Swarbrick Chlöe; Belich CamillaCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you Mr Chair. So we've just heard a really interesting argument there laboured by the Minister of Revenue at successive points throughout this debate tonight and by the Prime Minister and other members of the Government and that is that the reason that we are currently debating this is because of the fact that it was taken to the election and therefore it has been widely consulted and the Government has the mandate to just do carte blanche what it wants. So I feel like this is an argument that needs to be properly unpacked because the question needs to be put to the Minister particularly at this stage while we are working through an Amendment Paper—formerly known as a Supplementary Order Paper—to the primary legislation therefore meaning that we have not had the ability to have due scrutiny as is usually applied to all legislation through that select committee process and the usual processes of first reading and otherwise and we are seeing this introduced right now.So my primary question to the Minister is: why is he introducing this inordinately expensive policy with regard to these changes particularly for interest deductibility but also those for the brightline test at this stage through an Amendment Paper through formerly what is known as a Supplementary Order Paper at the committee of the whole House stage without the opportunity for us to have proper public input?Is it genuinely the position of the Minister is it genuinely the position of this Government that they believe that their mandate from the election gives them carte blanche ability to shove things through without due public scrutiny and process? Or is it the case that perhaps he was a little bit concerned about some of the things that economic commentators and economists themselves might say were this to go before select committee namely the trade-offs that this Government is making when it comes to paying for this $2.9 billion policy at the cost of many other things during what they themselves campaigned on—this cost of living crisis? So firstly that question on this vehicle: why did the Government not wait and introduce this in a taxation (annual rates) bill subsequent to the May Budget of this year? Why did it need to be shoved in now through this Amendment Paper to this bill which was introduced by the former Government and has already been through that select committee process? Are they afraid of the democratic process and input of people at that select committee and the feedback that they might have received?Now there are two other areas that I want to explore here which I would really love some feedback from the Minister on so I hope that he's noting these down. The first: with regard to the brightline test changes has the Minister seen any modelling on the uptake in potential property speculation as a result of this clause? That's a key question to the Minister. Has there been any modelling whatsoever either that he's been provided with or that he's asked for from his officials with regards to the impacts or potential impacts of property speculation?My second question on the point of the brightline test for residential land changes: has the Minister seen advice from Treasury which and I quote considers it unlikely that landlords will pass on the tax change through lower rents in the short run as the stock of housing is fixed"? And could he please share that with the committee—that is what evidence is being used to support claims that this clause will put downward pressure on rents if the stock of housing remains fixed? Because again we've heard a lot of weight placed on this "could".To the second area of questioning that I'd like to get into that of interest deductibility some really important questions here. The first is that given that interest deductibility is already available for new builds under the changes that were made under the previous Government has the Minister got any advice whatsoever or has he considered how making it deductible across the board will actually remove the relative incentive for investment in new supply—a really critical point there with regard to new builds.Second question under the point of interest deductibility: has the Minister considered advice from Treasury when interest deductibility was first limited including such advice as and I quote "In general the Treasury supports limiting interest deductions for residential property primarily because it addresses the Government's demand-side housing objective of moderating prices." If so can he confirm or explain how clauses 21D(b) and 21D(c) set out on Amendment Paper 20 won't then have the opposite effect and lead to an acceleration of house prices in turn making housing more unaffordable?CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. It's pleasure to be able to take my first call on this particular bill before the committee. Apologies to everyone in the Chamber really that my desk is such a mess. The reason it is is because this is an incredibly complicated piece of legislation and fitting it all together has proved quite a bit of a challenge.But I do want to talk to Part 2 and specifically to the Minister's amendment to clause 9 in relation to the brightline test and the changes that the Minister wants to bring in on this. This is a really big change and we know that this brightline test has previously been a shorter period of time when it was first brought in by the National Government. But what I wanted to ask the Minister is: why is he changing the brightline test back to two years? Did he consider the impact that constantly chopping and changing with periods of time under the brightline test has in the view of people's understanding of how the housing market works and their obligations in relation to taxation? Because to me it just seems that there hasn't been a lot of consideration for this particular policy.I did look into the definition around main home exclusion and it is actually quite complex. What I would like to just check with the Minister is has he considered how this will be actually put in place and whether there are in fact additional clauses that he should have perhaps looked at when changing this policy back to two years because what is a main home? That is a question that I would pose to the Minister. When I looked at the legislation to try and address this I was unable to find the definition of a main home in the statutes which we have in the Chamber here. There is a slip which says that a definition has been inserted but the definition is not there so I couldn't use that. I had to look up the main definition on the legislation website which was cited before by my colleague the Hon Deborah Russell and the main home is considered to be—the first definition and it's under I think Part Y of the Income Tax Act. Goodness me this is a large Act and certainly makes the deliberations that we are making today complex especially because as others have mentioned we are not in an urgency process but we are in a position of being in extended hours and we are in a position of having this substantial change to the taxation regime in New Zealand being brought about through an amendment that the Minister has put forward at committee stage so there isn't a lot of time to look at the scrutiny of this. But I have attempted to and what I would like to go through with the Minister and have his thoughts on is: is the definition of "main home" in the primary piece of legislation fit for purpose? Obviously this has a huge impact on how the amendment on the brightline test is put forward. Just to go over that main home test because as I said it was extremely difficult for me to find that; I couldn't find it in the principal legislation. But online it is that it is used as a residence by the person a home and is the place which the person has the greatest connection to if they have more than one home.Well that seems a not very specific definition to me. It does seem to be something that could be a little bit subjective in terms of which is the main home and which isn't and when it comes to the brightline test of course this is key in deciding whether there is taxation that is actually going to be due on this particular property. I would put it to the Minister that the period of change between 10 years and two years is exceptionally important when considering that because a 10-year period when looking at someone's main home is a much longer period of time in which to ascertain which is their main home or not.An example that I just read in the Sunday paper is that the Minister himself only spends two nights a week in Auckland at what I would consider his family home. I use that by example to the Minister to say that a two-year period is actually a very short period of time to make that assessment. Ten years is obviously going to make it a lot easier to actually ascertain which is the main home. Did the Minister consider looking at that when he was putting this bill together?I want to just briefly touch on the Treasury response to some of these brightline changes because I do think that they're incredibly important and I'm aware that I don't have a lot of time left in this call but if you would indulge me to just briefly go over some of the changes that—[Time expired]"