Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm also keen to dive deep in the weeds on Part 2 of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2020-21 Feasibility Expenditure and Remedial Matters) Bill. But before I do I think it is important that we set out for the record my party's absolute surprise disappointment disgust really at the manner in which the amendments that are the subject of Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 23 are coming to this House. The whole country found out about what is a significant change to the taxing of what the Government calls capital income. It's a euphemism. It's a capital gains tax. We know it's a capital gains tax. We should just call it what it is and not dance on the head of a political pin just because of the commitments that the Prime Minister made to the public of New Zealand about two years ago and the commitments the Minister of Finance made during the election campaign about the brightline test. And I think he was reported in this morning's media as saying something like he overextended. Well that is—Andrew Bayly: No over—Chris Penk: Overly definitive. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Overly definitive. Thank you Messrs Bayly and Penk. That is the cute way to describe it. I could describe it in a far less complimentary fashion.Chris Penk: Within Standing Orders?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: No so I won't. I want to stay for the rest of this debate. But it is what it is. It's a capital gains tax on just about everything but the first home and I have a couple of technical questions about the transitional period between now and 27 March. But I'm fascinated by the regulatory impact assessment and the advice that the Minister received so I have a series of questions about the nature and timing of that advice.So firstly one of the things that our tax framework is built on is a degree of openness and communication with the stakeholders who are affected by it. And as former Minister of Revenue I'm well aware of the IRD's previous commitment at least to make sure that tax agents Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand a number of other groups the subcommittees that have been set up the small business advisory groups the Corporate Taxpayers Group and so on know what's coming down the pipeline are able to feed into it provide technical advice and support and make the bill better as a consequence of that consultation when it comes to this House.As far as I can tell and I'd like the Minister to clarify this it doesn't appear as though there has been any of that. And so my first question is: to what degree were those required to implement this provide advice to their clients and make the bill better actually consulted before SOP 23 came to this House?Secondly the regulatory impact assessment makes a number of references to the deductibility of interest. Now we know that the deductibility of interest is not part of the SOP. The Government has said that they want to take further advice on that. But my question is: why is it there at all? And did the Government actually intend to include in this SOP provisions that would rule out in part or in full the deductibility of interest on residential rental property investment? Thirdly I would like to know when that SOP was drafted and when the regulatory impact assessment was drafted because I think that will go quite some way to understanding how rigorous the amendments that we are having to consider in committee are going to be. Treasury's advice on this was pretty unambiguous: [It's] been produced under extremely tight time frame"—that's the regulatory impact statement—"constraints without consultation or the benefit of robust data and accordingly there is a risk that the analysis is incomplete or may miss key interactions. It represents the Treasury's best assessment of the options identified by the Government in the time available." Well that's code for: "We didn't have any time to get this together. We haven't been able to consult; we're not sure what the impacts are. They could be negative but we can't give the Government and Cabinet any advice on that." I'd be interested in the Minister's comments regarding that process."