Salesa Jenny; Bayly AndrewClauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to the debate on clauses 1 and 2 the title clause and commencement clause.ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. Well I think this title should change and I'd be keen to put forward a motion. I think it should read Taxation (Annual Rates For 2020-21 Feasibility Expenditure and Remedial Matters) Bill and Let's Smack Mum and Dad Investors Who Happened to Own a Rental Property around the Head" because this is what this bill is about. There is some good stuff in this bill that went through the Finance and Expenditure Committee and we discussed it and debated it and in the main we are supportive of most of the elements in the bill that deal with improving tax arrangements.Obviously we have a deep concern about the tax rates and other aspects as we traverse such as GST on roaming services but the issue around this is this bill went through a select committee process. It was focused on the matters which are taxation and principally the annual rates which is a key bit were debated and required to be debated separately. It looked at feasibility expenditure and there were quite significant changes around that and how they can be carried forward and if they are removed how they can be taken back into account if a business subsequently reinitiates a business where some feasibility expenditure was deducted. There's a whole stack of remedial matters that were dealt with which in mind were highlighted by Ms Barbara Edmonds which are all good—all good—to the extent that we dealt with those in a good manner and I think the commentary to the bill sets out our different views.We have a minority view which specifically deals with our concerns around aspects in this bill. I'm just looking for it here but it's clear and we wrote that minority view at a time when we thought this bill was going to pass through the House and we were going to discuss the matters raised in it. However we were presented today with Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 23 that runs to I think 60 pages. I haven't checked the exact amount but it's a fair stack of pages here with no advance warning. The press as I understand it were given an advance copy at 8 o'clock. The announcement was made at nine. We weren't given an advance copy at 8 o'clock of course because it's all politics. So here we are. We have the media who are given preferential access to this very very substantial SOP about imposing a significant increase in the brightline test from five to 10 years in which of course now makes it a gain on capital asset which is a capital gains tax; and of course deducts the issue disallows the deduction of interest expenditure on rental properties. Now I understand there's about $82 billion worth of debt relating to rental properties. If that figure is right this is a very very significant aspect. There will be many people worried tonight about what this means for them and most of those by far the greatest number will be mum and dad investors who own one rental property. There are very very few people who own three or more rental properties.So that's why I think given what we've had today with this dreadful SOP that's going to reverberate around the market and affect the households and families of many New Zealanders I think to continue to call this bill the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2020-21 Feasibility Expenditure and Remedial Matters) Bill is actually a misnomer because when you consider what the SOP includes in it it is by far the most significant thing we're debating today which is how we're going to smack around mum and dad investors who own one rental property and will tonight be worrying about it going to bed thinking about what will they do when in many cases most of the cases they are great landlords providing great rental properties for good New Zealanders in a market which is perfectly adequate and people are enjoying the relationship in terms of living in a good secure house."