Bayly Andrew; Parker DavidANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Mr Chair. We are having a great time tonight aren't we? I'd just like to say to the Chair that there's plenty more to be discussed in Part 2 I haven't even talked about feasibility expenditure which is an area that I was particularly interested in.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Well get on with it.ANDREW BAYLY: But what I like to do—I'd just say we like to do things in a logical order because otherwise you just get random on this.I want to continue the theme that my good colleague Nicola Willis was pursuing. So one thing I've got to congratulate the Minister on is that he's got every tax accountant in the country up tonight because it's interesting how many have sent through comments and questions because they can't understand this bill and/or are trying to get to grips with it very quickly.But one area I want to turn to which is—I think aligned to what Nicola Willis was talking about—this issue about the definition of clause 58 around what is a residential home. And my good colleague has highlighted a very practical issue. I've had personal experience of a constituent exactly in the situation that Nicola Willis was talking about where took on a new job moved and actually got caught and was very worried about the situation around the brightline test. And of course it doesn't appear that there's any ability or exclusion. So we know there's already three exclusions. One is dealing with your own home if your matrimonial home or you inherited. This is a case of hard—someone missing out as a result of changing circumstances. This is more than just bad luck actually and I think it will happen to a lot of people over the forthcoming years particularly when you stretch out the brightline for 10 years not five even; it was probably OK under two just. But putting that length of exclusion on it means that there's going to be a lot more people caught by this issue. And I'm just wondering why the Minister didn't actually think about adding a fourth which is really a hardship clause around reflecting some of these situations that are reality and will occur no doubt about it.So the question I've just had from a tax accountant we were just talking about the definition of a residential house—what's a resident" mean—and that's been redefined in clause 58 and we've talked about the implications of the business. But the case in point was if someone is in the situation where they are renting out their house occasionally like doing b. & b. on an electronic platform so it seems clear that the legislative change will mean that if you're using that property a second property for—so this is not your home but your second property such as a bach—occasionally use it to lend it to people who might want to use it that's fine if you are using it regularly on Airbnb then the interpretation of the tax law is that it would be caught under this new definition. And so the question I'd like to put to you and hopefully your officials can help you is: are you caught if you have a bach and you're using an electronic platform like Airbnb or whatever Bookabach are you caught under these rules? And the second thing I want to ask is: how many days are you allowed to do it before you get caught? So I imagine if you do it a week a year out of 52 weeks it's probably OK. If you do it for a month is that OK? If you're doing it for more than two months are you caught? Because gee that's quite significant.And then what does that mean when you sell the property? Are you apportioned for that one or two months out of that first year? Or are you captured if you do it in one year are you captured thereafter even though in the years two three four five six seven eight nine and 10 you don't do it? So a couple of questions there. And hopefully our officials can help you Minister.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): In respect of the last issue I think that's the same issue that your colleague already raised which would be an apportionment situation.In respect of the other issue that you say you questioned me about in respect of a bach well that's not a primary residence anyway so there's no change there because it's already covered.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Before I call Andrew Bayly if you've got any new arguments now would be a good time for them.ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Well I'm just responding to that actually. So just to be absolutely clear you're saying—because you didn't answer one of my questions actually—if you do allow your bach to be rented using an electronic platform there is an apportionment. But presumably there is a threshold at which—because if you're doing it for eight months a year are you then deemed to be because it's not your main home caught under these provisions? And my other bit the nuance also was if you do it in one of the 10 years does that mean that you're forever captured or are you captured because you've consistently done it over the 10-year brightline?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): The bach is not ever a primary residence and therefore it has always—under two five or 10 years—been covered by the brightline test."