Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. It's a pleasure to be talking on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2019–20 GST Offshore Supplier Registration and Remedial Matters) Bill first reading. I agree with Mr Michael Wood that the name could have been improved. I think this is a case of quack quack quack"—sorry "tax tax tax". This is a Government that all it wants to do is rapaciously grab more money from hard-working New Zealanders—hard-working New Zealanders. Even though it came into power saying it would not put any more taxes on do you know what the result is? The result is $2.3 billion so far and this piece of legislation is going to add another $200 million to that total. It's outrageous. It's all about taxing hard-working mums and dads and I don't believe that is in the best interests of New Zealand. I am just going to say that the speaker who just sat down started off very well I thought—Mr Tabuteau—but he sort of drifted off. I thought he'd lost interest in his speech but I think the salient and pertinent point he was talking about was the Amazon tax—the Amazon tax. Of course this is our bill. This part of it was designed by the Hon Judith Collins actually. Actually it was our piece of legislation so I took heart that Mr Tabuteau was actually commending the National Government for thinking and doing the hard work designing a good system so that this Government now in power can nick it and impose it and put it in place. And yes he's right. It is about making it fair for shop owners in New Zealand. It's about making sure that they can survive increasingly digital procurement arrangements. And of course what it does is it lifts the threshold from $400 to $1000 per item and any international supplier or foreign supplier now has to register for GST if they supply more than $60000 of goods and services a year to New Zealand people. I think that's good. The big issue I'm going to be asking the Minister is how he's going to undertake the compliance of this as it's quite a big issue and I think if you're going to put in legislation you need to make sure that you have the right compliance framework to monitor it otherwise it just becomes a sham. I think that will be one of the issues we will be following up with the Minister on this aspect of this bill. The other one is around ring-fencing. As some people talked about although some less clearly than others what the bill proposes to do is to ring-fence—i.e. stop the ability to offset tax losses against other income. When you think about it 40 percent of the housing stock in New Zealand is owned by mums and dads—40 percent of the housing stock is owned by mums and dads—and what this bill does is cut to the core of it. Many of them have a house a rental where they have rented it out to people often more vulnerable or not in a position to buy a house. They spend the money upgrading that house under the healthy homes guarantee that's been imposed and all the other things that go with it to provide a nice house for those people and what happens is that they can offset some of the interest costs and other costs associated with renting that property. What this bill does—and Mr Tabuteau didn't actually highlight the key issue—is it says that you may only claim up to the maximum income that you receive on that property a year. So if your rental income's $30000 you can't claim deductions of more than $30000. Then there's the ability to carry forward which he referred to. But what he didn't refer to is the black hole that happens. The black hole is if you don't make further profits in the future or in fact if you sell that property in the future that is black hole expenditure that you cannot claim back for and what this is—what this bill is doing—is another nail in the coffin for people wanting to rent houses to vulnerable New Zealanders. It's interesting. I've been to a couple of property management firms in the last few months and one of them told me they've got a portfolio of 3000 homes they own and over 10 percent of their houses—i.e. 300 of those 3000 homes; the property owners the mums and dads—are saying "This environment imposed by the Labour - New Zealand First Government is too difficult." and they are selling their properties. I went to another one recently in Pukekohe—same issue: over 10 percent were selling their properties. What's happening is that we are seeing people selling their properties making it harder for vulnerable New Zealanders to find properties that they can rent and live in and be happy in because simply the property owners are selling them. That is why this is not a good bill and that is why we will not be supporting this bill. We will be looking to have the strong and hard conversations during the course of the select committee but it is a bad bill from that perspective."