Bradford Sue: Racing Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Bradford Sue: Racing Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3969] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party has put forward two substantial Supplementary Order Papers to Part 3 which deals with racing codes and clubs. The first of our amendments is to clause 20A which defines the way in which codes have to prepare statements of intent and business plans. One of the things that came through really strongly during the select committee process was the need to make the accountability structures between the codes and the board as clear and as strong as possible. The codes and the board will be dealing with matters at the very heart of the future of all parts of racing including the allocation of race dates and the distribution of surplus funds. 
The Green Party believes that as part of this mutual accountability the codes must be required to demonstrate that firstly the codes’ own statements of intent and business plans are consistent with their own objectives and secondly that the codes’ rules must not be unreasonable undemocratic unfairly discriminatory unfairly prejudicial or contrary to law. Our amendment aims to make sure that this happens and is an attempt to improve code accountability. I welcome the Government’s promised support for this amendment and I hope that other parties who also seek greater fairness in the new structures will support us likewise. 
Our second amendment to this part calls for the establishment of a review and appeal procedure that is able to review decisions of the Racing Board. Our Supplementary Order Paper asks that the Minister appoint a formal racing industry reviewer for a period of not less than 3 years and with the power to respond to appeals not only in the area of fund distribution and racing dates which are of course likely to be the most contentious issues but also in relation to any decision that appears to be unfairly prejudicial or discriminatory. The Government Administration Committee did consider the possibility of establishing a disputes resolution process during its consideration of the bill but unfortunately the majority of the members on the committee were adamant in their rejection of it despite the fact that in almost all similar legislation that I am aware of some form of review and appeal process is seen as essential and integral to the structures. 
The racing industry is plagued by vested interests mistrust warring factions and fears for the future. It is as plagued as any other struggling part of New Zealand society or the economy. This mistrust and factionalism is being used as an excuse for not introducing an appeals process in this bill. Yet logic and common sense tell me—and I believe many in the racing fraternity—that unless we do establish some form of accepted legislative review and appeal structure as part of this bill things may well continue in the same difficult vein that they have so far. We should be trying to improve this bill and make it as good as we can tonight and not let things go backwards. This is our opportunity as responsible legislators to ensure that the new governance is fair and just to all parts of the industry not just some of it. In all likelihood and judging on past history it will be the smaller and rural clubs that will suffer the most if no clear and transparent method of appeal is accessible to all parts of the industry. As I mentioned earlier I think it is at our peril that we neglect the future of country racing. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Bradford to clause 20A be agreed to: 
to amend subclause (2) by inserting the following paragraph: 
(aa)the code’s rules as required by section 6 of the Incorporated Societies Act 1908; and 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Bradford to clause 20A be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (4) and substitute the following subclause: 
(4)Without limiting the generality of subsection (3) the board may decline to approve a racing code’s proposed statement of intent or business plan if the board considers that— 
(a)the code’s objectives are inconsistent with its own objectives; or 
(b)any of the code’s rules are: 
(i)unreasonable; or 
(ii)undemocratic; or 
(iii)unfairly discriminatory; or 
(iv)unfairly prejudicial; or 
(v)contrary to law. 
Amendment agreed to and Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
New Part 3AReview and Appeal Procedure 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Bradford to insert new Part 3A be agreed to: 
Part 3A 
Review and Appeal Procedure 
26AInterpretation 
In this Part— 
applicant 
 means the recognised industry organised that has requested a review by the Racing Industry Reviewer 
reviewer 
 means the Racing Industry Reviewer 
26BAppointment of Racing Industry Reviewer 
The Minister must— 
(a)appoint a Racing Industry Reviewer for a period of not less than 3 years; and 
(b)consult with the members of the New Zealand Racing Board and other parties as the Minister thinks fit before making the appointment; and  
(c)take into account any representations made under paragraph (b). 
26CReview of Racing Board Decisions 
(1)Any recognised industry organisation may ask the reviewer in writing to review the decisions made by the board under section 9(a) or (c) the determination of the racing calendar and the distribution of funds obtained from betting to the racing codes. 
(2)The reviewer may agree to review any other decision of the board if in the reviewer’s opinion the decision appears to be unfairly prejudicial or discriminatory. 
(3)If such a request is made the reviewer must as soon as practicable review the decision and report the results to the board and the requester in writing. 
(4)In considering the decision the reviewer must give consideration to the purpose this Act and the objectives of the board. 
(5)The board must within 10 days of receiving the report implement the recommendations of the reviewer’s report or if the board does not implement the recommendations notify in writing the reviewer and the applicant of the board’s decisions for not doing so. 
26DAppeal to arbitration 
(1)Where the board does not implement the reviewer’s report under section 26C the reviewer or the applicant may refer the matter to arbitration by an arbitration tribunal. 
(2)The tribunal shall consist of 3 independent arbitrators who shall be formed and decide the dispute under the Arbitration Act 1996. 
(3)Each of the parties in the dispute will have the right to appoint to the tribunal 1 arbitrator. The 2 arbitrators selected will then select the third who will chair the tribunal. 
(4)All members of the arbitration tribunal must be acceptable to the Minister of Racing. 
(5)All parties must meet their own costs with the costs of providing the tribunal to be met by the racing board.