Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): There were certainly a number of things that I had expected to be doing this Thursday morning; speaking in the House on this motion certainly wasn't one of them—and certainly not under urgency. This is a robust House a debating chamber where there are decisions made on the fly in the heat of the moment trusting one's instincts and a decision was made last night that meant I expected to come to the House and decry this day as a day where there may be the birth of the Prime Minister's baby but the death of democracy. Without wanting to overly broaden the debate back into a decision that's already been made—Mr SPEAKER: Can I just warn the member the Chamber clocks are going up not down. It might feel the other way.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That's fine thank you very much. I want to acknowledge the importance of reflection and the considered decisions that can be made by this House. We are the architects of our own destiny and we shouldn't be above recognising looking back in the cool light of the morning that sometimes we may make decisions that don't do this House justice. I think it's a credit to this place that we are robustly but respectfully able to reflect on and change our positions and I certainly want to acknowledge that.There has been comment though about this motion as somehow analogous to the one that is no longer before us the amendment. There is a compare and contrast situation I think between an attempt to broaden free speech with an attempt to curtail it and I don't agree that this motion has any of the elements of curtailment that others previously considered would have. Indeed the circumstances that led Mr Ross to move this motion on instructing the committee to have more time to consider were for those colleagues—particularly of mine—who feel passionately about the taxation representation principle that underpins a working democracy and the ability to be able to stand and represent one's constituents and say We need to scrutinise this."We have a set time limit for the first second and third readings and we have a robust select committee process but the committee of the whole House is the machine in which we are able to deconstruct and analyse a bill part by part clause by clause. It is true that some of that analysis in this House has by any measure not been that intelligent and I want to acknowledge the significant improvements that have taken place in the last couple of years to require Ministers to answer good technical questions but also the quid pro quo—that is it is incumbent on members to technically analyse a bill. I think that is a significant improvement on the committee process. What Mr Ross is doing though which I think has merit and the House should really consider this is being proposed against the backdrop of something that may also be unprecedented. That is the taking of urgency in the middle of the committee of the whole House where there was an honest belief—it may well not be but it's certainly unusual Mr Hipkins I think you'll agree—and where there is a lot of work that is required to deconstruct and analyse the bill and a number of members who may not have been in the position at the time that the committee stage started to be able to do that.We found ourselves in a situation last night where that opportunity was curtailed and rushed and I don't think it's unreasonable for the House to consider this instruction so that those who are—and there are many of them—passionate about the provisions of this bill and how it can be improved for their constituents are able to re-state re-litigate re-suggest and suggest new Supplementary Order Papers that will enhance this bill. Now it's a value judgment whether or not members on the other side or other members of the House and the Chair value the merit of that but I'm long enough in this House to remember the Auckland super-city legislation. Never again will we as a committee of the whole House descend to the situation that we came to where 30000 tabled amendments were set. That is not the brand of this House any more. But it is incumbent on all of us to make sure that regardless of the merits or the perceptions of the merits or otherwise of these amendments and the suggested changes that can be made to this bill this is a tax bill. This is a bill that will by far lift the hand of the State into the pockets of the people of firstly Auckland and then certainly the rest of New Zealand. It behoves this House to give every consideration and give every member the opportunity to be able to represent those people in this place so that we can give that bill every scrutiny.So it's not an affront. I don't believe that for a moment. We're a unicameral House. We're the only place legislation goes before the Governor-General gives her assent. We have a very scripted first second and third reading process and we have for administrative efficiency structured the passage of legislation in a way that does reduce the ability for a bill to get scrutiny. This is the place to do it. Yes it is a novel instruction; it may not in itself be unique. In fact by agreement and by leave there have been other arrangements made where calls can be distributed to subject matter experts. That's certainly been the case. It's been a very efficient way to do it. On this bill I would consider all of the members who have put amendments on the Table to be experts in the representation of their constituents and it is very very important to me that we are able to go back to our constituencies and say "We did our best for those people." because this is a significant impost on them financially. The Government has laid out its reasons. It has tried to downplay the fact that in three short years every single region in the country is going to be faced with the possibility of getting a fuel tax coming to a region near them and I think it is appropriate that those members have every opportunity. If they have already made their points and they have more to make who are we to say that is not a valid position? Well actually we are. This is the reason we're debating that. The Government by a majority may defeat this motion but at least let's have this conversation. They thought it urgent enough to go into the House at 9 o'clock this morning setting aside every single select committee every other piece of business that we would be doing Ministers appearing before committees to explain the Budget that they hold in such high regard. But in higher regard is the need to tax Aucklanders and in a few short years the rest of New Zealand so the Government has said this is important enough to set aside that business and now it's for us to decide whether it's important enough to allow every member of this House to have the best opportunity to be able to represent their constituencies and I urge all members to think very carefully before they cast their vote on this instruction motion. We will go back into committee and we will robustly scrutinise it but we should not be rushed. This is the committee of the whole House. This is the engine room where good bills are scrutinised—sometimes bad bills get scrutinised as well and they even get through.Hon Scott Simpson: What role will the Greens play?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well we may well hear about that Mr Simpson. But we hold ourselves up as one of the world's great democracies and I want to see us demonstrate it."