Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): It's a pleasure to take the last call on this debate. We began the debate by—Michael Wood began it by comparing Andrew Bayly to a Scotch terrier. I have to say that if Andrew Bayly is a Scotch terrier then I think Paul Goldsmith is probably a whippet David Bennett might be a Weimaraner Jacqui Dean a bichon frise Ian McKelvie a spaniel and Judith Collins is of course a sweet friendly golden Labrador. Michael Wood the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee I think is a Border collie—highly intelligent and friendly and he shepherded this bill through the select committee with great skill. I commend him to the House for his work in organising this bill through a long series of submissions and the like. But in terms of the substance of this bill it is as my friend and colleague James Shaw said earlier a response to a changing world. The world has changed in the years since we introduced goods and services tax in this country. As he pointed out we are no longer just dealing with bricks and mortar; we are dealing with goods that can be shipped from anywhere across the world services that can appear almost with the click of a finger as we download books or music from across the internet or other services. In response to that changing world we need to change our Goods and Services Tax Act to ensure that we tax consumption in New Zealand. Up until now we have not been taxing consumption in New Zealand if the goods and services were purchased from overseas. Now we will. That is the effect of this bill and I think it's an important change.In the select committee—as our chair Michael Wood has pointed out—we did shift a little bit on what happened in the bill as presented. We shifted the implementation date for the new way of charging goods and services tax giving online retailers a little bit more time to adjust to the new law. I think that is a sensible change.The other big issue that the Opposition has raised with respect to this bill is the issue with ring-fencing. That too is a response to a changing world. We used to have ring-fencing of rental property losses a long time ago. They were called specified losses and they were actually limited to claiming $10000 of specified losses a year. We lost that particular provision. Then in the meantime our housing market took off and it meant that people could invest in rental properties. They could claim losses they could withstand losses year on year on year—which ordinary business people can't because the money runs out—in anticipation of an untaxed capital gain. The world has changed and we need to respond to that change. The ring-fencing is a response to that change.People can still claim rental losses; it's just that they must claim them against rental profits. It's a straightforward proposition. What that ring-fencing does then is encourage people to invest on the understanding that they will earn a return on an ongoing basis not just if they ever sell the property. So that is a sensible response to a changing world. This is an excellent tax bill. I think it deserves support. It's a shame that the Opposition won't support it because these are just and fair measures. I commend this bill to the House.