Collins JudithHon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to support the motion that the particular part of the bill that's being proposed to be introduced today—Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 13 around the brightline test—be in fact sent back to the Finance and Expenditure Committee so it can be properly aired in front of and with the people of New Zealand but also to get the benefit of the expert advice that we are very fortunate to be able to receive in New Zealand from the tax practitioners and also those involved in the building and construction industry the real estate industry and those who are better placed than many people in the House to actually advise on this matter. I am particularly concerned that the bill which was previously in my name—a very fine bill—Hon Member: That's right. Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —a very fine bill—working on the excellent work that the Inland Revenue Department has been undertaking over the course of some years is proposed to be actually hijacked by an addition which is all about making it harder for people to buy properties in terms of being able to sell them again and to invest in them. I am very concerned because I know that even the brightline test that there is at the moment for two years' ownership has caused quite a lot of administration costs for law firms and therefore for their clients. I know this because as a lawyer lawyers have advised me of this—that it has actually added quite a lot to the cost of doing business. If we take a situation where it makes it even more difficult for those who own properties for up to five years to be able to sell their property when they need to I put it to the House that when we consider these matters that's why it should be with the Finance and Expenditure Committee because quite clearly relationships break down and people's mortgage payments suddenly become less able to be made. There are people who are going to find that they won't invest in property any more. They won't be able to because they can't take the risk that they won't be able to sell a property earlier than five years without taking a substantial hit to what they would have expected. We could say Well surely this is just going to be around speculators." Well who are these speculators? Well actually they're often mums and dads who have got some money together they're in the stage of their life where they want to add to their retirement income and they even in some cases want to be able to provide a house for their children or a child to live in and that child's family. These people are the people who will be badly affected. People who are property developers already pay tax on their sales on their profits. We already have a provision in the Income Tax Act that allows in the sale of a property for a tax on any gain in the value of that property if the purpose was in fact to buy the property for gain. Also of course that becomes available at the moment for anything like planning decisions that have changed the use of the land that can be used. That's been there since about 1976. It's already there. The Inland Revenue Department has made some comments I understand and so has Treasury around the efficacy of bringing in this five-year brightline test. It is absolutely important that the people of New Zealand who have heard a lot of promises about what can be done with housing get a chance to hear some experts and what they actually say about this. I think it is all very well to take some rhetoric from an election campaign and pop it into a bill and then ask for submissions on it in the normal course of events. But what's not all right is to take a bill like this which is very much about obviously the annual rates for 2017-18—which is really a past event—and also around the excellent AIM procedure which is all about an accounting income method for PAYE and tax generally to make it easier for small businesses to be able to operate and to get rid of some of the issues that they have around provisional or terminal tax and hijack it with some form of attempt to skew the market of housing. It is simply not appropriate. When we look at that particular skewing I think it is very important that the New Zealand public not be skewed by a Government that is not interested in having this—Hon Paul Goldsmith: Skewered. Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —skewered yes; thank you—by a skewed attempt to actually use a very convenient method to bring about a major change in tax particularly around the administration of it. Let's be really frank here: nobody who's going to be caught by this is going to be one of your big-time developer-speculators or speculator-developers—or whatever you want to call them—that the Government wants to hit. Nobody will. The people who are going to be caught by this are very much mum and dad investors and it's those mum and dad investors who have a right I believe in this liberal democracy to be heard on what this Government is wanting to do to their assets. I think it is absolutely incumbent—I know it is incumbent—on this Parliament to take a major piece of legislation which changing the brightline test for five years is and put it in front of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I think any Government that is too frightened to do that—too frightened to hear from the people—is a Government that's too frightened to be the Government. This is a liberal democracy and people expect this Parliament to follow its normal course of procedures. When we hear about the need for transparency in Parliament and what we're expected to hear people would like to say "Well hang on why is this suddenly going to be rushed through without the benefit of a select committee hearing?" Now my colleague is not asking for six months; she's asking for one month. What's the problem with having four weeks of a select committee to look at this to get some submissions quickly and to ask the experts for advice? What's so wrong with that? I would contend to you there is nothing wrong with that and that even to attach the proposed brightline test changes to a bill which has nothing to do with the brightline test is actually a cynical attempt to push through and ram through legislation without giving the public of New Zealand the mum and dad investors the lawyers the accountants the tax advisers the real estate agents and the people who have to work and live in the property market every day—why can't they have a say? And the answer that we're getting is nothing really. "Let's shut down the debate on it."—that's the answer we're getting. Why shut down the debate? This is a Government that has been in office for what five months and we are already seeing a tremendously arrogant move towards actually treating New Zealanders who by the way pay the taxes that—Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Oh my goodness! Who's talking about arrogance? Hon JUDITH COLLINS: And the Hon Carmel Sepuloni laughs at that. She laughs at the fact that New Zealanders want to have a say. You know that's her right to do so but do you know what? She can have that right doesn't she? She can say what she wants in Parliament. The people of New Zealand those mum and dad investors they're being told now: "We don't care. It doesn't matter. We're not going to let you have your say. We're just going to do this to you anyway." And if that's what this Government is like after five months imagine what they're going to be like coming up to their three-year limit—Hon Stuart Nash: Transformational—transformational. Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —because that's what this tells us. Business transformation as the Hon Stuart Nash has said is an excellent piece of work. That's why this bill should not be sullied with a desperate political attempt to take mum and dad investors out of the housing market. Who's going to replace them? Tell us that. It won't be other mum and dad investors. It's going to be the big players or else the taxpayers are going to have to do it. Five years is a long time to commit to when you're 65 or 70 and you're buying something for your kids. It's a long time. I think it's really important. Just one month—that's all we ask."