But anyway, I’d be quite happy to have no Minister of Racing (buggered if I can see how it would impact anyone other than one less bauble and one less Ministerial office), and also get rid of a bunch of other Ministries. I’m hoping John Key might do so. A full list of govt agencies is here http://newzealand.govt.nz/directory – I’d suggest a start with ones to remove are:
Air NZ
Children’s Commissioner
Drug Free Sport NZ
Families Commission
Fish and Game NZ
Gambling Commission
Genesis Power

Once upon a time in Aotearoa, a provincial person thought they knew everything when they arrived in Port Nicholson and and they wanted to help an extractive industry fund some research on politicians so that this very fluid industry could have an advantage when they were dealing with politicians – nothing bad, just a very good database of information on the background of politicians so that this particular industry wasn’t all at sea when it had to sit down and shoot the breeze with the politicians.

Imagine , their surprise when they approached one of the captains of this particular industry and told him of the “plan”. He smiled his very big smile which was very big cos he was a very big man, and he said, “yes I will give you the money, I think that that is a very good plan.”

they replied

“great I can find out about people like ……….. and how he feels issues pescatorial” … or something very similar.

He said “Dont worry about ………… – “I own him and I pay someone who is in his office. ”
then he told of how he had always spent his money wisely to ensure it had the greatest impact.

It might have ended up being about speedy quadrapeds but it started off being a very fishy tail. And for a while its was very much about dublin bay prawns.

but the person has never forgotten that day – nor what was said.

Your definition of ‘strategic’ so far seems to be ‘it makes money’ and ‘communities depend on it’ – but that’s hardly a unique feature of the racing industry. I suspect you see it differently.

Trying to be objective, you’d have to look at areas where there is some strategic value to NZ and I’d happily argue that racing does that. I agree there is a perception about racing’s value that needs to be changed in in the club I’m involved with that’s about increased engagement with the local community.

It’s a valid question and I don’t have a compelling answer to the question why ANY section of the economy needs a minister – which is not the same as saying there shouldn’t be a Minister of Racing (who shouldn’t be Winnie!)

What I like about Tisch is that his appointment would legitimise it as a proper industry rather than a lightweight, ceremonial role.

I was obviously aware of the key points but the facts spelt out dispassionately are more persuasive than a biased viewpoint from someone involved in the industry – or at least club administration.

The industry itself has major issues – how to innovate and change without losing its heritage. The major problem as I see it is the people lost to racing through racing club failing to acknowledge the changing landscape and the additional challenges from other forms of entertainment and gambling that often had unfair advantages.

Back to the topic – ignore at your peril the view that Winston is the saviour of racing for what he is viewed to have achieved. I wouldn’t underestimate the significance of racing to the possibility of NZF getting to the 5%.

Having said that, I’ve met Lindsay Tisch and hope he is the next Minister of Racing

Certain similarities spring to mind.

Anyway, why not get all those insidious gaming machines out of the pubs. That would give a far bigger boost to the racing industry than the tax breaks and stake money gifted to them by Peters.

Each separate company or individual is a separate legal entity and is subject to its own separate $10,000 limit.

If New Zealand First did for example receive in 2003, say, five separate cheques for $10,000 each from separate legal entities there was no requirement under the old Electoral Act to disclose these. (Provided of course that was the total donation from that legal entity for that year).

What is very important to understand is that the exact same rules apply under the new Electoral Finance Act.

It will be perfectly legal for New Zealand First (or Labour or any other political party) to receive $50,000, $100,000 or even $200,000 or more in this way from the Vela family and its related interests in 2008 without it having to be disclosed.

This is exactly what the Electoral Finance Act provides.

Accordingly, it should now be patently clear to everyone that the Electoral Finance Act has absolutely nothing to do with increasing transparency of donations to political parties – in fact it does the exact opposite.

The EFA is about one thing only. It is about restricting our rights to speak out and to campaign against any political party or candidate (and in particular no doubt to restrict our rights to campaign against the political parties that passed the law – Labour, NZ First and The Greens).

Those restrictions go far beyond what both the Human Rights Commission and the Electoral Commission considered reasonable. The HRC said those restrictions should apply for no more than three months prior to the election. – Instead Labour, The Greens and NZ First ignored our HRC and imposed the law for the full election year. Similarly the spending limit on third parties was set at just $120,000, when both the HRC and the Electoral Commission said it should be set at $250-300,000.

