White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): I rise in support of the third reading of this bill and I come at a time when we've heard speeches from the National Party and ACT and the Greens. It's always a privilege to come after those speeches because it gives me the opportunity to actually think about the principles and values I stand for and what might be different. One of the things that I think we have a duty to do in this House is not mythologise and I want to bust a few myths right now. The first is that people who raise these issues things like mum and dad investors and the tall poppy syndrome are myth-making—this is not what is going on in this House and not what this legislation will do.I want to talk first about the mum and dad investor and the myth of it. I lived at a time when a lot of people because they were wealthy enough to have some capital were able to buy a house and they bought that house because they had the capital plus they had tools like interest deductibility and that interest deductibility meant that they could offset a lot of those costs and the cost wasn't captured because the capital gain wasn't actually captured at any point. Those people are not mum and dad investors. They own a lot of land and what we are actually doing if we don't put this through is we are protecting those people at the expense of others—because there are losers in this system. One of the losers is the first-home buyer. They miss out on these houses. When they are sold under this scheme because somebody wants to invest in housing that house investor will reinvest that money. They will invest it in things like the economy which will be good for us all. They may well choose to invest it in new housing and that will add to our supply. Those are win-wins people because the other house that comes into the market will hopefully go to those first-time homeowners and I'll be pleased to see that happen.So this is not about one group pitted against the other. This is about a piece of legislation that shapes the way that we think and shapes the way that we put investment and after all isn't that what we're supposed to do? We are a Government after all. We are supposed to shape policy that will actually change things that have been going wrong—and that's been going wrong for a long time.I want to talk about another tool in the tool box that's being used and has been mythologised and that is the brightline test. I was disturbed to hear Mr Bayly talk in his last speech about how this would affect people who were divorcing—that they would suddenly be caught by the brightline test. It is just simply not true. This is a main home exemption so if somebody's marriage breaks up and they have to sell their house at that time they won't be caught under this situation. The people who will be caught are people who actually are making an income out of flipping houses. Those are the majority of people who will actually end up having to pay the profit that they make.Another myth that came out today was that for some reason the people who were out of the house for one year would somehow have to pay capital gain on the entire time in their property—that was the implication at least. So I want to put that straight for the New Zealand public—because that's not what the story is. The story is that if you are out of your house for one year and you come into the new brightline you will actually only have to pay the capital gain on the time you were out of the house. So if you have your house for nine years and for one of those years you have been out of the house the other eight years are not ones that are subject to this—it is only profit while it is not your main home. This is a really important thing to get straight because these myths are damaging. We need people to understand what the purpose of this legislation is and it isn't right to put the New Zealand public wrong about that.I want to talk finally about the myth of the tall poppy because this comes into the debate about our tax rates. Our tax rates are very moderate in this country; 39c will be paid by people when they have already earned $180000 and those people who pay that extra tax have been supported in doing so over the last few years by our nurses by our teachers by our supermarket workers who have earned nothing like that and I want to see policies that target those people. I want to see tax policies that do that and I want to see other policies and I certainly don't want to see $8000 for the Leader of the Opposition and $2.30 for somebody who is on the minimum wage. It is not good enough. I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call the Hon David Bennett—five-minute call.