Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker for this call on what is an issue of the utmost constitutional importance to this country. Let me just traverse a little bit of the historical context that got us here. This Parliament is not quite unique but is extremely rare in the world for being unicameral for not having an Upper House that scrutinises laws that have gone through the Lower House. As you know behind us is the Legislative Council Chamber which once upon a time contained our Upper House. Some years ago in the middle of the last century the so-called suicide squad a group of members elected themselves into that Chamber and voted for their own dissolution. The trade-off at that time—Hon Andrew Little: David we're not going back—we're not going back.DAVID SEYMOUR: —just while we've got some time—is that the select committee process was strengthened in order to carry out the roles that an Upper House had played in scrutinising the quality of legislation. I think that's an interesting point to debate: whether it can truly be effective when the electoral system used to choose select committee members is exactly the same as the system used to choose members of the House of legislators. But nevertheless that's the system we have and other countries—of course Australia Canada the United States the UK—have a different electoral system to choose their Upper House meaning that if one side of politics can win one House there's a good chance they will nevertheless have to contend with the other House that has been elected differently through a different electoral system. Hon Phil Twyford: Is this about the bill?DAVID SEYMOUR: This is about the motion Mr Twyford and I think Madam Assistant Speaker will agree. The fact of the matter is that we have very great store placed on our select committee process because it is the substitute for our Upper House which tonight lies empty and has done for over six decades. So it is of the utmost importance that people are able to submit and that members of this House are able to scrutinise legislation in the select committee because that is all we have. I'd appeal to members of the Labour Party to reflect upon their own heritage because in the history of this Parliament they have played a critical role in cleaning up some of the wild west politics that used to happen late at night in the era of Muldoon. They introduced a Constitution Act in 1986 which has dramatically improved the sophistication of the functioning of this Parliament. The Constitution Act among other things says in not so many words no taxation without representation". It says that the executive the Government cannot levy a tax unless it has the permission of Parliament. Well with this truncated select committee process where people will have only two months instead of the usual six month process to feed into we're going to find that while the House might vote for the bill it cannot honestly say that the proper legislative procedure has been undertaken to ratify this new tax. I would put it to you—Hon Dr David Clark: Why did that member support the truncated process for asset sales?DAVID SEYMOUR: Because there was no taxation involved. Taxation as set out in the Constitution Act is the most important role that this Parliament has ensuring that taxes are collected with consent and the parliamentary process includes being prepared—Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: How many taxes have been changed under urgency?DAVID SEYMOUR: I beg your pardon? You'll have to open your mouth a little wider when you speak—that member. But the fact of the matter is we cannot honestly say that we have carried out our role under the Constitution Act if we do not allow the select committee process to scrutinise a bill that amounts to introducing a new tax. I'd appeal further. The members on the front bench of the Labour Party seem to have forgotten their party's history but I'd appeal to some of the backbench members—the Duncan Webbs the Chlöe Swarbricks who missed out on the ministerial limo this time—and remind them that while they may be members of a party that has executive members they are not part of the executive. It is their job to be parliamentarians and help hold the executive to account no matter which party it may be from. So I just put out that appeal to them because it might not just be the right thing to do constitutionally but it might also be the right thing to do for the future of their political careers. I can tell them that the people of New Zealand will place great value in members of this House who prove themselves to be democrats and to have some guts and gumption and maybe be a little bit fearless. I can see Duncan Webb. He's just thinking "What did I really come here for? To make better policy and hold the executive to account or simply—"Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Not a history lesson.DAVID SEYMOUR: Hey we're only up to 1986 and I've got four minutes to go.He's thinking "What did I really come here for? Is it to make good policy and hold the executive to account or violate the Constitution Act and ram through new taxes violating the spirit of this House and irritating and annoying the people of New Zealand who sit at home who know that their basic rights their most cherished rights in a democracy are being violated because they will not have the practical ability to submit on the introduction of a new tax?" Eight working days is all the time that the people who send us here and pay the bills will have to comment on this new bill. That is a travesty and those people will be looking at these parliamentarians—these executive members at least who are not held to account by their own backbenchers—and they'll be asking themselves this: "Why is it that these full-time professional politicians get all day and all night to make laws affecting me but I who have a job and am busy—ironically trying to earn the money to pay the taxes that this Government is levying on me—have to drop everything and submit in eight days in order to be heard?" This is a Government that talks an awful lot about inclusion the politics of kindness and making sure that everybody in society is able to have a stake in the way that this society functions. That was the marketing ploy that was the pledge that was the smiling face of this Government when it asked the voters for consent to govern. Given the power to govern suddenly this Government turns around and says "We don't think that we need to make it practical for you to submit."—even when they're levying new taxes even when they're violating the Constitution Act even when people have no other way of having any impact on the legislative process now that they're all elected other than submitting to a select committee and they are to be given only eight days to do that.I can see the New Zealand First member there and he's sitting there thinking—Darroch Ball I think he is. He's sitting there thinking "I came here to represent the people the real people the grassroots people." And he's just thinking "This guy Seymour he's right. He has a point. It should be six months that the people get to submit. We should not allow temporarily empowered politicians to ram these kinds of laws down people's throats the way this Government proposes to do. Today's the day. Tonight's the night. I Darroch Ball should take a stand and cross the floor and—"ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I'm sure there's a point of order against that somewhere in the rule book.DAVID SEYMOUR: I'm appealing. The purpose of debate Madam Assistant Speaker is that members appeal to each other in the hope that they can find their better senses and I have zeroed in on Darroch Ball because I think he's my best prospect of a man of principle who came here to serve the average person in New Zealand who just wants a Parliament that is responsive to them that is not arrogant and gives them an opportunity to participate in the democratic process at Parliament—which is their place.So in conclusion—or getting to it anyhow—I'd just like to say that this genuinely is a bad look for us as parliamentarians. It's a bad look for this Government. There is no urgency and no justification for making it impractical for New Zealanders to submit on a bill that affects them. It is elitist to have such a short time so that only the few who have lots of spare time will be able to submit. And if this Government knows what's good for it constitutionally and politically it will allow six months—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you. Excuse me the member's time has expired."