Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much Mr Speaker for your vote of confidence in that regard. Without going too far down a philosophical rabbit hole the question is: how long is a piece of string? The answer in this context is that the piece of string needs to be long enough for the purpose. The purpose here that we're considering today is whether the select committee process will be long enough for its purpose—namely scrutinising this piece of legislation. To answer that—my somewhat rhetorical question—five key points. The first goes to fairness the second is the non-obvious nature of the bill the third is its complexity the fourth is its length and the fifth the interests involved.So the first of those is an issue of fairness. It's an issue of fairness when there is not enough time allocated by this House for those who have rights that are tied up in this legislation to have an opportunity to make their views heard. The interests of natural justice require that all relevant voices do have an opportunity to be heard and it will simply not be the case that there is enough time physically to allocate for the select committee members to hear from any such people within the time being proposed on the Government side of the House and against which we are pushing back very strongly indeed.The second is the non-obvious nature of the bill. It doesn't do what it says on the tin only; it also does a number of other things. I refer to the fact that we have in front of us something entitled a Racing Reform Bill that in fact affects and essentially amends a lot that is beyond the scope merely of racing within the realm of sport and indeed gaming as well. That point's been made by others on this side of the House so I won't belabour that point any further. But it is a really key point in relation to allowing enough time for the select committee to promote the fact that there is this piece of legislation being considered by the House and that those who may not realise initially that they are going to be affected by it will have an opportunity to appear before the select committee of Parliament to have their say.My third point as promised: complexity. There are a large number of moving parts in this bill. It's not merely one aspect of racing reform or reform broader than racing as I've alluded to. Within the realm of racing itself: gambling aspects the nature of racing as a sport the rationalisation of assets and other aspects of reform of the industry that have been touched on by others on both sides of the House including in the substantive debate. That complexity indicates that a reasonable period of time is needed by members of the public and indeed vested interests quite rightly so to be able to put their case forward.Fourth: the length of the bill. Others have touched on the number of pages and the number of clauses. It's worth noting in respect of the amount of time that's going to be allowed for people to have their say on this bill in front of the select committee that multiple other Acts and legislative instruments are going to be amended by it. My favourite Act that's going to be amended by it is the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Act 1981. So those who need sufficient time to gather their thoughts on that important piece of legislation should be afforded the opportunity to do so. My favourite non-statutory legislative instrument that will be amended is the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Definitions) Amendment Regulations (No 2) 2018. I see lots of nods of recognition across the House but those outside this House may need a bit more time within the select committee process to know that that's something that's dear to their heart along with racing and to know that the intersection of those two is such that they will need sufficient time to appear before the select committee and make their case. There'll need to be some very fast talking if that's to happen within two weeks and I speak in the literal sense of fast talking as well as the metaphorical one in terms of the sleight of hand that might be performed by Government members if we allow them to perform such a truncated select committee process as has been put in front of us today.My fifth and final point—and I don't think that I'll need all of the time of my contribution—is to note the interests involved. The fact that there are such high stakes not only in the racing sense—Hon Scott Simpson: Pardon the pun—pardon the pun.CHRIS PENK: My colleague Scott Simpson asks me to pardon the pun or rather perhaps that I should ask others but it's quite deliberate and unapologetic that I say there are high stakes involved when racing is concerned for New Zealand Inc." as well as for individual punters and their many runners and riders—but I've talked about the complexity.But when we're talking about billions of dollars there are a lot of interests involved. They are significant interests and to do due respect to that not only from a purity of process point of view but also recognising what is involved here a decent select committee process is highly essential. A key aspect of that is time and along with others on this side of the House I submit to you that the Government should reconsider such a short period of time as they are proposing for the select committee consideration of this bill."