Cunliffe David: Telecommunications (Development Levy) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCunliffe David: Telecommunications (Development Levy) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 21 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3748. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): There is a strong precedent in this House not to bring the Chair into the debate. I am going to depart from that on this occasion only and very gently to note that you are a member in another capacity of the esteemed Regulations Review Committee on which in fact we serve together. The Chair will have almost I am sure uppermost in his mind at this time that the Regulations Review Committee has a tradition of objecting to legislation where the date of Royal assent or the date on which a bill comes into force is not specified in the primary legislation. That is seen as very very poor drafting practice.What normally happens as you know is that the Regulations Review Committee will write to the substantive subject select committee—in this case it would be the Commerce Committee—asking them to invite the Minister to reconsider whether in fact there should be a fixed date put into the equivalent clause the commencement clause.That is where we run into problems with this bill. I guess it is yet another little proof of why we should not be here on a Friday night trying to ram a bill like this through all stages because there is no substantive select committee that the Regulations Review Committee can write to to object about the fact that it does not have a proper commencement clause in it. This is an open-ended commencement clause. It is poor drafting practice. It would be pulled up by the Regulations Review Committee and the Commerce Committee would have to deal with it. The Commerce Committee would probably then write to the Minister. There would be an amendment made in the usual way and there would usually be either a fixed date for commencement or a deadline for commencement.That is particularly odious and improper when it comes to a tax bill. This is a tax bill. This raises taxes. Apart from the fact it is breaking an election promise it is a serious matter. There should be no taxation without representation. Representation includes the full select committee process. So here is a tax bill being rammed through Parliament without a select committee process and with an improper commencement clause.The Regulations Review Committee would take this very very seriously. It would write to the subject select committee the Commerce Committee and it would ask for an amendment or consideration of an amendment on that point. It is not too late for the Minister given that the Minister has seen fit not to send this to a substantive committee to respond to that point and to assure the Committee in some way as to the timing of the commencement. It may be that the Government may see fit even in the time that is still available to amend this commencement clause by way of Supplementary Order Paper to give at the very least a back-end assurance to the public that there will be some certainty about this.As my colleague Mr Hipkins Dr Hipkins has said there is a very important precedent which we are not allowed now to refer to from a small European country where Royal assent was withheld on a matter of almost equal import as this unjustified unwarranted and improperly drafted piece of tax law that we are ramming through the House in the dead of a Friday night.I invite you Mr Chairman to ask the Minister to take a call and for you to at least share with the Committee your experiences on the Regulations Review Committee where you know—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order! Please be seated. The member knows that it is wrong for him to draw the Chairman into the debate. I certainly will not be jumping when he yanks my chain.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Thank you for the admonition Mr Chairman. It must be getting late but since you put it in those terms your chain shall be completely unyanked by the Labour Party. But it is not too late for the Government to yank this bill from the House because this bill is improperly drafted. This is an improper commencement clause for a tax bill.We should not be pushing tax bills through in the dead of night. We should not be doing it when the Government said that there were not going to be any more tax laws no new taxes—well here we have got one. It was brought in through urgency without a select committee process flying in the face of established constitutional convention. This is legislation for cowboys and the Labour Party wants none of it.