Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a great pleasure to speak on this tax bill and to see the great interest there is in the broader community in this legislation and this speech. I once wrote a book on the politics of tax the history of tax and I didn't sell that many copies which always frustrated me because the title was We Won You Lost Eat That! a quote from a previous Minister of Finance. I thought it was interesting but it never captured the mood of the public so it's great to have this crowd here today.So what we've got here in this legislation before us is the annual rate of tax and it's worth just having a little look at the tax rates that we have. As you'll be aware on the first $14000 of income people pay 10.5 percent; up to $48000 it's 17 percent; up to $70000 it's 30 percent; and 33 percent at the top. What it represents is a massive redistribution of income and wealth on the basis of this country. So we have the top 3 percent of income earners paying a full 25 percent of the entire income tax that's paid in this country and the top 9 percent of income earners—those earning more than $100000—pay a full 41 percent of the total income tax in this country.So there is massive redistribution going on in this country and why do we do that? Because we value social cohesion in this country. We do want all New Zealanders to succeed and have the opportunity to succeed and that is why we take such a large proportion of the income from a relatively small proportion of the population and redistribute that generously and also invest heavily in public services. It's quite legitimate for there to be plenty of debate about how much redistribution we do in this country but nobody could make the argument that we don't do a lot already. That as I say is fundamentally because this is a decent society and one that is very keen to see that all New Zealanders have the opportunity to succeed and thrive in their lives. So we don't burden poorer families with excessive taxation but we take much more from wealthier families who can afford to pay.It's interesting to note that the tax thresholds that were down for change from a previous finance Minister the Hon Steven Joyce who we're about to hear from soon this evening—those changes to the thresholds which were modest changes dealing with the inflation that we've had over the last few years since they were changed are not going to be happening because of a change made by this Government. They were firmly of the view that it would be wrong for wealthier families to receive some relief from taxation but as a perfect example of the incoherent—morally and intellectually incoherent—Government that we have having taken away those modest tax cuts the next thing they did was offer free tertiary education to the wealthiest families in this country at the same time. How they saw the coherency of those two positions—not being prepared to allow modest tax cuts but also making sure that the wealthiest families in this country do have free access to tertiary education—is beyond me. So that's what we've got.We're left in the situation here on the National side of not supporting this legislation. We don't do that lightly because it's fundamental tax legislation. We usually support these bills on a bipartisan matter but we've decided to oppose it primarily because of the last-minute and highly unusual and irregular introduction of a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) which changes the brightline test for property speculators. We're concerned about that primarily because notwithstanding the many great speeches that have been delivered from the other side in the last few years about not going through detailed select committee processes on substantial legislative changes that is exactly what they've done in this Government. They've introduced a major change to the tax legislation extending from two to five years the brightline test so that if somebody buys a property that's not their own home and sells it within five years they are automatically deemed to be trading and will pay income tax on the profit of that house.I'm just concerned that I seem to be losing the interest of the House but this is important stuff. [Interruption]SPEAKER: Order!Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: What we're getting—and I've got a couple more minutes to go and I just wanted to take you through the details here. What we're seeing is the imposition at this late stage in an SOP of a significant change to the tax legislation which has not had the scrutiny of the House through the select committee process. Nor has there been opportunity for the many New Zealanders who may be affected by this tax change to raise concerns about the details.One of the primary concerns of course is that if you extend from two years to five years the net outcome of it may be that we reduce the supply of residential rental properties which is likely to have an upward pressure on rents. I don't like to have heckling from former members of the House on my right when I'm trying to deliver this tax speech! And I would call upon the Speaker to impose some discipline on the situation here—heckling from former members of the House when I'm trying to make the point that what we have here is an iniquitous tax bill that we won't be supporting on the basis that it doesn't help one jot in terms of dealing with the fundamental issue which is providing more houses so that more New Zealanders can get access to affordable housing. If that is the thing that we're focused upon then bringing tax changes which will as the Government's own advisers have said have the risk of actually reducing the supply of residential rental properties and thereby putting pressure on rents is to me one more example of the incoherent and irrational basis upon which this Government has conducted its Government in the last couple of years.Now I just would make one final point before I come to a conclusion and that is that the National Party's leading member in the scrutiny of this bill in the select committee process was the Hon Steven Joyce. He carried out his duties in that context diligently and with great aplomb and that I think is a reflection of the way that he has spent his 10 years in Parliament and I do want to pay my personal tribute to the wonderful work that he has done. I'm sure he can leave this place confident in the fact that he's made New Zealand a better place for being here. Thank you very much.SPEAKER: Notwithstanding the suggestion from my left from the Rt Hon John Key that the member's time be extended in accordance with Standing Order 360(3) I call on the Hon Steven Joyce to make his valedictory statement.Debate interrupted.