SpeechDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you. To my colleague Julie Anne Genter that is a good phrase that the Labour Party's doing nothing." So that should stir the loins of everybody up. The actual remedial bill has three main purposes. First it seeks to improve the current tax settings by ensuring that current tax rules are working as intended. The bill though also seeks to modernise the current tax settings regarding Inland Revenue's administration of GST KiwiSaver and social policy rules. Finally the bill would set the annual rates from income tax for the 2022/23 tax year and has to be passed by the end of March or no income tax can be collected. So we oppose this bill in its entirety. The bill still roots us back in the lower quartile of the OECD with regards to tax on a per capita per GDP basis and you can still see and feel the sucking sound of money being taken from hard-working people in New Zealand and deposited in the Treasury vaults or at the IRD. So you know this bill is a classic fix up job. It hasn't allowed for adequate consultation. There's some poor policy decisions in here. ACT will be very strong in its future negotiations in Government with regards to the interest deductibility change; the brightline test being abolished even though our partners in National can't see that as being something they'd even bother writing about in the alternative opinion to this bill. We trust that the distortions that this tax bill has caused to the mums' and dads' property market has been devastating throughout New Zealand and for anybody who is trying to get on in this country you can see that taxation is more important than revenue and the country only works if it's got revenue. So we see this as a regressive tax package; it doesn't drive productivity or growth. It continues to place our country in a place where a young person would want to get on a plane to Australia and make a better living. The tax bill also contains a proposal to give build-to-rent dwellings an exemption from the interest limitation rules for residential property introduced in October 2021. The intent of this proposed exemption is to ensure that the interest rate limitation rules do not disincentivise investment in build-to-rent properties. Owners' intentions are paramount to a stable housing market around long-term tenancy and new stock. So ACT will be lodging a Supplementary Order Paper under the name of Brooke van Velden to the committee of the whole House to adjust all amendments made in the bill which exempt build-to-rent residential properties from interest deductible limitations to all residential properties from interest deductibility limitations.I'd also like to point out to our National colleagues that the Labour Party technically has presented an argument tonight around the GST collection on apps. Technically it's sound however it's bad timing; it's not going to come into law unless the Labour Party win the election which is up for grabs and not likely and it really means that people now have to make hundreds of thousands or million-dollar investments in platforms that they don't even know whether they'll be using come Christmas-time this year. Classically we're bowing to the OECD and we're bowing to external forces to run our country on a GST basis. So you've seen it from the National Party—let's reverse this—but you know people are asking me sitting in taxis at Wellington Airport and Auckland Airport "Are the National Party in the back pocket of big American companies? Do they want to give preferential terms and rates to Airbnb or Uber?" Because a lot of local business people who drive a taxi or run accommodation are getting crucified. I've had emails today from mums and dads—Vanessa and Nigel who own a bed and breakfast in Napier who are absolutely passionate about trying to get to the bottom of this. And this is where the problem is: there's a rule for the big people and then there's a rule that can't be applied for the small mum and dad operators in this country and we've got to get real that New Zealand—that's how people make a living locally. They are worried about the impact on international tourism. They don't know what apps are. They don't know how they apply these things but the big companies do. So I would argue that the National Party needs to go back and think this through because ironically in 2016 they supported the charging of GST on Netflix which—Hon Michael Woodhouse: Yeah Netflix is a billion-dollar company. DAMIEN SMITH: So is Uber and so is Airbnb. And so the big American companies are competing with our local businesses Mr Woodhouse. So I'm just making the point of historically that was the policy platform that you guys had sorted out. So to call it an unfair tax on the people of New Zealand—it's a GST tax. People are asking me if they've got their own businesses "Oh that's good. Can the National Party give us our GST back and then come and buy our services as well?" So you know there's a bit of confusion there on the other side of the House and it's not just about apps and your food coming on a Saturday night which we all enjoy of course. But you know the committee needs to actually think about—in a cost of living crisis this is just a bad look in terms of charging services. But there has to be a level playing field and that is the argument that the Labour Party are purporting to get across to the House.The new set of rules around sole business traders under a $60000 threshold don't have to charge GST on their services—the figure is correct; it's about 8 percent which will actually be the impact. So I don't know if the spokesman for revenue for the National Party has looked at that but in terms of the red tape it seems Uber will be required to hand back 8.5c of each 15c of GST they collect to host and drivers as a proxy for GST would normally reclaim their costs if they were registered for GST. So that arrangement is relatively generous; that means that the Inland Revenue will only get 6.5 percent of each dollar spent on stays and rides by the ways of the sales tax. So I just wanted to clear that up because there is some political uncertainty around that situation and before we plough ahead and start building systems to comply it would be good if Mr Parker could maybe differentiate between what is really mum and dad businesses and operators versus corporations and internet-based models. Because you can have an app-based platform if it is a purely internet-driven business but if it's a mum and dad operator who relies on a phone call or an email or a booking that's very difficult and there should be some further differentiation in that system. So we don't want to be hostage to big American businesses. We want New Zealand locals to have a real input into this issue and because of the nature of the introduction of the app platform after the election maybe it's something we should park and have another look at and get a cross-party support that helps people who want to earn some revenue to actually be sympathetically treated and not just corporatised or OECD-ised but let's put New Zealand first for a change and let's get some sense back into this tax bill. So next year we hope to see a more progressive tax platform. We hope to see from the ACT Party people getting $2200 in their back pocket and let them make their own decisions with regards to how they spend their revenue and to reduce the size of Government spending to allow them to make their decisions. They're sitting at home tonight working through their books cutting their cloth accordingly and why shouldn't Wellington and this bureaucracy be doing exactly the same thing in the backrooms of the Treasury. The Treasury still hasn't reported back yet on the cyclone effect and the moneys that are needed for that and we believe the Government has to find savings and not just tax the future of our children and grandchildren or the existing people today. At the ACT Party we've identified $9 billion worth of savings that can be easily achieved and this tax bill should reflect this in the future. Thank you Madam Speaker."