Collins JudithHon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Mr Chair—Madam Chair sorry. Apologies—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): That's all right.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —for the wrong gender.This particular part of the bill is one which we would normally wish to support particularly when the work was done when I was the Minister of Revenue by the excellent people at the Inland Revenue Department. I am however deeply concerned that this bill is being hijacked and to hear Minister Nash who's just resumed his seat speak in such glowing terms about all the money that they expect to get from it tells me that this is definitely a Supplementary Order Paper that's been attached to this particular part of the bill that should go to the Finance and Expenditure Committee and should be properly debated. It's all very well for the Minister to say Well the brightline test was debated under a previous bill." but the problem is that this is a different brightline test. The effect is far more wide ranging and far more intrusive on New Zealanders. I think there's also a good opportunity in a select committee for the administration costs of having to administer this new tax that Labour wants to bring in to be considered.I well remember that there's been the Tax Working Group that's been set up and I have been assured time and time again in the Parliament that there will be no new taxes before this Tax Working Group reports back. Well here's a brand new tax now that's set to come in and no one gets to have a say. So what happened to the Tax Working Group? This is just a working group to find even more ways to tax. There was nothing in the contribution from the Minister about how to grow the economy and nothing in that contribution about how to grow the number of houses that can be built. There was nothing in that contribution about everything that people should be considering which is how to actually grow the economy. What it was all about was "Let's take $50 million off mum and dad investors because they've got too much." It is yet again another attack on people who pay their bills save some money put themselves at risk and actually want to invest.I have no problem with people who are in the business of buying and selling houses paying tax. They are already taxed under the Income Tax Act. They already have it and I recall from my days of university learning and doing a Master's in taxation studies at Auckland University that it was I think about 1976 when that came in. It was maybe a little bit later than that but it's not that far off. It was certainly in that decade. It's already taxable. The point that the Minister may wish to make—and no doubt is now wishing he had made—is: if only we knew that people are buying and selling properties then we'd be able to tax them if their purpose is to buy and sell properties.Well under so many of the changes that our Government made around the administration of tax and the huge input and funding that we gave to the Inland Revenue Department around the digitalisation of so much of what they do all of these sorts of things would be much easier to pick up in the first place. I am very concerned that such a substantive and substantial change to our taxation system is being brought in and if I wanted to be dramatic I'd say just before dinner time on a Tuesday with no notice at all to the public. But I'm not going to be dramatic about it; I'm going to say quite clearly that this is another attack on mum and dad investors and people who are the small landlords. So much of what this Government does is actually about attacking those very people who are the backbone not only of our economy but also of our communities. These people deserve a lot better than the cursory "Well we looked at it once before and you had your opportunity to have a say then."When I think about just how hard it is for people to get themselves in these situations it's all very well for the Minister and some of his ilk to say "Well they shouldn't be investing in property. They should be investing in shares." These same mum and dad investors invest in property because they can see their investment. It's not that they're after super profits; it's because they have an investment where they can see what it is. They've long seen through the booms and busts in the sharemarkets and they don't know enough about the companies in many cases to feel that their investment can be safe. They've lost money when they've lent into mortgage funds where they'd been offered high interest rates; they lost money in the global financial crisis; they lost money in mezzanine financing firms where they were being paid substantial amounts of interest; and they've lost a lot of confidence in many of the market solutions working for them.I see nothing wrong with a mum and dad deciding that they are going to buy another property and that they're going to rent that property out because it's going to be their nest egg. I don't see anything wrong if one of them gets ill and they suddenly can't work or whatever—one of them can't work—with them deciding that they need to sell that property. They haven't set out to make squillions. They've set out to build an asset and also to provide housing for someone else. What happens when these mum and dad investors go out of the market is not only do they lose an investment but actually as a Government that should be concerned about housing people and making sure that there is enough houses rental houses—rental houses—Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: It's about thankfulness that we've finally got one.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Rental houses Mr Lees-Galloway—rental houses. Why shouldn't these people these mum and dad investors be a landlord if that's what they want to be. Why shouldn't they be that?Hon Member: Why not?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: And why not? Why should they go into this now thinking "Well if something happens if one of us has a heart attack if one of us can't invest any more we're going to end up having to pay when we sell the property tax on that." Well actually if they went in with the purpose of making money they won't. Does this mean for instance—I think it's a genuine question; not all property goes up all the time. Anyone who's had any experience—Dr Deborah Russell: In that case you don't pay tax on it.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: And there's the person from New Lynn who's got a view and she's often on Twitter with very strange views but anyway. Often properties go up and down in value. Anyone who's been through the 1990s the 1980s the 2000s will know that these are often seven-year cycles or thereabouts. Just because a property has gone up in value doesn't mean to say it won't come down in value. A lot of that's dependent on supply and demand. It's also dependent on interest rates and other things.So these mum and dad investors if they have to sell their property within five years for some various reason and they take a loss are they now going to be able to claim back against their tax the loss that they've made on that property? I'd love to hear the Minister on this. Is he now opening that up to them? Because clearly he's decided that they're all in a business. And should one for instance buy a property a new property—new houses often don't go up in value to the extent that some people might like. Many of them after an entire subdivision actually they start to drop in value and that is actually the history of it all. It's so good to see the Minister's now seeking some advice from his officials. I think that's an excellent thing. But I think he should've done that before he came to the Chamber to discuss it.I think it's one of those areas where people need to understand we could actually end up with a massive liability in tax if in fact properties start to go down in value. Everything I've heard from the Hon Phil Twyford is that he is not going to do anything except bring down values. That means a lot of people having to sell up quite early and I think they'll be quite legitimate in coming forward and saying "Hang on you've decided I'm in a business. I am. You can pay the difference.""