Peters Winston: Racing Bill — Third Reading 
Peters Winston: Racing Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:4081] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I am not certain where the previous member was when an attempt was made to bring this bill before the House on 10 October last year. At that time the PricewaterhouseCoopers report was being examined by an advisory committee and notwithstanding the fact that it had not even reported this Government tried to ram through the Committee stage back then. Now we have this extraordinary event. The advisory committee has recently reported a review committee has gone around the country and undertakings have been given by officials on behalf of the Minister that people would have a certain time by which to make submissions. That date was 8 April. Today is not 8 April; it is 6 March and it bespeaks bad faith and a shocking public process. What is the use of making submissions by 8 April if the bill is through its third reading on 6 March? How can the Minister explain that other than to say that something is going on in respect of the formation of public policy that is not defensible? 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Absolute rubbish! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No it is not absolute rubbish. Perhaps the Minister Damien O’Connor can explain to me why the Government tried to have the Committee stage of this legislation moved up the Order Paper on 10 October last year. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: The industry wants it. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Look I know the industry wants it but the industry does not want shonky public policy. The industry has had a succession of meetings and I want to know why the bill is being rammed through the House. Even now on the advice of the Minister to his officials people are being told that there is a certain date by which they must make submissions. Doing so will all be forlorn and a waste of time because the bill will already be through Parliament. [ 
Interruption 
] Not at all! I would have thought it was a bit illogical. If the closing date is 2 days from now and the bill is passed through the Committee stage today what does that make it? A total waste of time! 
I was disturbed to learn that the ACT party which puts itself up as a paragon of constitutional virtue and legalistic understanding—particularly Mr Franks from the Securities Commission although I do not know how he ever got the idea that that qualified him for any sort of status given the commission’s appalling record when it comes to certain issues like the Bank of New Zealand— 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Self-interest! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh no it is not self-interest and that is proven by countless court cases all the way to the Privy Council. How is he to explain his colleagues’ dilatory attitude towards that issue when he was in charge of it? Here is Stephen Franks that paragon of constitutional virtue and commercial rights but when the Greens put up a thoroughly meritorious proposal that there should be an appeal procedure—which we see in every other area of life—what does the ACT party do? It says no. In consequence this Government not being in any way persuaded by arguments of civil rights appeal rights and commercial rights—that is why it wants to get rid of the Privy Council for goodness sake!—had a reason for doing what it did. But I cannot understand what the ACT party admittedly in Opposition was thinking about. When this provision came before the House the National Party supported it the Greens promoted it United Future supported it and New Zealand First supported it but the ACT party in its perverse way said no. As a consequence it is lost and no person who has future dealings with this administration will ever have a right to take his or her case beyond a finding by the current establishment set up by this bill to a more legal and judicial authority. That is very regrettable. 
In respect of the racing industry I want to say that with the exception of Mr Simich we have had a procession of racing Ministers who know absolutely nothing at all about racing. I do not know why we appoint people to be Ministers for Racing if they do not know one end of the horse from the other. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Ha ha! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Is Mr O’Connor the associate Minister? One day at the Kumara races does not qualify him to know anything about the racing industry its permutations the breeding industry— 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: How many have you got? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I have three. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: You’ve got three horses? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Yes. That comes as a surprise to him does it not? And they are about to run very shortly. 
Dail Jones 
: Are they worth betting on? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I will let the member know after the results are in. [ 
Interruption 
] No no it is fully recovered. 
This great industry directly employs 32000 people and beyond that tens of thousands like myself and others who have an interest at various points in the industry. The way the racing industry in this country has been treated since Roger Douglas came in in 1984 and changed the whole taxation regime compared with say Australia and Ireland is absolutely disgraceful. Racing has been down ever since. I want to make a commitment on behalf of New Zealand First that when we return to Government—which will be as soon as this Labour Party in Government throws in the towel which it will. It could not even make the last election in 3 years but had to have it in 2½ years at the end of its first term. We will change the depreciation regime for both mares and stallions. We will ensure that we have decent stallions in this country which we are losing— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Why didn’t he do it when he was Treasurer? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I was Treasurer for 20 months and did a thousand little things. Unfortunately Jenny Shipley decided she had ideas above her station and that is why she is not here any more. She took the National Party to its worst defeat in its whole history and she is gone. But I would have got around to it in 1999 in my third Budget. One cannot do everything in one day but this party is in its fourth year of Government and when it comes to the taxation regime it has made one minor change to the depreciation allowance for mares. For stallions it has done nothing and for the racing industry itself it has this perverse result. 
Why do casinos have a privileged tax position compared to New Zealand racing? For foreign-owned casinos like the one in Auckland there is a very special rate but the New Zealand – owned racing industry—the thoroughbred industry—has the highest taxation that the Government could possibly mount against it. The Government does not want to know a thing about racehorse owners or about their costs and expenses. But the moment one gets involved in the racing industry bang along comes a Government that is totally unsympathetic to racing and an Inland Revenue Department that is very very punishing. 
There was a time when if one’s horse won a race in New Zealand that would have paid its costs for the rest of the year—just an ordinary race at an ordinary provincial racecourse. Now it would take four or five races to do that. Given the enormous potential market on the eastern seaboard of China and in other parts of the world because of favourable regimes this is an industry that has been truly Cinderella-ised and marginalised. That is the reason that so many New Zealand breeders and racing experts are relocating offshore in terrible climates like Singapore. They are doing it because it is too harsh and too difficult back in New Zealand. 
I recommend to the Government that it does something in the next 2½ years to help this industry because it will sell far more than wine ever will. This industry is capable of multiplying its profits five times over if it were but given a chance. Instead of going along to the races and sort of “gladhatting” around the place it is high time that some members of Parliament put a bit of serious study into this matter and were a bit more helpful.