Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to speak on these final two clauses of the bill.As my colleague Mr Ross pointed out at the beginning of his contribution we don't support the bill so it's very difficult of course to support the commencement clause at all let alone as it stands. But I would make this point and actually make a call to the Minister in the chair Phil Twyford. Why won't the Minister be prepared to change this? There are very good reasons for adopting a change to the commencement clause. You see the rhetoric and all of the talk all of the press around this bill before it landed in the House was it was all about a regional fuel tax for Auckland. As the Minister has pointed out in his own contributions over the course of this debate in the committee of the whole House the Labour Party—so the Minister in a previous capacity—had campaigned on a fuel tax for Auckland in the election campaign. But what they hadn't campaigned on—and in fact what they hadn't put into the public arena ahead of this bill being introduced—was that a regional fuel tax that could be applied in any region of New Zealand was coming.So when the bill landed New Zealand was suddenly faced with the prospect of a new tax outside of Auckland and indeed in any region in New Zealand and they never saw that coming. The Government hadn't signalled that. So you've got a new tax to be legislated for and approved in this parliamentary term but it can't be collected until 1 January 2021. That's new to the public. They hadn't had an opportunity to consider that in the election campaign—so when they made their decision over which party to support. So I think it is thoroughly appropriate that the Minister could now take the opportunity to amend the commencement clause such that no provision on this bill will take effect until 1 January 2021 because that gives New Zealanders ample opportunity to digest the truth and the facts of the matter around this bill and to make a decision at the next election as to whether or not they will support what my colleague has suggested be renamed the Twyford Tax Bill".I think the Minister should do that because in good conscience that's when the bill actually does what it says on the tin which is not introduce new taxes. You then go through an election where people could have that information and make that decision. So I call on the Minister. He has it within his power right now to put a Government Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in to change the commencement clause and I call on him to do that and to change it to 1 January 2021.I would like to offer my voice in support of Mr Ross' proposed amendment to the title of the bill—that it should be named the "Land Transport Management (Twyford Tax) Amendment Bill 2018". I also agree with his idea that Mr Twyford given he's so proud of the new taxes he's going to place one in Auckland and also enable the application and approval thereof across any region in New Zealand prior to the next election should have his name in lights recorded for posterity or any other view of the taxpayers and voters of New Zealand. He should have his name indelibly inked on the bill so that the public can always know that it was Phil Twyford Minister Twyford who told them that he wasn't imposing a new tax it was an Auckland regional fuel tax only but actually introduced legislation that not only enabled a regional fuel tax to be debated but actually approved—approved—for any region in New Zealand ahead of the next election and the fact that it can't be levied until 2021 does not take away from the fact that this legislation allows for the absolute concrete locking-in of fuel taxes for regions outside of Auckland.The Minister could also perhaps take an opportunity to do his own Government SOP for a different bill name. I think it could validly be known as the "Land Transport Management Regional Fuel Tax - Distortion of Collection Thereof Amendment Bill." The Minister has acknowledged in his contributions that it is regressive it'll hurt lower-income earners more. His response to that was that it'll be good for them in the long run which I argue is thoroughly patronising. But there have been a lot of contributions around how either through deliberate intent or more likely through natural competitive forces in the competitive market in Auckland in particular to begin with the actual pricing—not the tax component—will be spread around communities across New Zealand so that in effect—not illegally so but in effect—the consumers and businesses outside of Auckland will end up paying in effect part of the regional tax price amount that should be applied to Auckland in the first instance. So I call upon the Minister to make an amendment to acknowledge that so the public can know."