Patterson MarkMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Well I'm not sure what rapacious" means but I think we'll own that with a badge of pride if it comes from Mr Bayly. Aren't they lions in Opposition? Aren't they absolute lions in Opposition? They had all the time in the world to do all the things that they're talking about now and they did none of it. They did none of it. In fact they did exactly the same things as we're looking at doing in terms of excise tax on fuel as we look to pay for vital infrastructure. So don't come at me with these crocodile tears the National Party. You had your chance and you did nothing. We are a responsible Government and we do realise that we have inherited a massive infrastructure deficit. We've got—the hospital in fact in Dunedin down our way a very very good and much-needed build. One of the stats that I always find absolutely extraordinary when the Hon David Clark talks about investment and health infrastructure is that in 2015 and 2016 the number was zero—a big fat donut. We didn't invest a single cent in rebuilding our hospitals and henceforth we inherited hospitals with sewage running down the walls. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Now can you come to the bill? MARK PATTERSON: So that's in terms of where we're setting these—Matt King: That is rubbish and you know it. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! I'm going to give a warning to both Mr Patterson and Mr King. When you use the personal pronoun "you" or "your" you're including the Speaker into the debate and I'm warning both to cease. MARK PATTERSON: Thank you Mr Speaker—taxation rates within this Taxation (Annual Rates for 2019–20 GST Offshore Supplier Registration and Remedial Matters) Bill. Of course no talk about infrastructure—of course the rail network that we are investing in the Budget just gone and Mr King we will make Northland reach its potential. Our social services our mental health services—we can't do these much-needed things without raising some revenue. The reason why there's a lift in tax overall in terms of the quantum is actually because we've got a growing economy. When you've got a growing economy when you've got growing wages that are rising faster than inflation you do start to raise more revenue and it does start to give you some options. We can rebuild our public services our police force and our teachers. We can start to address the pay claims that have been languishing for years and years and we can have a military that doesn't have 60-year-old planes breaking down all over the place. So this is an important piece of legislation because it does allow us to do the things that we need to do for this country. So the bill—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! I'm going to ask the member to speak specifically to the bill. It's a third reading on the bill as accepted by the committee of the whole House. Those points that you've been raising are not in the bill. MARK PATTERSON: Thank you for your guidance Mr Speaker on that. There's two significant changes in this and of course the GST being collected on international transactions is absolutely essential for our small businesses. Particularly in our regional economies and towns they're not often big businesses; they are often very small and just struggling to eke out a living. They are at a 15 percent disadvantage against online retailers and many of the massive outfits like Amazon that are coming to New Zealand. We need to level that playing field. It's actually just a sense of fair play a fair go. New Zealand First as a very egalitarian party absolutely stands behind our small businesses and giving them a fair go against these international traders. Of course there are 26000 of these small businesses and they employ 62000 people so it is a really important part of our economy and we should not be handicapping them. We've had the IRD—we've had some work on the computer system here that's allowing us to do a lot of this work and I see just reading through the papers that we're getting a 10-to-one return on the money that's been invested there. These IT upgrades have been valuable; it means we're actually able to be a lot fairer because we're collecting the tax that we're supposed to be getting and we don't have to be raising rates to get it. So there has been some comment that we have delayed by a couple of months and it was suggested by Amy Adams that we should put that out to the end of the financial year. But why should we put it out to the end of the financial year if we are in a position of bringing it before Christmas so our retailers are back on a playing field in their absolute peak season? We should be doing that and we are doing that and the Minister should be congratulated. I note that in Australia where they brought this measure in they have raised four times the anticipated revenue so it does show you how big the online part of commerce is now. We're putting our main street mum and dad retailers back on an even footing. Then of course we look at this ring-fencing of the losses and I don't share the view that was put forward by the previous speaker Mr Andrew Bayly. I think that you shouldn't be able to write off these losses. If you're making investment for the tax deductibility or because it's tax efficient then probably it's not the best investment in the first place. It should be cash-flow positive and if it's not then you shouldn't expect the taxpayer to subsidise a poor investment or an over-leveraged position. We've got a massive—about $260 billion I think in residential property. It is actually a huge structural risk to our economy the amount of money we've got lent into the property market. So I think a measure like this that makes people invest wisely not investing for a tax break or a tax subsidy essentially works out as a sensible measure. It's good for the investor actually to take that away. It doesn't encourage them to over-leverage; it makes them choose their investment on its merits. Housing affordability has been one of the huge issues and I'm absolutely staggered that we get in Auckland particularly—we've had house prices at a million dollars. We have had a Government previous to ours that has not taken any action at all—been asleep at the wheel at that point and let prices get to a million dollars. How on earth does a family on an average wage afford to buy a million-dollar house? Keith Holyoake used to talk about New Zealand being a property-owning democracy and that was one of the great fundamentals of our society. We are trying to bring that back. As Mr Wood mentioned in his contribution we've got the highest proportion of first-home buyers in the market now. We've taken the overseas speculators out—81 percent decline in overseas buyers of housing in our property market—which is giving our people and our first-home buyers and our young families the chance to have their own home and a stake in our country.So we think that ring-fencing losses is just another part of the measures that we've been bringing forward—of course the extension to the brightline test to stop flipping properties or at least dissuade people from doing that by making that taxable if you're doing that essentially for income. It was at two years; it's gone out to five years. That's just another measure that we've taken as part of a package and I think Minister Nash is doing a great job in that revenue space. He is making it a much fairer and more balanced taxation system that's collecting from a broader base so that we can afford the social services that we would aspire to; so that we can afford to have a First World public health system and upgrade our rail have planes that are not 60 years old and have some respect out in the international community; so that we can afford to have our diplomats out there negotiating trade deals—all these good things that we are able to do and we are doing as a Government with a measured and balanced taxation policy and settings.We certainly have no hesitation here in New Zealand First in commending this bill to the House. Thank you."