Tabuteau FletcherFLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): Thank you for this second opportunity to stand and speak to this legislation. Again I have a question to the Minister in the chair Alfred Ngaro. I am referencing now Minister clause 55B in Part 3 which amends section CB 6A and the edited version in new subsection (1)(4B). I would read it to you. In fact I will read it to you because I challenge you to tell me what it means. The question relates to the brightline part of the legislation. For example subsection (1)(4B)(a) states: (ii) the first date following the intervening transfer if there has been an intervening transfer to a person who is not a trustee: … (b)(i) the earliest date (the undivided date) on which an instrument to transfer the undivided land to a trustee of the trust was registered …" I could continue but I will not.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Oh no go on.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: No—it highlights Mr Cosgrove the ludicrous nature of the brightline section and the brightline legislation that this Committee and this House has had to deal with in the past.One of the great concerns and one of the great issues New Zealand First had on this side of the House was that the brightline test was ill-conceived it was poorly written and in this legislation tonight we have yet more evidence of a confused convoluted piece of legislation that needs continuous rewriting of policy to make it work. I do not believe it will.So the brightline test was speaking about a 2-year period and within that period if you sold a property and made what we will call a capital gain although I am sure I will be argued against on that—and I am still waiting for Mr Bayly to stand up and make his much-anticipated contribution.We were told by nearly every submitter that the brightline test would not work that it would need continuous fixing—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: All of the accountants.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Yes all the experts and all the accountants. I think Mr Cosgrove is right when he literally says: "All of the accountants." Not most of them but all of them told the Finance and Expenditure Committee that the brightline test would not work. I do take this opportunity tonight to reference that clause and those parts to highlight—I do not know—the naivety of the Government in suggesting that this is a solution to the Auckland housing crisis. It is not. It will not be and it will not make one iota of difference.If this Government was concerned about generating more revenue we were told that even then it would generate no income for the Government. In fact it might be cost-positive in its implementation. That is not naive; that is bordering on—well I am not sure whether I can get away with saying it so I am not going to say it with that particular Chair in the seat and respecting the House this evening. But it beggars belief.I chose those particular clauses to highlight the problem that New Zealand First has with the brightline test the implementation of it being continued in this legislation and our frustration that the Government believes—and to be completely honest with you not just believes but uses it to pitch to the public that it is some kind of a solution to the Auckland housing crisis which it absolutely is not.I am giving forewarning to my colleagues on this side of the Chamber: I am about to sit down gentlemen. Thank you."