Edmonds BarbaraHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Madam Speaker. We have spent a bit of time in this House debating this particular bill very much so because of the changes that have been introduced through the Minister of Revenue's Amendment Paper. Those changes that came through that Amendment Paper have seen that this side of the House will therefore not be supporting this bill.When this bill was introduced it was a good bill. At the first reading of this bill we had members who are now on the Government side not supporting this bill. They didn't support this bill because one it increased the trust tax rate. The Government members who were in Opposition at the time opposed it because they didn't want to see an increase in the trust rate. Members on the other side of the House also said—and I do want to quote from the Hansard—Increasing the tax rate from 33 to 39 percent is yet another tax grab." Oh how two readings later and a committee of the whole House debate changes—oh how that changes—because what we have seen through the Amendment Paper that that Minister has tabled is the dream of homeownership for everyday Kiwis disappearing disappearing in a boat that is going offshore to Australia where they can get higher wages where they can at least fulfil the dream the Kiwi Dream of being able to own your own home.I know the Minister has spent some time in his speech addressing it. He says that property is more attractive as an investment opportunity as part of this bill. He also makes the statement that it's to make it more productive. Well I have news for the Minister: we don't want property to be an attractive investment opportunity because we want everyday Kiwis to be able to own their own home so they don't have to be tenants so they don't have to be subject to the uncertainty that comes all at the power of their landlord. Yet we've heard from the other side of the House that the reason why they want to bring these changes in is so they can have tax cuts. But what's the point of tax cuts if you can't afford your rent? What's the point of them?We are seeing $2.9 billion as a result of this bill go into the hands of landlords and therefore making the dream of homeownership for everyday Kiwis—for everyday Kiwis for young homeowners for older homeowners the inability to own their own home all because of this bill. But yet that's $2.9 billion—$2.9 billion—that cannot go into lunches in schools for children $2.9 billion that cannot go to help the disabilities community have more access to reprieve to help more with wheelchair services. That all goes with this bill because $2.9 billion is needed for that landlord tax break. I am outraged by this. We should be supporting everyday Kiwis to get on the property ladder everyday Kiwis so they can be their own king or queen or he/she or whatever pronoun they want to be for their home. Yet what we have done through this bill is make it easier for property investors to outbid them because there is a tax advantage in them being able to have interest deductibility as a result of these changes. They have the tax advantage over an everyday person who does not have investment property who is trying to get on the ladder. They have a tax advantage over them and yet the Minister says it's so that it makes it more productive.Well guess what! A house is not going to produce anything other than that house and if a person if an investor doesn't buy the house the house doesn't disappear. The house stays there; someone else can buy that house. Maybe someone else like the young couple who've just got married who would like through the support of their family to get on the homeownership ladder but the interest deductibility changes in this bill have basically disadvantaged them. It has given that advantage back to landlords who will have a bidding advantage over them because where do everyday Kiwis who are not property investors get their interest deductible? They don't. So there is a saving there for a landlord that will then outbid an everyday Kiwi.The other aspect that the Minister says is that there will be more construction of housing with the reduction of the 10-year brightline down to two. Well guess what? In the last few years where the brightline test was either five years or 10 we had the highest consents ever—the highest consents applications for people to build homes—and now we are starting to see consents coming down and yet they want to change this to two years. So I don't think that marries up at all. I don't think the amendments in here marry up because actually when it was 10 years we had the highest consents and now it's coming back down to two. Basically all that allows is for a property investor or a property speculator to flip the properties faster but then they can flip them faster to the other property investors or speculators because they now have a bidding advantage because of their interest deductibility being removed.So I do not support this bill. This side of the House the Labour Party is fighting for everyday Kiwis—for that young couple for that middle-aged person for those people who do not own a home so that they are not beholden to a landlord so they can become the person of their castle that they want to be because they own it. I think it's shameful—absolutely shameful—that members of the Government want to support a bill that gives a bidding advantage to property investors when we have such low homeownership rates. For myself who is a Pacific person we have one of the lowest homeownership rates in this country. For those who are Māori they have one of the lowest homeownership rates in this country. But all that this Government wants to do is basically say to all those who do not own a home "We're going to make it harder for you—Tim Costley: You made it harder.Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: —so much harder for you." And that member on the other side likes to say we made it harder. Again I'll go back to the evidence that we had some of the highest consenting in the last six years. I bet you if you dig a little bit further into the data that the first-home ownership has actually increased. So if that member would like to have a discussion about the correlation between the ability for a property investor to be able to have the tax advantage of interest deductibility come to the House with a proposal that allows therefore the average Kiwi to have interest deductibility for them so then you can be correlating then you can have alignment. But that's not what we're seeing from the other side of the House.So I do not support this bill on behalf of all those everyday Kiwis who deserve the ability to get on to the ladder on behalf of all the disabilities community who do not see any of the additional $2.9 billion. They are being squeezed as to the eligibility funding that they can receive. Instead this Government is approving $2.9 billion to landlords. I do not commend this bill to the House on behalf of everyday Kiwis who have children in schools in low-income areas who potentially may have their lunches in schools removed from them. I do not commend this bill on behalf of the students and under-25-year-olds who no longer get free public transport or half-price public transport because of the $2.9 billion in this bill for landlords. We are sticking up for everyday Kiwis on this side of the House so I do not commend this bill and I think it's shameful—shameful—that $2.9 billion which could be used for better purposes for everyday Kiwis is being rammed through this bill. That is the reason why I'm here every day—every day—for all those everyday Kiwis all those everyday Kiwis.So take that reflection and do not support this bill to the House. And here again once again just think about those kids who will potentially not get lunches in school. If anything else they are having it reviewed and yet in this bill we are confirming $2.9 billion for landlords."