Tabuteau Fletcher: Taxation (KiwiSaver HomeStart and Remedial Matters) Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTabuteau Fletcher: Taxation (KiwiSaver HomeStart and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 04 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:1187. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First):I have to start off by agreeing with some of the members on this side of the House. It just seems like National is introducing remedial matters—just little things that do not go far enough. Actually it is a little bit too late now. Why do we have concern with what it is proposing at the moment? Well the reality is that freeing up that little bit of extra cash actually as stated before feeds into the supply concerns that New Zealand First has particularly with the housing bubble in the Auckland market. So you are adding to the ability for first-home buyers to buy into a market. You are fuelling supply and you are stoking the fire even further.Andrew Bayly: That’s right—adding to supply.FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Thank you for the correction. I am nervous. You are fuelling the demand from your first-home buyers and it is adding to the problem in fact. It is counter-productive and at the moment it seems to serve no purpose.The levels set out for the purchase of new homes in Auckland are as acknowledged before just too low. They do not actually help anyone get into the Auckland market in the first place. You are talking about purchasing homes around the half-million-dollar mark when we have got quotes for new homes in the $600000 to $800000 range. We know actually that builders and the property market developers are more interested in building those premium homes where they get a much better return. So who are we actually helping?The house price inflation which was talked about earlier is in reality still much higher than the rise in people’s incomes or household incomes. It was argued that price inflation for our houses is not as high as it has been before. It might be acknowledged except I think the Minister conveniently mis-aggregated the data and forgot to mention the specifics around Auckland but really and truly the issue is around growing incomes. They are not growing as compared with the rising prices of our homes in New Zealand.I suggest that actually the affordability in the regions might have helped bring that aggregate value down because this Government does not seem to be doing anything to help our regions grow. The prices of properties in Rotorua for example have not changed for the longest time. They have been static. Where is the support for growth? What are we doing beyond giving new homebuyers $1000 extra and allowing them to purchase a slightly more expensive home? It does not seem to address the real issue.This bill is testament to that disregard. Instead of compromising people’s savings and eating into their retirement funds—because I was trying to do the numbers earlier today. I thought I had some time. I can speak only in averages but even taking that $1000 extra out of the savings equation at that stage in their retirement plan compromises the total value of their savings when they become entitled to it. We are talking of a difference of tens of thousands of dollars in terms of the sum of retirement that they would have had but now will not because it has gone into their houses.The other side might say that owning a house is a great way to save but as I said before in the House actually the Auckland market is a bubble. It is growing exponentially almost. There is talk of the immigration numbers just fuelling it further and further. Beyond immigration there is speculative foreign investment in the local market. It is just fuelling the fire and at some time the bubble has to pop.So where does that leave the people whose retirement money could have been growing exponentially over time adding to actually what should be liquid—money that they can actually use when they retire as opposed to bricks and mortar where the money is tied up? Although as I was writing my notes coming down to the House I noted that actually what we could do is continue to grow the property bubble in Auckland and then when they need to free up some money for their retirement they could sell their houses in Auckland and come and move to Murupara. That way if they keep doing that and Aucklanders keep moving out of Auckland we might alleviate the pressure somewhat and the community of Murupara might grow with some wonderful senior citizens who could enjoy the local forests lakes and other wonderful sites.We talked about supply and demand. The issue is around immigration management. We have this huge bubble. It is not being acknowledged. It is not being managed. We talk about measuring something. I do not know what they hope or intend to achieve with that. The reality is that we are an open market. People are coming in they can see the returns and it is undermining the very people whom the Government is presuming to help by allowing and making these changes with this bill.It is a conundrum. I do not think this bill serves any purpose whatsoever. New Zealand First in relation to this bill acknowledges that the Government is trying to do something. What it hopes to achieve out of this we are not quite sure so we have to therefore say yes OK let us support it through so that it can go to the select committee so that we can hear from the experts hear what they have to say on this legislation and see whether it will actually make a difference. We do not think it will. We think it will fuel fires. We think it will actually be counter-productive.Just to finish off I would make a note to those who write the explanatory note and the legislation—I am trying to understand and I have tried to get as much advice as I can on the part where we are seen to be fixing remedial matters especially with regard to our veterans. New Zealand First is concerned that they are not remedial matters. In fact our interpretation of the amendment is that this will actually compromise the potential incomes of our veterans. I hope to be proven wrong. As I said I have taken advice as best as I can and as quickly as I can on the matter but at the moment our interpretation is that the bill actually contravenes our Veterans’ Affairs Act where we talk about that benevolent margin. We wonder in New Zealand First whether in fact this tax fix-up compromises our veterans’ entitlements. We would absolutely—and we must—ask that this be discussed and fleshed out in full at the select committee because the last thing that New Zealand First wants to see is that our veterans are losing out that in fact it is not just a tidy-up and that our veterans are being compromised in terms of their entitlements and being able to enjoy retirement and their livelihoods which they absolutely deserve.We commend the bill through this first stage. We would like to hear what is said further. Thank you.