Collins JudithHon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I'm actually a little bit sad that we won't be able to support this bill because this was actually an extremely good bill based on not only obviously the tax rates which are somewhat historical but really around the fabulous Business Transformation project that the National-led Government approved of funded and worked with the Inland Revenue Department on so that the whole collection of tax would become far more modern and in keeping with the way in which most people conduct their businesses and far more suitable for the 21st century.I am very concerned that the new Government has taken this excellent bill that was in my name and adulterated it with yet another attack on people who happen to own properties. I say that as someone who was once a tax lawyer and is very proud of the fact that we have a very fine tax system in New Zealand mostly unadulterated by ridiculous political statements and grandstanding. This particular bill has been able to be used as a way of attacking people on the basis that they own property and that they are now going to need to own this properties for five years otherwise they'll be labelled with that dreadful label of speculator".So what I've found with the current Government is so much of their rhetoric is around calling people names giving them labels that everyone can hate and despise and one of those is "speculator". We've heard it around landlords; we've heard it around people who buy properties who rent them out—we've heard about them. It's the politics of envy. It's the politics of attacking people who are not quite the same. It was the same politics around the Chinese-sounding names that the current members of Parliament from the Labour Party and others decided to attack people who were apparently speculators. It is a real shame when that sort of rhetoric comes into a Government or comes into a Government's policy and they actually use a bill like this which is actually all around form and process and procedure to make political points. That is actually what the current Government has done with this excellent bill.Apart from that appalling attack on people who happen to own properties and rent them out this bill has been the culmination of a lot of work from a lot of people over a lot of time. It has taken a big chunk of the Government's budget because we felt that it was a very important piece of work that needed to be done. Nobody is going to vote for a party based on their Business Transformation Inland Revenue project but unfortunately that is the sort of work that needs to be done. It's like the work that needs to go into a house that's not necessarily on show. It's the pipes. It's the electricity. It's the things that actually make things work.So when this bill has been taken and used for the five-year brightline test to apparently ensure that speculators pay tax on gains from property speculation it begs the question that speculators already have to pay tax on property speculation because when people buy and sell properties for the purpose of making a profit they are actually in the business of making a profit and they are therefore already taxable. But what this change to the bill does is it brings in mum and dad investors the mum and dad investors who will now be caught by this and who are going to have to explain and find some way to get around the fact that for instance what if one of them has become sick and they can no longer afford to continue to top up the difference between the interest payments and the rental that they're receiving? Who's going to deal with that for them? Well they'll have to go off to a lawyer they'll incur costs—they'll do all these other things.What it does do is it drives small investors out of the market. This will not make a scrap of difference for big investors because big investors are already working and will continue to work their way around the tax system because big investors can afford to do that. This is actually going after mum and dad investors who come up to the age of 60 or 50 or whenever they decide. They actually want to have some savings for their retirement and they want to be able to get a property whether it's a property for their children to rent. It's these people who will be caught. It's these people who are going to find that if they have to sell their property for some reason—they die lose a job become ill—it's these people who'll have to go cap in hand and ask for exemptions and see what they can get round. Actually it's going to be very hard for them to get around any of that and that's a real shame because it's these people who should be in the market as well as the big investors in the rental properties.The alternative is that the State will actually have to provide all the rental properties. That is no doubt something that the people on the other side of the House will think is a great idea: let's have the State own everything. While representing an area like Papakura let me tell you the State is the worst landlord ever. The State is the worst neighbour ever. One of the things we get a lot of complaints about in my office in Papakura is around the quality of housing provided to Housing New Zealand tenants so don't talk to me about "The State will provide." The State provides not that much really but it takes an awful lot of money to provide not that much. Let the private sector do what the private sector is very good at which is providing housing for people as they always have. Have a look at the suburbs. Have a look at the suburbs that the State has provided. They've provided us with Clendon in Manurewa. It's provided us with Ōtara—now finally coming out of the malaise given to it by "the State provides". Have a look all around New Zealand and look at the worst housing and it's owned by the State. So don't tell me that the State will provide.I tell you that the State will take. It will take from people who should be able to get on to earn a living to be able to invest in property to be landlords to be decent people to care—to care—to go and fix the spouting on a Saturday or a Sunday because that's what you do when you own a place. Those people—the people who don't put up the rent when they should because they're worried about the tenant who's having trouble; the people who mow the lawns. That's something the State doesn't do much of. It's the people who mow the lawns because the tenant either can't or won't do it—those people; mum and dad investors. What's so evil about them? What is it that the Labour Party hates so much?We know New Zealand First hates them because they could be Chinese. We know that. But why would the Labour Party do that? Why would the Labour Party do that? Actually this bill is an indictment as it's been adulterated by this Government—I almost said something I shouldn't say. Ha ha! The reason it's an indictment is because—apart from the fact it's all about envy—this Government said they weren't going to add any more taxes without waiting for their working group to come back. This is a new tax. It is a tax. It is a tax and it's an envy tax. That's what it is. It's a tax against mum and dad investors and it's an utter disgrace."