Never before in the history of our democracy have political parties come together in such a unilateral way to pass a law in this way.

roger nome (3780) Add karma Subtract karma –1 Says:
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:13 pm
But no reasons given for this? A weak, unsupported argument. In any case, democracy shouldn’t be about whoever the rich likes most, getting the most publicity/coverage. That’s a plutocratic perversion of democracy – which is what the National Party is all about.

Isnt this exactly what Winston has done- He didn’t agree with what the voters threw at him in Tauranga and took on Clarkson and then by a plutocratic perversion of democracy got Owen Glenns money to fight the case and just like the Labour Party by a plutocratic perversion of democracy stole taxpayers money for the pledgecard.

A potted history of gambling in NZ. The TAB was set up in 1951 by the govt to rein in offcourse bookmakers operating in pubs etc, sponging off racing for an untaxed income while not contributing a cent to running racing. There was no pokie machine or Casino around. Lotto didn’t come in until 1987 – prior to that there was Golden Kiwi, Art Union (?).

The point is that the govt deemed race betting to be a social evil and in 1951 set up a govt agency (TAB) to regulate the betting, pay a dividend back to the clubs for the racing. For 35 years the TAB had the gambling market to itself and paid a 100% dividend on betting earnings to racing clubs to fund race stakes.

The govt duly taxed the TAB 20% on gross profit (not net as most business pays tax). This was extortionate, but given the monopoly status not terribly unfair. However, when the govt changed the rules of gambling in NZ – by allowing Lotto, then Gaming Machines into every pub corner and finally Casinos – they never changed the taxation rate for the TAB profits to recognise the changed landscape. For example, in 1978, in real terms, the TAB customers spent $480m. Now it is more like $270m. But Lotto customers now spend more than Racing ($330m) and Casinos and Gaming Machines an obscene $1.4 billion. The Racing scene was being killed by lack of real growth because unfettered competition was being allowed into NZ, whilst the racing industry was handicapped with 1951 style regulations.

All this changed come 2003, when the Gambling Act put a cap on machines growth and stopped new Casinos. Racing can now compete again, but has lost a lot of ground.

Daveski is correct that Racing would go on without betting profits – it would have to shrink , but the reality is that the betting profits don’t pay for it now anyway. I estimate it costs about $170-$200m to run the animals a year – this is what the owners put in. They get $100m back in stakes – higher than it was two years ago thanks to tax relief. Many of these people are ordinary NZers – not just rich pricks. They are putting in $70m-$100m into their hobby already. They do it for fun and breeding reasons. What do the Casinos in NZ support?

But no reasons given for this? A weak, unsupported argument. In any case, democracy shouldn’t be about whoever the rich likes most, getting the most publicity/coverage. That’s a plutocratic perversion of democracy – which is what the National Party is all about.

[DPF: I think Roger Nome just argued that Labour does in fact sell policies to wealthy unions and NZ First does sell policy to its secret donors. He is entitled to that view]

WINSTON TAKES CASH FROM WELL KNOWN RACING FAMILY.

FAMOUS RACING FAMILY RORTS SYSTEM DONATES TO WINSTON

CLARK SANCTIONS ELECTORAL DONATION RORT

CLARK PROTECTS WINSTON FROM SCANDAL

Please do not complicate things for them. The trick is to keep it punchy and above all keep it going. Well of the RIGHT must ensure this story keeps getting told all theway to election day. the aims gotta be to peel off Winnies fringe supporters to endure NZ1 doesnt make it back to the House.

this should be the matra of the right and left wing supporters at this site.

Racing started without gambling and would continue without it although the damage to the industry and job losses would be extreme. Casinos would die out.

..i’m sure the poor darlings could manage again..

and hey..!..casinos aren’t just casinos’..eh..?

your arguments are fatuous in the extreme..

phil(whoar.co.nz)

It’s only a sin if you get caught and are Catholic.

The point I was making was that racing has a point beyond straight gambling which the other forms of gambling don’t.

Obviously I am biased but racing is more than gambling although the gambling is a key part of generating the stakes. Interestingly, that’s one of the reasons for the state control of gambling so that a percentage of the turnover is taken to fund the industry.

All this gambling is making things look garbled!

The gambling in racing is largely used to fund stakes from which many thousands of people earn their living. Take the racing industry down and you will cut a swathe through towns like Matamata, Cambridge and many many others.

However, racing can still function without gambling – lotto, pokies and casinos can’t.

Racing doesn’t deserve any particular favours – indeed, I’m obviously involved in the industry and the industry has a lot to do to improve the way it is perceived and to show its true worth.

Their are plenty of other minority ministries but to single out racing given its economic input to NZ is nothing short of snobbery and naievety.