Woods Megan: Telecommunications (Development Levy) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWoods Megan: Telecommunications (Development Levy) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 21 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3749. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I am very happy to take a call on this commencement clause. Mr Chairman with the greatest respect I have listened to your calls to move on beyond the Royal assent but it has become somewhat of a debating point in this Committee tonight around the circumstances in which the Governor-General on behalf of the Sovereign can actually—could they or when could they—refuse the Royal assent. When such questions come up being the hard-working parliamentarian that I am I like to go to the source and consult McGee to see what the circumstances are under which this could occur. I think it is important that we clear up this debating point in this Committee tonight and actually see what the facts are around this. There is no longer explicit statutory recognition of a power to withhold the Royal assent as there was in a previous law. This was admitted in 1986 as being unnecessary. It was felt that to re-enact—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order! Just for clarification for the member speculation as to the inclination of the Sovereign or the Governor-General is not relevant to the detail of this clause. I previously warned all members that we have pretty much covered this ground. So I ask the member to explore new territory take us to new depths in this clause.Dr MEGAN WOODS: Just speaking to the point of order Mr Chair.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Not challenging it in any way?Dr MEGAN WOODS: No I am seeking your clarification Mr Chair and asking for some guidance from you in that there has been a debating point established around whether or not—I am not questioning the reputation of the Sovereign—they could do that. I am just asking your guidance how it is that a member can address what has become a debating point in this debate.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Well fortunately for me as Chair I am the sole judge of the scope of this debate and I have judged that we have traversed that. I believe that it has reached the full extent of the scope in relation to the Royal assent in this matter. We are looking for new territory. If the member has not got any new territory to explore there are plenty of other people seeking the call—Mr Faafoi for one.Dr MEGAN WOODS: Thank you Mr Chairman. I appreciate your guidance in this matter. It is always useful to have your wisdom shared with us. We always appreciate it greatly.In terms of the commencement date on which this bill receives the Royal assent and when it comes in to date my colleague Chris Hipkins has already talked about when that might be. I think there are some serious matters that remain unresolved around when it is and how it is that we treat taxation law in regard to the Royal assent because it goes back to some of the material that was covered. There is a clear intersection here between clauses 1 and 2 around what it is that this bill the Telecommunications (Development Levy) Amendment Bill is called. This is called a development levy bill but in reality this is a taxation bill and as my colleague the Hon David Cunliffe has pointed out in his previous contribution actually there are some very serious questions that we need to ask around taxation law and how that may be treated. Mr Cunliffe raised a very serious point about the Regulations Review Committee and howthis would be treated if it were going through a regular select committee process and how it is that this might have to be treated differently. I think it is important when we are using this mechanism of urgency that we are not circumventing what are some very important conventions in this House and that is that people in this country need to have the peace of mind that they do not have a Government or a Parliament indeed that will pass legislation that unfairly taxes that there are important checks on that and one of those is that—Clare Curran: Shouldn’t be doing it under urgency.Dr MEGAN WOODS: —we should not be doing it under urgency and if we are we should at least be putting some of the normal procedures around it. I know whether or not the Sovereign would give this piece of legislation Royal assent has been ruled out. Royal assent is not something we would ever consider talking about again but I am sure other members of our team here in Labour will have very serious questions that they will need to raise around this very important clause 2 of this legislation being the commencement clause. We should always ask the serious questions of any bill that we as legislators are asked to pass. We should never just think of ourselves as rubber-stampers. We should examine legislation clause by clause and we should always be asking questions especially when we are not going through the proper processes that we would expect of a select committee of this House. So there are important questions to be answered and I invite the Minister in the chair to take a call and to address some of these very very important questions that members have put to him because this is what we deserve as a Parliament.