Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): There is one item that I can concur with the previous speaker Amy Adams on: when she identified that there is indeed some public expenditure which may be wasteful. Well based on the quality of the arguments in this debate there can be no doubt that the salaries paid to some Opposition members are vastly wasteful in terms of the productivity that that money produces for the public welfare of New Zealand. What we heard from the previous speaker was the same stale old argument from the National Party about tax—the same stale old argument that they've sustained themselves on for years and years. Really it is quite extraordinary when most New Zealanders are absolutely aware of the pressing needs for investment in our social infrastructure in our hard infrastructure to make this a country in which the people of our country have decent housing in which our kids can go to good schools in which our hospitals are well cared for and don't have sewage running down the walls in which we have an efficient transport system and in which we have enough police to keep our communities safe. I think for most New Zealanders the choice is very clear—that they want to see investment in those public services and infrastructure which benefit all members of our community over and above tax cuts which will disproportionately benefit people on salaries of the kind that members in this Chamber enjoy. So I utterly reject all of the arguments made by the previous speaker. It is a stale and old argument the singular obsession with reducing income tax rates at every turn.Of course from time to time income tax rates need to be adjusted and that is not something that this Government rules out in perpetuity. But when one looks at the pressing needs in our communities today this Government very clearly stands on the side of New Zealanders who say that they want investment in public services for the many rather than tax cuts for the benefit of the few. So on those grounds I absolutely support this bill and the provisions which set in place the income tax rates for the year coming forward. No doubt all members of this House will enjoy a vibrant debate about tax policy as we head into 2020 and the election campaign next year.Of course Madam—of course Mr Speaker this bill is not entirely—that was such a smooth transition—about just setting the annual rates for the year ahead. Actually on that count may I just acknowledge the Minister of Revenue for ensuring that this bill setting the annual rates for the 2019-20 year has been processed through the Parliament in a timely fashion. I remember the cycle of tax bills in the last couple of years of the previous Government one of which only passed in I believe March of the year when in fact it had to be passed by 1 April in order to ensure that the forward appropriations would be lawful. So that's a sign of a Government that's running well and a Minister who's on top of his game.More broadly I think we can say because we have a Minister who is running a busy tax programme we've already seen action to ensure that taxation on multinationals is tightened up so that everyone who's operating in this country pays their fair share and contributes to the public good. We see a very busy tax programme that's moving forward and we see some very important measures in this Budget which are about implementing that tax programme and about ensuring that we have a fair and level playing field for all New Zealanders.Indeed I actually think that most members of this Chamber across both sides—although we would differ sometimes in the interpretation of this—would agree that one of the important tenets of an effective tax system does come down to that principle of there being a level playing field that we don't favour one group of people or one particular kind of activity over another. It's in that regard that I think that the changes that have been made in respect of bringing low-value imported goods into the GST net are very very important. I do note that this is one of those provisions that has pretty broad support actually across the House—and let's be clear: some of this work began under the previous Minister of Revenue in the previous Government the Hon Judith Collins. I do think that the House is a little bit the poorer tonight for the fact that—well to date anyway—that member hasn't had the opportunity to contribute to this debate. She usually does speak in the tax debates and makes a good contribution as someone who knows the subject matter and someone who was a previous Minister. I've noticed this week that she is speaking publicly a little bit less. I think it would be great if she was able to contribute in this debate because she has something to add. I know that this is a change that she does support and I believe she would have some warm words to say about the work of the current Minister—Hon Ruth Dyson: Who's that?MICHAEL WOOD: —the Hon Stuart Nash. I'm talking about the Hon Judith Collins a member who you know despite policy differences we on this side of the House admire as a competent person who does speak her mind and has some clear political principles. But coming back to the current Minister the Hon Stuart Nash this is his bill and he's picked up that piece of work in terms of making sure that low-value goods imported into our country—mainly through online shopping these days—are treated on a level playing field. This is an issue that has been bubbling around for a really long time and it's become more of an issue as more of us do our shopping online. Groups like Retail New Zealand have spoken very strongly about this for example. The lack of a level playing field now is most evident of course because you know that if you go down to the local bricks and mortar store at your local mall or on the high street and you buy any kind of good you will pay 15 percent GST on that. With a few clicks of the mouse potentially you can find that same good online buy it from a purchaser who hasn't necessarily invested in that hard infrastructure and supported the jobs in New Zealand and you don't have to pay GST on those low-value goods at the moment. So this provision simply ensures that person A who buys that good from the local store and person B who buys that same good from a retailer or a market place online are treated in the same way and both purchases have 15 percent GST applied to them. It is level playing field stuff. It is fairness stuff. I believe that most members of this House will support that.I want to speak briefly on one of the other major changes in this bill: the provisions around the ring-fencing of tax deductions on rental properties. This ensures that those deductions can't be used to reduce income to be offset against other forms of income. The deductions can still be carried forward they can be applied to other rental properties but they can't be used to offset other forms of income. We know that the current provisions which do allow that to happen effectively give those who are investing or speculating in the property market certain financial advantages over the young couple who are turning up to try and buy their first home. This is about a level playing field as well. We want that young couple—the owner-occupiers whoever it is—to be on a level playing field. We don't want them to be out-competed by investors or speculators because they have an inbuilt advantage through the tax system. That is not something this Government supports and that is why we have moved on this issue.I'll repeat something that I said in my earlier contributions on this bill and that is that this Government has been taking a sustained approach on this issue. Last year we increased the brightline test to five years and there was much hissing and screeching about that about how ineffective that would be. We've made sure that foreign speculators aren't allowed to be swooping up those houses for investment purposes to the detriment of Kiwi people who want to buy their own home. These measures are beginning to make a difference. We're seeing a stabilisation of house prices in major markets like Auckland. We've seen the proportion of first-home buyers actually begin to go up after crashing for about nine years under the previous Government to the point that we got to in 2017 when we had the lowest rate of home ownership since 1951. That was the record of that previous Government. So this Government is very proud of the fact that we are taking decisive steps on this issue to actually give those Kiwis who want to get into their own home a fair go.This is a good bill. It addresses a number of matters in our tax system. I just want to touch finally on one other change that the Minister spoke on—with a bit of passion actually—in his address. Those are the provisions allowing the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to have some discretion in exempting a small number of people mainly women who have been victims of sex offences from having to pay child support. I think virtually all of us in this House would agree that it is unconscionable that we would have victims of serious sexual crimes who were put in that position because of an inflexibility in our tax laws. It's something that would be difficult to actually legislate around but I think that most of us in this House know the competence of the Inland Revenue Department and believe that it's an appropriate area for them to have some discretion to ensure that tax is implemented fairly in that respect which is the fundamental principle of this bill which I do commend to the House. Thank you.