Tabuteau Fletcher: Taxation (Residential Land Withholding Tax GST on Online Services and Student Loans) Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTabuteau Fletcher: Taxation (Residential Land Withholding Tax GST on Online Services and Student Loans) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 03 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10735. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): It is always a pleasure to stand on an evening such as this one to be speaking for the only party in the House opposing token gestures and waste-of-time legislation that achieves nothing. You think I am just using my own words but those are quotes from most of the accounting firms in New Zealand.I will get to the detail of that soon but first of all I would like to acknowledge the Minister Michael Woodhouse. What a detailed comprehensive and lengthy contribution he gave to the House tonight. It was certainly certainly appreciated by the members on this side of the House.Andrew Bayly: And you probably learnt a bit.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: It was elucidating Mr Bayly. Mr Bayly it most certainly was. As for Mr Bennett it is always a pleasure to see Mr Bennett stand up and make a contribution in this House. I will tell you why. It is because every word he says makes any National supporter question why on earth they are supporting the National Party when Mr Bennett speaks—on just about anything actually. His contribution as always as the chairman of the Finance and Expenditure Committee actually spoke about nothing to do with the legislation at hand tonight. It was wonderful—it was wonderful! I was sitting there and Mr Bayley said that he would speak to the student loans element of the legislation. So I was sitting there with bated breath and then he stopped. It was 30 seconds of build-up and then huge disappointment because nothing actually came of it.But can I speak to this omnibus bill. I just want to say that there seems to be no rational reason why these very disparate parts of legislation are joined together in one piece of legislation. They are very distinct. Had the Government done its job properly and actually submitted legislation on those parts New Zealand First would actually have been standing here tonight and on whatever other nights it would have taken to support two-thirds of the legislation. We think that in all parts the Government has not gone far enough but actually in two parts it is almost there. So let me speak to those piece by piece.GST on online services—I have actually had to go out because of the nature of this omnibus bill to retailers and small businesses and explain our stance on this legislation. We absolutely support the necessity to level the playing field for New Zealand business. It is an absolute necessity. We have gone out there and we have talked to business.I have said it in this House before that the Government’s apathy has been hurting New Zealand small business for the last 9 years. We have seen businesses close up shop. We have seen businesses dismiss staff get rid of staff because they literally cannot compete on what is supposed to be an even playing field. That 15 percent may not sound like a lot to you and me but it is when you are talking margins of certainly less than that of most small retail operations—the margins on most of the products in those shops are minuscule. So having to have that 15 percent disadvantage has been holding back New Zealand retailers for a long time. I am sure the members on the other side will agree that as the internet capabilities expand and as New Zealand consumers become more savvy in their buying habits they see that difference and their buying behaviour reacts to the advantage afforded to foreign corporates essentially. Why has this Government which small businesses see as an advocate and a spokesperson for them taken 9 years to get to this point? Can I say that it is a half measure at best.I will just try to find a quote here from several of the contributors who spoke to the Finance and Expenditure Committee: “The bill further delays addressing the issue of low-value goods which is a longstanding and significant problem that disadvantages domestic retailers and has negative repercussions for the whole economy.” This spills out not just to our retailers but to the whole economy. We are talking about closed shops and staff members being fired from these small businesses for lack of a fair competitive playing field for New Zealand businesses. There is no dispute about the fact that that level playing field has been tilted to the advantage of the foreign corporates. It just makes no sense whatsoever. What New Zealand First says is that if that had been a piece of legislation unto itself we think it is a step in the right direction.We think the arguments against a full implementation for intangible and tangible goods do not make sense in terms of customs funding. They do not stack up. Given the likes of Amazon and other online retailers being ready and geared up to implement our GST at the click of a button we think that it could have done it straight away and maybe 95 percent of those goods could have had GST placed on them and the level playing field would have been a meaningful one in terms of The Famous Five—the book or the e-book. It is a half measure and as submitters noted it does not go far enough and we are just going to wait for years more for that playing field to be levelled. It is just not acceptable and it is not right.New Zealand First cannot support the residential land withholding tax legislation. The brightline test is actually a new capital gains tax on top of an existing capital gains tax that everyone on that side refuses to call a capital gains tax for some bizarre reason. Mr Nash spoke eloquently about the intent of the existing legislation and that is the reality of it. New Zealand First would argue that the empowerment and adequate resourcing of the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) to enforce existing legislation would have been a huge step in the right direction of addressing the issue of ludicrous housing prices in the Auckland market. We have seen it.So this is the third part of the supposed triumvirate of brightline legislation. We have seen the implementation of the first two parts and what we have seen already in the Auckland market is that there was a slow-down. There was an initial reaction to those first two pieces of legislation and the market actually slowed down for a very brief period. But those foreign investors saw what the requirements were and said: “Don’t worry about it. Let’s go back full swing. It’s not going to affect us we can get around this—no worries whatsoever.”So the housing market in Auckland continues to spiral out of control and what we are seeing is that spillover outside that super-city region down into Hamilton down into Tauranga and even into Rotorua my home electorate. So it is a non-attempt—a non-attempt—from this Government to deal with a very very real issue. We cannot support such a token gesture. Empowering the IRD like I said would have addressed most of the issue and would have had a meaningful impact on the continuing problem especially in Auckland.This bill is flawed. It is half measures in all parts and as such New Zealand First cannot support such a waste of time for this House. It is a token gesture to allow for managed spin. It is a spin campaign so that this Government can say it is doing something which it absolutely is not. It is not dealing with a very real issue with meaningful legislation. We cannot support this bill. Thank you.