Adams AmyHon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on the most recent tax remedial matters bill we have before the House and as this House will know these bills do come before the House roughly twice a year. They are as usual a collection of a range of taxation matters that need to be addressed and quite often they find wide support across the House. There is a lot in the tax system that when we come to review it—whoever is in power—through the select committees we find commonality on and that is certainly a good thing that I want to see continue to happen. But in this case National will continue to oppose this legislation because while there are a number of matters in the bill that we do support and that we see merit in—and in fact a number of matters that began life and their policy development under our Government and so of course we support them in principle—there are none the less significant matters of concern for us that mean we will not be supporting this legislation as we have not since its first reading. The clue a little bit is in the name in that the bill talks of course about confirming the annual taxation rates and it should be no surprise to anyone in this House or indeed to anyone listening to these debates from home that National and Labour have a very very different view around taxation and around how much tax New Zealand families individuals and businesses should be paying. That is at the heart of many of our economic differences and on this side of the House of course we are very much of the view that the annual rates in this bill are set at a grossly out-of-date threshold rate. They should be adjusted for inflation as they were in 2017 before this Government cancelled those changes. It is wrong to lock in again those rates that now date back to 2010 which are seeing inflation erode the real value of those thresholds so that very soon the average wage earner will be paying a top tax rate and that is simply wrong. National will not continue to see taxpayers miss out year on year as inflation effectively means the Government increases their tax every year. Unfortunately it's not an isolated case from this Government. We have seen this as a Government so that it feels like every day. I accept that it's not every day but certainly a large chunk of what this Government has done has been to introduce and put up taxes. That is not necessary. It is a burden on New Zealand families who are struggling with the cost of living and it is entirely to fund a programme of wasteful untargeted and unaccountable programmes. That's because the Government overpromised in an election campaign made promises it could never meet—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could I just remind the member who's interjecting that he's interjecting from a seat that's not his own. That is in fact closer which is against Speakers' rulings. Hon Ruth Dyson: But he moved for the company not for the advantage. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh well then he should be quiet. Hon AMY ADAMS: Oh then he should have sat up here! This is a Government that has promised far more than it could ever deliver. It got into Government has had an internal Oops!" moment and is now trying to rewrite history around these things being a legacy of what they were left. What this Government was left was a strong economy strong forecast surpluses low debt and an economy that was set to grow strongly over future years. What they've done in that time—and why they need these higher taxes—is they have slowed down the economy they have cut business off at the knees they have put up the cost of living on New Zealanders they have frittered the surpluses they were left and they have still failed to deliver on promises. That's why this bill is locking in tax rates that are far higher than they should be and than they need to be and this side of the House will not support them. The bill also deals with the ring-fencing of tax losses on rental properties. I find it outrageous to hear the Minister of Revenue saying "This is all about fairness." and we hear this a lot from this Minister. When he's got no defensible position he just says "Well it's about fairness." and looks as if that should be the end of the reason. But that doesn't stack up. It doesn't stack up when Mr Nash's definition of fairness is seeing rents going up by $50 a week to the vulnerable people of New Zealand who can't afford it and this bill will make that worse. Hon Stuart Nash: No. Our Families Package have given them $75 a week.Hon AMY ADAMS: Treasury's own advice—and I know the Minister thinks he knows more than Treasury and everyone else though maybe he does on the cyber-security but that's another matter. But Treasury have told them that this will put rents up even further and what does this Government say? "We don't care. We want the tax."—that's Labour's definition of fairness. Well on this side of the House we don't think it's fair to see rents go up $50 a week for those who can afford it the least. That's what this bill will do. Now it's not about fairness when this is the only asset class that this Government is worried about ring-fencing—it's the only asset class. So if an orthopaedic surgeon wants to own good-looking racehorses they'll get a tax deduction. They can set off that loss against their orthopaedic surgery and that's all fine. But if a mum and dad go and buy a rental property to park a bit of money in somehow that's outrageous and needs to be stopped. Well that isn't fairness. That is ideological it is punitive and it will punish the very people that this Government callously pretends to care about. Do you know what else this bill does? It brings these changes into effect far sooner than they should be. Now I acknowledge the Minister at the very last minute—even though officials told us it couldn't possibly be done—for pushing out the start date by a couple of months for the low-value goods in the GST and that's certainly a step in the right direction. But it's not enough Mr Nash. It's not enough. The change should have started at the beginning of the next tax year as is convention but this Government is so money-hungry it wants that money now. So it's starting in December instead of April because they are so desperate to get their hands on even more of New Zealanders' money.On the ring-fencing it gets even worse because the change is retrospective. This is a Government that cares so little for good practice and good policy that cares so little for the people of New Zealand who earn that money that in this bill they're passing retrospective tax law that already applies from 1 April this year. It took effect in April this year even though here we are nearly at the end of June and it's still not law. That's how money-hungry and conniving and desperate to get their hands on your money this Government is. It's not for fairness—it's not for fairness. Fairness would see tax rates continue to move with inflation. Fairness would see a Government that cares about keeping rents low. Fairness would see a Government that doesn't pass retrospective tax law. Fairness would see a Government that treats investing in all asset classes in a similar way. That's not what this bill does and that's why we don't support it."