Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Mr Speaker. Interesting final comments from the Minister and I think I'm going to address those shortly but we will of course be opposing this bill because this bill is all about imposing more taxes on hard-working New Zealand families and individuals. Of course we don't think that's appropriate particularly at a time when many of those people are suffering from this incredible high cost of living that's resulted from Government policies that led to this rapid escalation in inflation feeding through into higher fruit and vege costs housing costs building costs—it just keeps going on. As the Speaker knows—Mr Speaker does know—inflation is currently at 5.9 percent but wages are only going up by just under half of that amount. So New Zealand businesses and people are getting caught because they just have a less amount of money to spend on essential or household items. That's why the tax rates that are enshrined in this bill we oppose them. I want to say that this is a Government that loves to tax. It has this wonderful need to tax because Mr Grant Robertson of course loves spending the money loves spending that stuff—he's addicted to it. Unfortunately much of that spend is in poor areas that don't derive real benefits for New Zealanders. Of course just to give an example of that we've had the fuel tax. Of course now we've got the biofuels proposal to put a bit more tax on our fuel cost even though they're not high enough yet according to the Labour Party; that's not what my constituents tell me particularly my farmers and growers in Pukekohewho do not get a discount for diesel at the moment. We have got the brightline changes we've got the ute tax we've got the interest deductibility—all new taxes coming in. That is why our leader Christopher Luxon proposed revision a reversal of the tax creep that this Government has put in place since 2017. What our proposals are about is not a tax cut it's actually about just scaring back to 2017 and allowing people to keep what they might otherwise have had if it hadn't been for this Labour Government. Taking into account inflation over the last four five long years—gee it's getting to that stage isn't it Mr Little five long years. We propose that we just reverse the tax thresholds to take into account inflation. That would have meant that the first 10.5 percent is normally paid up to 14; it would mean extend it to 15.6—$15500. Next threshold rather than $48000 at 17.5 percent would go to $53500 and of course the 30 percent goes up to $78000 rather than $70000. That means that someone on $55000 would be better off a year by $800. Someone on the average wage would be $870 a year better off and someone over $78000 would be better off by $1000. Of course the Labour members love to misconstrue the figures because we were careful not to make any adjustments to the 39 percent tax thresholds. Of course superannuitants would be better off by $540. What this is about is returning money that has been ripped off them by this Labour Government and that's the central opposition of this bill.The second thing getting back to the issue of interest deductibility; the Minister just spoke about this. He has broken the cardinal principle of deductible expenditure with assessable income. It is a cardinal rule that if you run a business that if you have assessable income—which means you have to pay tax on it—it is only fair and legitimate that you should be able to deduct relevant business expenses off that—Chris Penk: It's called a loophole. ANDREW BAYLY: That's right Mr Penk; my colleague here is just reminding me. He called it a loophole; it's no loophole at all. In fact this Labour Government has broken the cardinal principle. We fundamentally disagree with it firstly on those grounds because then let's say we take this and extrapolate this breaking of this principle that this Labour Government's brought in what does it mean for business expenses now on someone legitimately doing an expense? Why don't we just say you can't deduct the price of fuel? Why don't I say to my growers or the Labour Party should say to my growers: you no longer can deduct the fuel expense from their business. It's just the Labour Party and Mr Parker in particular have broken that cardinal rule and that is wrong. Secondly when we started to ask how many people are going to be affected by this and what is the extent of this the IRD came back and said there were 350000 people who own investment properties in New Zealand—350000. Contrary to what we hear from the Labour members There's thousands of these rampant investors" there's 350000 of which 75 percent or about 260000 claim interest. Of which 75 percent claim less than $30000 a year. Hardly a major investment group out there taking all this money and driving these huge businesses. We hear from the Labour members it's always about these investors and they've got hundreds of homes. Actually by far the most amount of homes are owned by mums and dads who are claiming no more than $30000 interest a year. If you take it away which is what's proposed by this bill what it will mean is that those people will be in a situation where they will not be able to claim the interest. In some cases they're going to have to sell the properties and of course once they sell those rental properties they'll no longer be available to be rented and if they do keep them they've got to bear a $30000 cost. If they don't have the money what are they going to do? They're going to put up rents. This is what the tax officials and this is what the experts said "Don't do it don't do it; it's not good policy."Dr Duncan Webb: They didn't say that. ANDREW BAYLY: Yes they did. But guess what! Labour because they've got a philosophical issue are going to ram this thing through and it means that New Zealand mum and dad investors who on the average own only one rental property as part of their retirement are now going to bear up to a $30000 loss.The other major element is the brightline stuff. Unfortunately the debate on this during the committee of the whole House stage was brutally cut off before we even properly dealt with this issue. What it means the brightline test is that if you are out of your property for more than 12 months during a 10-year period you will have to pay capital gains tax on your property. Dr Duncan Webb: For that period. ANDREW BAYLY: What that does not mean—and I hear Dr Duncan Webb saying it. This is where the practical considerations come into play but of course we've got a Government who philosophically hates landlords and loves the idea of a capital gains tax on property. So if you're in the military and you get posted overseas—like I have two constituents from Onewhero who have been posted overseas on a military assignment gone overseas serving our nation going to be away for three years because that's a normal term to go on a military posting. Of course they're now in a situation their home in Onewhero because they can't live in it because they live overseas in Canada now they're going to have to pay tax on that property. They're not going to get reimbursed during the military posting of course; they're going to have to pay tax. Same with our people in Foreign Affairs. Same with police and school teachers who normally and regularly get posted around the country to get a better opportunity a new opportunity or in the case of the police are literally told to go. Of course now they go away—they may have a place in Pukekohe— a great place to live—and get shifted to Eketāhuna. They want to keep their place in Auckland because they always want to come back to it. But under these rules that have been ill thought through by this Government they will now have to pay capital gains tax because they're out of their home—Barbara Kuriger: Appalling.ANDREW BAYLY: —for 12 months or more and that's what Barbara Kuriger is saying. It is appalling. It's appalling.Then we've got people going to hospital and suddenly finding hey they're really seriously ill and gee they're going to end up paying capital gains tax. And then the worst one is mums and dads trying to support their children into a house. They're now captured under these brightline laws. They will have to pay capital gains on the contribution of the deposit if they do so for their children and that is an outrageous proposition when we're trying to get people into their first home.Dr Duncan Webb: Kia ora Mr Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Ah!Dr Duncan Webb: It's Duncan Webb sir.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): I'm caught betwixt and between and I'm a bit frightened of the other one than I am of Duncan Webb but I'll call Dr Webb."