Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise too to oppose this shortened report-back time for this bill. Fundamentally this is a matter of our democracy. The proposal from the Minister in charge of this bill Phil Twyford represents an erosion of the democracy being exercised by New Zealanders. Now he made a point when he was trying to substantiate or justify his proposal—he made a point around the basis of need. Well quite frankly that is terminological inexactitude. There is no absolute need here. There is simply a desire by that Minister and that Government.So first of all if there was a true need for this to be in place for Auckland by 1 July there would be some sort of calamity that would befall Auckland on 2 July and there isn't. He certainly didn't evidence one. He certainly didn't put one forward. There were no grounds that say that if this is not in place for 1 July the huge negative consequences would be X Y or Z.Furthermore he made a point that Auckland has transport needs and they need to be fixed right now. Well actually it would be a good thing if they could be fixed quickly—that is true. But again it expressed a desire as a need. So if the Minister is going to justify eroding or undermining the democratic process here I think he has an obligation to the House and to New Zealand to be able to articulate the actual need and a need is separate from his or his Government's desire. Quite frankly his and their failure to get this bill into this House in a timely manner does not create a need. It certainly heightens their desire to push it through quickly but it does not create a need.Now in Opposition those members had nine years to work up policy like this even on this policy which they did talk about quite well in advance of the election. They had all that time to do the work—Hon Member: He could have had a bill—BRETT HUDSON: —to get it ready. He could have had a bill written up. He could've done that. He could have had it in a shape and a form where it would've been ready to be introduced to this House very quickly after the Government was formed. But they didn't—they didn't. Their failure to do the work does not create a need that this House needs to address by shortening the report back. It does not.But what it would do is it would prevent New Zealanders from across the country from making full and comprehensive submissions and having ample time to be heard in their views on this particular bill because let's make no mistake about it; it's not just Auckland. While the implementation cannot happen before 2021 the bill certainly does allow for regional taxes across the rest of New Zealand so the rest of New Zealand has a right to have their voices heard—something that the Minister is seeking to remove from them by having a shortened process.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Before the dinner break we were hearing the debate on the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill—the instruction to the committee debate. Brett Hudson had the call. He has six minutes and 45 seconds remaining. BRETT HUDSON: Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I look forward to these precious minutes. As I was saying before the dinner break the Government and the Minister of Transport have not given any substantive reason as to why there is a genuine need why it is actually necessary to truncate the select committee process for this bill. In fact by doing so it has a couple of effects. The first effect is that it doesn't permit potential submitters from right across New Zealand to be able to have the opportunity to have a full and comprehensive submission and a good long look at this bill and how it might actually affect them because in actual fact the framework of the bill can do just that—the mechanisms in the bill can do just that.But the other thing which is the point my colleague Mr Ross mentioned in his contribution is that once you consider inside of the report-back time frame which is Monday 21 May I believe—when you consider that time frame when you consider initial reports to a committee when you consider all of the things a committee will do such as a departmental report going through revision tracks—in actual fact the amount of time that a submitter will have or submitters will have to make submissions on this bill is eight days. Eight days for a bill that has the ability to apply a new tax not only just in Auckland—that's just 1 July—but the mechanics of a new tax across all of New Zealand.Actually New Zealanders will I think be looking at this and they'll be casting their mind back to the rhetoric they heard before the election which was that there will be no new taxes introduced before the 2020 election—except the Auckland fuel tax. No one's going to claim that the now Government hadn't said the Auckland fuel tax but their bill puts that tax in place for any part of New Zealand that chooses to put a proposal forward. So that is something New Zealanders will be concerned about and New Zealanders deserve to have the opportunity to submit on that because it's something that could be very important to them and the Government want to not quite deny it but they want to truncate it so much that the real opportunity will not exist the way that our democracy says it should.The trouble is that this is not the first or only time. Just a few days ago in this House we were talking about how this Government had introduced a new measure on to a taxation bill—the brightline test the five-year threshold. They introduced that the day after select committee—another case where they don't give New Zealanders an opportunity to submit or an ample opportunity to submit on what is a new tax. They again are showing a wilful neglect and disregard of the democratic rights of New Zealanders not just in Auckland—because this is not just in Auckland—but across the country.I have to say that from this side of the House it sounded to me like the Minister thought he was being very magnanimous by deigning not to do this under urgency that by choosing not to do it under urgency as the Government has already done on more than one occasion such as their Family Incomes Package—on more than one occasion they've rammed legislation through under urgency absolutely denying any opportunity for a select committee process for the people of New Zealand—he made it sound like he was doing them an enormous favour by shortening their allowable time for submissions down from the standard of six months to two. He was doing them an enormous favour because he wasn't going to put it through under urgency.Well actually I think that illustrates for New Zealanders just what this Government and their support partners really think about the democratic process and the right for New Zealanders to have their voices heard by the members of this Parliament and have them heard as part of the legislative process. Quite frankly if we reflect back on what is only just a few months of this new—what is it five long months of this new Government but none the less if we reflect back on that what we're seeing already is a pattern forming that this is a Government that doesn't want New Zealanders to have their say as they push legislation through doesn't want to hear their voices doesn't want to give them an opportunity to appear and put their best case forward.So instead what we have is a proposal in the House which doesn't justify a need but clearly expresses the desire of the Minister and of this Government—doesn't express a need but pitches the need as the reason behind truncating a process and in doing so it absolutely undermines our democracy. I oppose this instruction.