Racing: Wins in Fair Tax colours make point

It was highly appropriate That's Tops won the first race at Avondale yesterday wearing the black Fair Tax jacket.

Giant Strides followed up in the same colours with victory in Race 8.

You could almost hear mainstream racing cheering them home and it wasn't just that both had started as favourites.

It was driving a point home.

Like when the first two winners on Mudgway Stakes day at Hastings wore the Fair Tax colours.

If Don Brash needed further encouragement to promise the racing industry tax breaks, this was it.

Brash was so adamant that day that racing should have the $25 million a year he was promising during his presentation of the Xcellent Mudgway victory at Hastings, you almost expected him to pull on one of the Fair Tax T-shirts racing's ginger group was wearing on the day.

Over the past two months painting an insignia on a horse's rump could almost have been seen to have a Shylock element to it.

But the Fair Tax campaign has worked wonderfully well under chairman Rob McAnulty, largely because the base cause is precisely about what it says it is about - fairness.

Despite the current Government's claims, if you think casinos are not treated better on the tax roundup than horse racing, you probably think Humpty Dumpty was put back together.

When Don Brash was adamant racing was paying more than its share of tax during his Hastings speech, he was, of course, preaching to the converted. But in politics there are other motives.

The issue has polarised political parties.

Labour got on the back foot when Racing Minister Damien O'Conner fumbled about tax cuts then, pressured, said the Government would look at it after the Racing Industry's submissions were properly analysed.

The submissions were produced on time, but a time after the elections was mentioned for when they would be analysed.

Brash immediately seized the initiative and announced National would give the racing industry what it asked for.

And, to be fair, Winston Peters said it too.

National's stated policy is:

* 'To align racing's betting duty with that paid by casinos which will allow $25 million (a year) back into the industry and to enable future development and investment.'

* 'To allow 100 per cent write-down on stallions over two years.'

* 'To allow 100 per cent write-down on broodmares aged 12 and over in the year of purchase.'

* 'Develop a new consensus on Section 16 of the Racing Act.'

That is specific to the thoroughbred industry.

Paraphrasing, Section 16 is about evenly dividing between galloping, harness and the dogs the betting percentages paid back to New Zealand on our races that are shown on Australian television.

It effectively means the dogs and harness receive the same as galloping, despite galloping pulling in the vast majority of betting. It is estimated $4.7 million is lost to galloping.

Section 16 states that the legislation can change only if two of the three codes agree to the change.

How the hell is that going to happen when harness and the dogs would be cutting their own throats with change.

At the Hamilton racing forum, where all political parties released their election policies, Damien O'Conner declared he felt that was fair.

Game, set and match for the racing vote when you factor in National's firm pledges.

As Rob McAnulty points out, all major parties apart from Labour, have policies in favour of increased revenues for the racing industry, but National's is much more distinct.

Remember, National didn't say it would look at tax breaks for racing, it said it WOULD introduce the cuts.

If National gets over the line and it doesn't happen, there will be nowhere for Don Brash to hide.

During this three-ring circus they call election month, it's difficult to take some of these politicians seriously.

Remember the old line: If you've half a mind to be a politician, that should be enough.