Goldsmith Paul; Williams PotoHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you very much for the opportunity to talk on this bill here. Look we have in this country a long-established framework for the development of tax laws and this last-minute Supplementary Order Paper 13 changing the brightline test from two to five years is moving outside of that basic framework. I think it is very disappointing from this new Government that's come in with all sorts of sanctimony around how it will be an open consultative Government—they'd create a new style of Government they'd be always engaging and open and transparent—and what do they do when they get into Parliament? They bring in significant changes to important legislation like this which will have wide ramifications on the economy and they have made a cynical decision not to take this back into select committee so that Parliament can have a reasonable chance to have a look at it.So just to remind people who've been watching what we've got here is a significant change to the brightline test when it comes to people trading in properties. The previous Government brought in a two-year brightline test and at the last moment the Government has introduced a change to take that from two to five years. Now we see that the clear advice from officials is that this is a bad idea and certainly you can argue about that. Of course no Government is obliged to take all the advice it has received and just agree with it but you would think given the strength of the concerns raised by both Treasury and IRD officials that the Government would take the time to consider this fully.I mean I look at for example some of the comments from officials around the possible impact: extending this brightline test to five years might have a reduction in the supply of residential rental properties and anybody in the country knows the pressure that the rental market is having at the moment in terms of supply. So one of the real risks of this move is that due to the reduction of speculators and investors buying and renting out property it's likely to put upward pressure on rents and higher levels of homeownership among former renters is unlikely to completely offset the pressure on rental prices. This is because owner-occupied homes typically have a lower occupancy rate than rental homes so the reduction in the supply of rental housing caused by some investors exiting the market will probably outweigh the reduction in demand for rentals.So that's just one example where the Government is taking a plunge on a significant move. We don't know what the consequences of it will be. There's certainly many signals from officials that they could be negative—they could have an impact in reducing the number of properties available for rental which is a major issue in our big cities at the moment. What they've done in terms of process by introducing this at the last moment without the ability for the select committee to take it through carefully and have a considered debate about the merits or lack of merits of this change I think is a disgrace.On that basis while we support the overall bill we're not at all happy with what they're doing here and it sends a powerful and negative message about how this Government will operate. I just hope that before long they'll change their ways.Paul Eagle: Thank you Madam Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I haven't called the member yet. I understand—you can stand. I understand this is a split call. Paul Eagle you have five minutes.