Garry’s Corner – 18 May

I was encouraged by one of my two readers to watch the much-touted Q+A programme on racing of last Sunday. This required the registration of the appropriate app followed by a programme search. None of this was too onerous but the programme was another lost opportunity. This may be as a result of Q+A editing or may be the result of trying to make the programme entertaining. To have the opportunity of identifying the views of Pike, Baker, Allen and the Minister on the answer going forward as against the repetition of the causes of our demise was disappointing.

The number of our tracks is neither here nor there in the overall scheme of things, operating under license needs consideration, but remember, their first obligation is to their shareholders. Our current structure should be the envy of all, so why the grief. Perhaps our expectations are unrealistic, it may be the 80m increase in costs over the last decade are entirely justified. Why is it we don’t accept our fate? Surely so long as someone benefits from our efforts happy we should be. Funnily this is Jacinda and her band of vagabonds ideal model, we have the locked in risk-takers rewarding the ineffective decision makers.

Anyway, John Messara or no John Messara the responsibility to illustrate a convincing argument for not only the growth in costs but the where are we heading rests firmly with our chairperson. Leadership they call it…

In my retrieving of Q+A, I watched the interview with the Minister of Workplace, Labour etc . Why is there this constant perception of capitalist employers hammering their employees. Job selection is the prerogative of the employee in this current market. The Minister supports union delegates right to meet on the property with the intended result of collective bargaining, how do we go through this process each time we have a change of Government. I wonder who we have making these legislative changes that have any actual risk and reward business experience. In the end, any business has to create a margin to stay in business or all the collective bargaining is for nought. The abolition of the 90-day trial is very unfortunate, the number of inexperienced potential employees we give an opportunity, knowing terminating is possible. Do the promoters of this change really believe employers plan a 90-day rollover, how stupid, sometimes 90days is not enough, sometimes too much but our intentions are to employ someone of value.

What now, will we take a chance, give somebody the opportunity their skill level doesn’t immediately match. Unlikely. So how do they learn? You know very few businesses have the choice an employee has. In business you have everything on the line, you can’t and don’t want to walk away.

It would appear the bovine industry is in for a testing time, I have great admiration for dairy farmers. They are tied to the plot, work long hours under constantly changing rules, the exposure of mycoplasma bovis, I say exposure as it would seem it’s been around a while and creates a frightening dilemma, a choice I am pleased I don’t have to make, I say good luck to you all.

When that next young person arrives at the cowshed, tell them if they know how to meet all of dairy farms environmental requirements, can fix M Bovis in the first 90days then they are a chance. But if they want to one day own a farm, they would be better to take the opportunity spreading their knowledge around the TAB Petone building, a short journey to the top Presto! a farm owner.

You know the rules. When the people that vote for a living outnumber those that work for a living, the 90 days will never pass.

P.s – I had completed my Corner when the Winston racing tax breaks hit the news. The suggested cost to the Government coffers of 4.8 m spread over four years can only happen if a purchaser buys a yearling of note. Who will determine the colt of note, will the buyer have a pre-sale indication, if not, imagine the disputes arising with all buyers having a different view on the sire prospect.

Will the vendor know, I hope so. What a can of worms. But none of that matters, what matters is the response of the non-racing public , regretfully the commentators have latched onto the view that Winston has looked after his RICH PRICK mates.

Regretfully I think the messy sprat we have been offered will attract disproportionate passion from those with no understanding or interest in our industry. Winston indicated last week it will be 2020 before the Act will be bedded in. We have no idea at this stage the likely content, any change will test the coalition, Simon Bridges was one who referred to the budget change as a handout to Winston’s rich mates. Naughty, naughty Simon, the chances are you are not in power as a result of Nationals attitude to racing, Nathan Guy is indeed fortunate not to have suffered injury, not from the racing fraternity, but sleepwalking through his years as Racing Minister he could have bumped into something.

So, why the p.s. well if national don’t see fit to support any changes in the act they will be ignoring again those who if rich pricks who would normally be assumed National supporters. Mind you, Simon, if your research team did their homework you would know there is a lot less to be gained from racing a horse than sitting in the House collecting whatever for doing whatever.

The changes racing needed were leadership with industry and Ministerial support. We do race under favourable legislation, but it is hard to legislate the management.

JohnMessara will present a worthwhile document. Implementation would test even his undoubted talent. Cheers G