Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Mr Chair. I just want to return to an earlier response I had from the Minister the Hon David Parker and I am appreciative he is answering the questions. The first one I suggested to him that by passing this bill through in urgency without going through the proper consultation process is the wrong thing to do for a number of reasons but principally one is that people have already acquired property under a certain framework a certain understanding and here we have the Government effectively coming over the top of it and unilaterally changing the rules at the stroke of a pen within—whether we pass this bill tonight or tomorrow but the Government will ram through this bill which will change the rights of ordinary New Zealanders who happen to own rental properties. One is that it gives rise to the issue of democracy but it also gives rise to the issue of protection of existing rights. Of course this bill and passing it in urgency just rules a steamroller straight through the middle of that and says We don't care we're going to do it anyway."My view is that actually if there was some time taken to actually pass this bill and give it due consideration—and I've got a whole lot of technical issues that I haven't even got to yet on how this bill might operate. But if there was the time taken to allow people to consider it and get some proper advice—and I know Treasury and the IRD have got differing views on certain aspects of it which we haven't even got to but clearly they haven't had time to do the full proper analysis of it—then one of the things is I think actually it would lead to a better outcome if you were seeking to stabilise house prices which I think everyone is seeking to achieve. We don't want to see a drop but we do want to see a stabilisation of price inflation.The Minister made the point that by ramming it through what it will do is stop people going out and buying investment properties. I actually think it'll be the reverse. I think that if people had maybe three months or maybe a year even to have a look at the new rules know that they're going to be meeting a 10-year test know that they're going to be losing their interest deductibility actually some investors—and when I say the word "investors" we're talking about ordinary mums and dads who happen to have and by far the majority have only one house and rental property; they might take a different view and they would take a considered view and we would see properties maybe being released that possibly could be bought by first-home buyers whatever the case might be.The Minister made the comment before that he thought by ramming this through it will stop people investors jumping into the market. But by saying that what you're saying is investors are going to look at this piece of legislation when it's passed and say "Woo! Great thing. I am going to now have to hold the property for 10 years because if I don't I'm going to have to pay capital gains tax on it. And secondly I've just lost my interest deductibility. So the ongoing profit round my rental that I was looking at and factored into my equation I'm going to lose it. And that's a bad thing but that's going to make me want to buy this property." So I just think that it's a pretty absurd proposition to say "The reason we're going to put this through in urgency is we're going to stop new people getting into the market." Actually I think we should be trying to allow people to exit in an orderly way and manage their affairs. So my first question to the Minister is: has he got any evidence to back up this claim that it should be rammed through in urgency? That's my first bit. Actually I'm going to leave it there. I'll come back on another matter shortly."