McAnulty Kieran; Watts Simon; O'Connor GregHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I had some questions in regards to the proposal in here around the brightline test and I note the Minister has touched on this a couple of times. But what is of concern is that I actually don't think that it's good enough for the Minister to simply say that we're bringing it back to how things were originally. Well of course a lot has happened since then and we have a lot more information available to us. And my question is specifically around the advice that he's receiving given that even in their own documentation that's provided here Treasury not only suggests that doing what the Government's proposing is the wrong idea; Treasury proposes that they push it out—they push it out to 20 years because what they recognise is as is intended with a brightline test it discourages speculation in the market. And that is particularly the case when coupled with—as has been mentioned—interest deductibility. But specifically we're talking here about affordability of homes and in doing what the Government is proposing it will do the reverse of what the justification was and the rationale behind bringing it in in the first place—even albeit for two years—right when the housing crisis was really getting going to try and discourage speculation within the market. Then as it continued the rationale was to push it out. So I want to know from the Minister you know a bit more detail please than what he has been giving up until now is—I get it. He said that he wants to bring it back to what was originally intended—we understand that—but I think the committee deserves a bit more. In light of the advice that's here in the information that's provided in front of us that says Treasury recommends a brightline test of 20 years and outlining the benefits not only for our house affordability but other reasons as well why on earth is he not only going in the other direction but absolutely dismissing the advice that Treasury their own department who presumably played a massive role in the development of this bill has put in this document?Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Just responding to the member's questions in regards to the Treasury advice I mean as the honourable member will know there are circumstances where departments don't always agree and they come from different perspectives in regards to the application and implementation of that policy. But as I've noted I think on three occasions in regards to questions on a similar matter in regards to this test the intention rule will remain and does remain within the legislation. The point of the intention rule is to ensure that if it is the intent of the property speculator in order to develop that for the purposes of making a gain then they will be captured even if that period of time exceeds the two-year limit. So that hasn't gone away. That remains in place and will be able to capture the aspects in regards to property speculators and that.I think the other point to acknowledge and a key focus of this coalition Government is to reduce the compliance burden on taxpayers. We're wanting to actually get a more productive economy. We want to get a more productive country and one of the ways that you can derive a more productive country is by having a more efficient tax system. And with all these inconsistencies a 10-year brightline test in itself derives significantly more compliance and cost on business than a two year. You don't have to travel too far to get feedback from a number of experts within the tax field that acknowledge that a 10-year brightline versus a two-year derives significantly more compliance costs. And on this side of the House we are focused on making life easier for people to be productive in our economy to earn more income to hire more people and to ensure that that flows to those that need it most.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Look at this stage I'll just indicate to speakers that there has been an indication of a lot of new material to come. We're looking forward to hearing it and a new speaker speaking about a topic that's already been spoken about does not constitute new material.