Bayly Andrew; Rurawhe AdrianANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I'd hate to be known as a stray. I'd like to first of all acknowledge and support this motion put up by the Hon Amy Adams because in my view this was a relatively straightforward bill that the Finance and Expenditure Committee took a great deal of time to work through. It's a very complicated bill and it traverses a number of issues. That in itself was fine and there was a lot of agreement within the committee. However this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 13 that was slapped on the table in my view is an absolutely callous and quite deliberate move. At the time that it was introduced by the Minister I too stood and put a motion that this SOP should be debated by the select committee because this deliberate attempt to wait until the select committee had completed its final deliberations after some months of working through the elements of this bill and then to complete its report and within a matter of hours this SOP which goes to seven pages—it's not an insignificant SOP this. It covers I think about 15 sections and it covers seven pages. It's a very unusual and substantial SOP. For me as one of the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee I find this whole motion turned into such a substantial change without allowing the committee to consider that is a travesty.But more than that it raises the question of why a Government would even do this when it says it's been flagging policies but does not allow people to make an input and be consulted on it. I think that's what vexes me the most.I think if you look at this bill—and it actually states in the SOP on page 6 The objective in extending the current bright-line test from 2 … to 5 years is [about ensuring] speculators pay tax on the gains". Now the thing that I think in a contextual way—as soon as you go about making this change without allowing people to be informed of it and allowing people to be consulted on it and allowing input on it we run the risk of seriously deviating from good legislation.I'll just highlight some of the likely parties who will want to show interest in this. The first thing about this SOP: it is likely to have an impact not only on existing housing and ownership thereof but it also is likely to have substantial implications for new houses. Secondly it will have implications for social houses and thirdly emergency houses. Now in the context of what we're talking about today we heard a Government who is saying that they're not about to undertake any new housing until after 1 July until they've got their money. But if you take this bill on face value I now know without even thinking about it too much that the likely parties who will want to be heard on this bill will include Government agencies particularly those relating to social and housing outcomes; councils; property investors; renters and I think the renters will have a lot of concern about this bill; lawyers; conveyancers; bankers and financiers particularly those who already finance houses that people have acquired; and developers. I just think you know there's a list of—what—10 parties who would be almost guaranteed to front up to this select committee if it has the opportunity in a transparent way and make very substantial submissions on this SOP. I just find the issue of why this Government would choose to callously not allow that to take place—because this is not a simple issue. We're not talking about one little SOP. This is a substantial complicated piece of tax and has implications not only for tax which is a purpose of the original bill but also in terms of social and economic and housing policy. I think that just dictates in fact justifies or even stronger than that that we must hear from those people that the committee should have the opportunity to do that in a robust and open way and that the press should be allowed to report on that when that process is completed. This is an issue that will cut to the core of many many New Zealanders who own property or potentially want to own property or are in the process of owning property who may actually now if this SOP is adopted find themselves in significant financial difficulty. So on those grounds alone I think it's absolutely imperative that the committee has the opportunity to do that.I think if this was truly representative—and I believe I remember the words of the Hon Clare Curran who said she wanted to make this party her party the Labour Party the most open and transparent Government in New Zealand's history. I may be slightly out with my quote but words along those lines. How does that reconcile with that statement? It does not reconcile at all. This is an issue that should be before the select committee and the public and should be debated openly because it is quite significant and it demands an approach where everyone can have their say.Kieran McAnulty: Mr Speaker?ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call—Hon Amy Adams: He's had a call.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry I call Lawrence Yule."