Alexander Marc: Racing Bill — Third Reading 
Alexander Marc: Racing Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:4080] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 The racing industry has been incredibly patient waiting for the passage of this bill so I will not take anywhere close to my 10 minutes in the hope that it will speed things along just that little bit more quickly. United Future’s position on the bill can be summed up in a few points. First of all we are pleased that this is an industry that has come to the Government with its ideas in order before trying to have them included in legislation. I would note that as a Parliament if we saw more consensus-based self-produced legislation regulating other industries it would make our lives a little easier here. Having to wade into a sector-localised fight and decide for industries how they are to conduct their affairs is never ideal. Our power to impose on a part of New Zealand what we think is best for people is only really well utilised when they tell us coherently and collectively what they as an industry want and need in order to achieve what is best for themselves and the wider public. 
That is why at the end of the day we are happy to support this bill because that is exactly what it is—a bill produced by the industry for the industry crafted with a good balance between competing interests as far as possible. United Future supports the policy behind the new bill—that one body should be responsible for both the commercial and broader policy issues facing New Zealand racing. We hope that this will ensure that commercial decisions are adequately taken into account and that the impact on the racing industry and its stakeholders and vice versa is accountable and transparent. This means that the Racing Industry Board and the Totalisator Agency Board are disestablished and a new board the New Zealand Racing Board is to cohesively manage all the functions of the racing industry under one entity. 
There have been of course some areas where we feel that the balance of interest has not been struck correctly and we have attempted to adjust those—hence our support of various amendments. That has included ensuring the continued prohibition on Easter Sunday racing. It was not done for any moralistic reason but quite simply to avoid delaying the bill further as the matter would otherwise have been a conscience issue and the bill would have been mired in even more debate probably continuing for another 6 months. 
It is unfortunate that the reasons for having Sunday racing were originally brought forward by an industry that had a bit of foresight in thinking that if it was able to include this in the legislation now then when and if the time came that trading on Easter Sunday was the norm it would not then have to sit around and wait for Parliament to legislate yet again. Unfortunately for those people it backfired but they had the right inclination I believe. 
The institution of an appeals process providing efficient natural justice to those wanting to appeal against the decisions of a statutorily constituted racing board whilst ensuring the prohibition of vexatious and petty claimants is something we would have liked to see pushed a little bit further and we are glad to have supported Sue Bradford’s amendment in that particular regard. We are sorry that it did not go through. Lindsay Tisch’s amendment to ensure the fairness of distribution of profits amongst the codes was something else we sought to support. Sadly that too has not progressed. But on the whole I believe that this bill should not remain languishing because it is something that the industry has been wanting for a very long time and I entrust it to a speedy conclusion. I recommend this bill to the House.