Joyce StevenHon STEVEN JOYCE (National): Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this bill. Just to be clear for Mr Nash's benefit given that this bill is literally a bill from the previous Government introduced by my colleague the Hon Judith Collins we are of course keen on its main aspects its main provisions. But can I say it sticks in the craw on this side of the House for the Minister of Revenue to salute the performance of the Finance and Expenditure Committee of this Parliament and then refuse to send his brightline test to the Finance and Expenditure Committee for even a cursory analysis of whether it is the right thing to do or not. This is how shoddily this Government has behaved.That bill was reported back to the House by the select committee last week and one day later—one day later—the Minister of Revenue announces that he will release a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) on the brightline test extending it to five years. That is an appalling way for the Minister to behave—an appalling way for the Minister to behave—to actually disrespect the Finance and Expenditure Committee while at the same time coming down to the House and saying they did a good job: They do a great job but I'm not prepared to put this significant policy change in front of the Finance and Expenditure Committee."I'm sorry but that is appalling from the Minister and it shows that the Government is determined to hear absolutely nothing from anybody as it rushes to extend the two-year brightline test to five years—nothing from anybody. It will allow a short process in the House but no submissions—no submissions from the people actually affected: people who have investments. These are not imaginary people; these are mum and dad Kiwis who have investments in property Mr Jones and others—Hon Stuart Nash: These are speculators Mr Joyce.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —who are not speculators. I'm sorry; for Stuart Nash to sit there and call them speculators is arrogance in the extreme—arrogance in the extreme—because it is not fair to call those people speculators when you will not even invite them to submit on your policy change because you are afraid Mr Nash to hear what they've got to say.It gets worse than that because the Inland Revenue Department doesn't even want the brightline test extended to five years. Inland revenue have opposed the change. They have said that the two years is the better brightline period mainly because this reduces overreach. Treasury notes also the risks of overreach. So the two advisers to the Government—and these aren't just any old departments; this is inland revenue and Treasury; these are probably some of the most senior advisers in the Government—have said to the Government "Don't do this because it will not achieve what you're seeking to do." and it's been ignored by the Minister which compounds the fact that he cynically decided to hold back this policy change until after the Finance and Expenditure Committee had reported back the bill. I say shame on the Minister of Revenue and I say shame on the Minister of Finance for allowing the Minister of Revenue to behave in this manner. If this is the way it's being done then New Zealanders have the right to say "This Government has no interest in protecting our interests whatsoever."There is no urgent need for this. The Minister could have come to Parliament a few weeks ago. This is not a hard change—he said so himself; it's two years out to five years. Why didn't he come at the beginning of the year to the Finance and Expenditure Committee and say "I'm going to propose this Supplementary Order Paper. Why don't you take some submissions on this? Why don't you give the opportunity of the New Zealand public of New Zealand investors who own these properties?" Why wouldn't the Minister come to the select committee and say "Why don't you go out and take some submissions?" It would not have been a hard thing to do.And I'm sorry; I see no other way of looking at this than it is the arrogance of such a new Government to not be prepared to consider other views on something that is so important. These are people that own property that have bought property that have bought it on the basis that they can behave in certain fashions and this Government without even offering those people the opportunity to make a submission has come into this House literally a day after the bill was reported back—one day after; how can you not see that as the most cynical thing?—and brought it to the House and said "We aren't going to take submissions. We're not going to put it to the select committee." This I believe—sorry Mr Nash—is very arrogant at this stage in this Government's life Mr Nash. It is very arrogant indeed especially when the Government's officials—Inland Revenue aren't prone to oppose increases in reach for themselves. It doesn't happen often that Inland Revenue says "Hey we actually don't want these powers you're proposing to give us." They have said that this is not good policy.So again one would think that the Minister would say to Parliament "Yes it is policy." And Mr Jones has rightly said "Labour actually campaigned on it." and Labour did campaign on it. I don't want to go back and talk about the poll results Mr Jones but 37 percent only gets to 50-odd percent with two parties that didn't campaign on it. That's the way that works Mr Jones. And so here we are. We have an SOP that isn't supported by the majority of this House except by a coalition arrangement that comes to the House after it would have had the opportunity to be considered at select committee. That is shoddy behaviour by this Government and they should be ashamed of it because there is no need for it. It is early short-term arrogance of a type that actually you see in dying Governments not in Governments that see themselves as taking up the Treasury benches responsibly.And I come back to the most important point: this is not a theoretical discussion. This is not a theoretical discussion; this is a discussion that affects the investments of New Zealanders. This is not an interesting technical point; this is how they can treat their nest eggs their investments: mum and dad who've bought a second property how they can treat their investments when they sell them. It's got nothing to do with speculators. In fact inland revenue says it's not going to catch speculators. Inland revenue says it's going to overreach and capture legitimate property transactions—that's what inland revenue says. And the Government is determined to hide behind the fig leaf of saying that it's for speculators. That fig leaf is getting very very small.The other thing that this Government needs to be put on notice about is that they are after property investors. They're after mum and dad property investors. It's not just this; this is alongside other issues like negative gearing like a capital gains tax. Again these are real people. To Stuart Nash they might be theoretical people and "It's OK we won you lost therefore you have to put up with this." That might be his view but actually it's not about this side of the House; it's about ordinary hard-working Kiwis who've saved up a nest egg who are behaving in a certain way because the law allows them and who are not getting even the opportunity of submissions to a select committee to be able to consider how this stuff will affect them—not even the opportunity of sending it to a select committee for a discussion.So Mr Nash can salute the Finance and Expenditure Committee all he likes except he's not prepared to send his policy decision to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. He's not prepared to do that. He I'm sorry is running scared of public analysis of this change. He is running scared of being tested by the public on this change. No Government should be like that particularly one that considers itself a new Government. This is the smell of a dying Government already.This should have gone to the select committee. This party will support the bill but we will oppose this Supplementary Order Paper and the way it's been treated. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker."