Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you. It was interesting to hear yet another ideologically charged speech from the member for Wairarapa based in Ōhāriu. This really is no more than a straightening out of the rules around GST and rental properties. We know we have a brightline rule in place and what that rule means is that gains on houses are taxed if they are sold within a particular period of time. If at the same time we allow the cross-subsidisation of income in other areas we simply encourage gaming. So what this is the ring-fencing of losses on rental properties is no more—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry for interrupting the member but it has come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Matt Doocey: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As you'll be well aware—[Minister enters Chamber] Thank you very much Mr Assistant Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): That was close wasn't it?Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. As I was saying before the dinner break really this is ironing out some wrinkles. The members for the other side protest that this is in fact new tax. It's not. What it's doing is really just closing some loopholes that some of the smarter taxpayers have been using to minimise their obligations and deprive the New Zealand people of the money they need for the projects that this Government is undertaking.Really when we look at the ring-fencing of losses in respect of residential properties the fact of the matter is that it's entirely inappropriate on the one hand for us to have a brightline test and at the same time have tax losses which are being used to offset against other income. So what we have here is an entirely sensible approach. Let's just remember this is not saying that losses cannot be claimed. It's not even saying that losses can't be claimed across years. In fact if the members of the other side read the bill they would see that the losses can always be claimed against the property even when it's sold. So that is the ultimate point at which these losses can be claimed if indeed there is an overall loss in the business enterprise of the residential property and the legislation allows for a portfolio approach where you club all your properties together or a property-by-property approach. That's entirely up to the taxpayer to manage their own taxation affairs. So what we have here is really just saying that look a few taxpayers have been gaming the system in a way which is entirely inappropriate. They have been minimising their taxes in a way where it's not appropriate because there's no long-run evening out and that's really what we're achieving here—nothing more and nothing less.Of course the same is the case in respect of the GST reforms. What we've seen is a massive growth in small cross-border transactions. We all know—some people have referred to it as the Amazon tax but it's not just a tax on large suppliers. There are many suppliers all around the world and anyone who makes the GST threshold of $60000 of turnover in New Zealand will be expected to register for GST. What we've seen is about a tripling over the past few years of the amount of transactions that meet this threshold. What that has meant and quite unfairly is people in New Zealand retailers in New Zealand hard-working mums and dads in New Zealand have been paying GST as part of the prices of their goods whereas someone overseas in Australia the United States or elsewhere has been able to sell their goods tax-free—an entirely inappropriate tax advantage. That means that New Zealand businesses aren't getting a fair crack; they're bearing more of the tax burden than they should.So once again this is a sensible ironing-out of what is essentially a loophole. Previously it was thought the costs of collecting the tax probably outweighed the benefits of it because the internet business was so small. But what Minister Nash has identified and in fact what I understand the previous Government was looking at is the fact that the amount of this tax is now sufficiently significant to warrant the taxation the Inland Revenue Department putting resources into it and of course it will have the collateral positive benefit of evening out the tax position for overseas suppliers and also for New Zealand suppliers.Another great thing: the tax bill of course does another important thing that I want to mention before I close and that is it tidies up the tax legislation. Every year we try to make this legislation more workable more understandable more consistent and more plain English—believe it or not—and a lot of the bill actually goes to that. It's something you won't hear talked about in the House very much but it's ongoing maintenance. It's going round and painting the house every year to make sure that it's still fit for purpose. So what we have here is a great piece of legislation. Minister Nash has brought it to the House. Yes it will bring in some more revenue but what it's really about is making sure the tax rules are fair and consistent across the board for all players whether it be in respect of rental properties GST or some of those smaller things like student loans and sexual abuse victims. So that's a great piece of legislation. I commend this bill to the House.