Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): The Standing Orders do allow me to rebut a couple of comments that were made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters in relation to my commentary in the previous debate. Firstly there is nothing I have said in the House today that I haven't said to the racing industry.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Why is he giving two speeches in this debate?ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I think that's a little rich coming from the honourable gentleman but I thank you for your advice. I won't take it however.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: He's got a very short memory. He should apologise for his first speech. There's nothing I've said here this afternoon that I haven't said to representatives of the racing industry. The sad thing here is that no legislation will change the product and it's the product that's the problem. If it weren't we wouldn't have heard those statistics from the Rt Hon Winston Peters about the fall in the number of brood mares the fall in the number of people who derive an income from this particular industry and from the decline of the export side of the industry as well or potential. So let's not kid ourselves. This is an industry that's in some difficulty and this bill does not go as far as it should to protect it or to encourage it. By having this shortened truncated select committee process the expectation is that this bill will be returned to the House without any changes at all. Just look at clause 21 which inserts new sections 65AA to 65AX. This is where the great hope is held out that the New Zealand system will be able to extract money from those who offer the opportunity to gamble on New Zealand racing and sporting events from offshore and some of that funding will flow back to New Zealand. This series of new sections under clause 21 won't do it. While we've got the glossy language that's being talked out there at the moment it will only be when there is a select committee analysis—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You were rightfully assiduous about bringing me to the point of order on the nature of this debate and I ask you to do the same in respect to Mr Brownlee.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you and I shall do so. Mr Brownlee if you would oblige.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am referring directly to matters that should be considered by a select committee over a longer period of time. I'm very interested to know what the racing and sporting fraternity in this country would be keen to tell us about the idea that you can have a clause 21 holding out the hope that there'll be a funding stream from those who offer New Zealand sporting and racing events for gambling offshore when at the same time there is an exemption in here available that can be granted by the Minister—the same Minister who appoints this interim body the same Minister who will appoint any successor body. Those are points that should be known to the public and will only be properly considered by a select committee.Another small problem of course is that this is a bill that's being sent to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee which has one of Mr Peters' closest lieutenants as its chair. Now I'm not suggesting that that's inappropriate but it does indicate again that the intention is that there should be no change to this bill. Much as poor old Mr Patterson had to hold the line through 18 months in the Primary Production Committee so will be the case here.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I don't think it's proper that you are suggesting Mr Brownlee that the select committee process isn't robust. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am certainly not suggesting that; I am suggesting that when a bill is only going for a short period of time in total to a select committee the actual time that a select committee devotes to it is largely determined by the chair or the majority of that select committee. It is there that is the problem because the opportunity for people to make representation on this bill is so very curtailed. So I would like to move an amendment to Mr Peters' motion that this bill be reported back to the House by 20 November 2019 and that the committee can sit any old time it likes except a Friday or when there's a sitting of the House—and of course to make sure that they get it done in that time in a reasonable fashion and it allows the whole industry to make their points known. I move That 11 June 2019" be replaced with "20 November 2019".The other point is: how many people know that this affects so many other sports in this country? It's called a Racing Reform Bill—a Racing Reform Bill. Does that affect the rugby union? Yes it does. Does it affect New Zealand Football? Yes it does. They are reasons why this select committee process should not be truncated to such a short period of time. All of those bodies rely on the quality of their competition for any sports betting that might result from it. To have all that funnelled into an authority that is effectively going to be a racing authority is quite wrong. I believe strongly that this select committee process is too short and I look forward to the House taking a more reasonable view and saying that it should get at least four months if not six for consideration by the wider community. To say that it's been consulted already and therefore no need—well those consultations were done by one gentleman and then the Minister himself. Wouldn't it be a good idea to allow the whole of a select committee and therefore the consultative arm of Parliament to actually ask those questions of the public to hear what the public is saying and in particular hear what those who are most affected by this bill are saying? This is not a transparent bill. It's not a transparent process; it's secretive. When you look at this clause 21 and you look at the huge volumes of money that can be involved and also the potential for exemptions for some of the compliance in this there is a need for deep select committee scrutiny—no question about that. So I think that it is only fair that the House insist that this bill is in front of a select committee for a much longer period of time. If in fact all the claims made about the importance of this industry are true—and I believe most of them are particularly when it comes to employment and export opportunities but not product because that's really in a bad way and needs to be sorted; but the bill won't do it so there's no point talking about this because this bill changes nothing in that regard—then I think it is even more important that there is a proper public process for the widest possible consideration of this bill. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker."