Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you for taking my call. I thought I just might follow on a couple of little technical points from the Hon Amy Adams particularly around Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 13—as she's been discussing and as we have all canvassed tonight this issue of bringing this substantial change into the House at a late stage without the opportunity for anyone to have the ability to consult on it. As I said earlier I identified at least 10 parties who would be very keen to be making a submission on that because it will directly affect them. Also the sheer fact that the select committee—the Finance and Expenditure Committee—hasn't had the opportunity to debate this just raises the whole question around transparency and the willingness to operate in a proper manner. And I just lay it at the feet of the Government for taking this very disparaging approach to people's interest in this topic.So what I just wanted to do around this SOP is just note that as many of you are aware what the SOP essentially does is extends the brightline test from two years to five years. And of course it's restricted to houses and anyone who owns a house is subject to this rule. There are three exceptions. The first one is that the family home is exempt and you can only have one family home. So for people who live in different areas during the course of a week they must nominate a family home. No tax will be required in the event of the dissolution of a marriage. And thirdly if there is a transfer as a result of an inheritance arrangement then that is also outside the scope. But otherwise every piece of residential property comes under the scope of this bill. Of course what this now does is that for anyone who owns a bach or owns a second home whether it is for investment—the Government loves talking about speculators but some people choose to invest in a second home—or for instance if parents want to invest in a home to provide for their children then theoretically they're captured under this new arrangement which now places a five-year term before they can sell without the possibility of having to pay tax on that gain. Of course the question I did want to put to the Minister who's in the chair Stuart Nash is at the moment—he talked earlier that there is a ring-fence around those gains and there's sort of this assumption the expectation and the Hon Judith Collins mentioned it earlier today that there is always an increase in property over time and of course everyone is a successful speculator or investor. But as my good colleague right beside me Stuart Smith is saying that's not right. And of course it's not right—of course it's not right.So the technical question I just want to ask the Minister to comment on when he gets an opportunity is what happens with the loss offset when people buy property and they may have to sell it because their financial circumstances change—and the SOP doesn't provide for that. So these are people who get into difficult situations have to sell a property within five years therefore at that point they may have to pay tax but in the event that they have to sell that property at a loss what happens to that ring-fenced tax loss. Now is it available to be offset against other income—and as I understand it's not. I can see the Minister looking behind just to get the right answer to this. But if it is ring-fenced and can only be applied to future gains or losses on other property investment does that loss basically sit in abeyance until that person—so the Minister looks like he's nodding which I think is an absolute travesty. It is an absolute travesty if that's the case because if a person gets into a situation where they have to sell a house because their financial straits get them into that unfortunate circumstance and they can only have that loss sitting there to one side and they cannot access that in the future then I put it to you that I think many mum and dad investors round the—[Time expired]