment will not work. 
Hon Annette King 
: The board has to agree. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: The Minister said that two out of the three codes could make the decision. That is what it states. 
I bring the Committee’s attention to clause 11 “Membership of governing body”. As I said in a previous debate one of the areas in this clause where there have been some changes relates to the statement that: “The governing body consists of 7 members acceptable to the Minister”. That means that all members “must” be acceptable to the Minister. If we were to go back to the draft report of 2000 we would see that it states that appointments have to be “concurred” with by the Minister. There is now a big difference between what was originally recommended way back in the 2000 report and what is actually in the bill today which states that all members “must” be acceptable to the Minister. That is one of the areas I am not happy with. It is a change from what was mooted back in the draft and that is a concern. 
I also draw members’ attention to clause 11(3)(b) which states that “if a vacancy occurs during the period an appointment may be made by the Minister to fill that vacancy”. It does not state that the appointment “must” be made but that it “may” be made. One of the areas that I believe is important here is that we have only a seven-member board. A vacancy could occur at any time—and remember these appointments are for 3 years—so why is it that the bill states that an appointment “may” be made by the Minister? I would have thought we would want some certainty here.