Hon Shane Jones. The instruction has been ventilated. I
put it to you, put the motion to the House
now, sir. No. I call the Hon Judith
Collins. I rise to support
the motion that this particular
part of the bill that's
being introduced today or proposed to be introduced
today, the SOP
around the
back to the Finance and Expenditure Committee so it can be
properly aired in front and
with the people of New Zealand but also from
and getting the benefit of the expert
getting the benefit of the expert
advice that we are very fortunate
to be able to receive in New
Zealand from the tax practitioners
but also those involved in the building
and construction industry, the real
estate industry and those who
are better placed than many people in
the House to actually advise on
this matter. I am particularly concerned
that the bill that was previously in
my name, a very
A very fine bill working on the excellent work that the
Inland Revenue Department has been
Revenue Department has been
undertaking over a course of some
years...
undertaking over a course of some
..is proposed to be actually hijacked by a
..is proposed to be actually
that is all about making it harder for people to buy
properties in terms of being able to sell them
again and to be able
to invest in them. I am
very concerned because I know that even
that I know there is at the moment for two years' ownership has caused
quite a lot of administration
costs for law firms and therefore
for their clients. I know this because,
as a lawyer, lawyers have
advised me of this, that it has
actually added quite
of this, that it has actually added of
of this, that it has actually added quite a lot to the cost of
doing business. If we take a situation
where it makes it even
more difficult for those who
own properties for up to five
years, more difficult for them to be able
to sell their property when they
need to, I put it to the House that
when we
when we consider these matters, that's why it should be with the
Finance and Expenditure
Committee because,
because, quite clearly, relationships break down, people's
mortgage payments suddenly become
less able to be made.
There are people who are going to find that
they won't invest
in property anymore, that they won't be
able to because they can't take the
risk that they won't be able to sell
a property earlier than five
years without taking a substantial hit
to what they would have expected. We
without taking a substantial hit to could well say,
without taking a substantial hit to
often mum and dads who have got some money together, they are
in a stage of their life where they want to add
to their retirement income
and they want to be able to even in
some cases provide a House
for their children or child to live in and
that child's family. These people
are the people who will
be badly affected. All ready, people who are
property developers already pay tax
on their sale, on their profits. We
already have a situation Income Tax
Act that allows revision Income Tax
Act that allows for the sale of
property for a tax on any gain in
the value of that property if the
purpose was, in fact,
to buy the property for gain. Also, of
course, that also becomes
available at the that also becomes available at the
moment for anything like planning
that also becomes available at the decisions that have changed the use
of the land that can be used. That
has been there since about 1976. It
is already there. The Inland
has been there since about 1976. It Department has made some comments, I
understand, and so has Treasury,
around the efficacy of bringing in
absolutely important that for the people of New Zealand who
have heard a lot of promises about what can be
done with housing, that they get a
chance to hear some experts and what
they actually say about
this. I think it is all very well to
take some rhetoric from an
election campaign and to pop it into a bill
and then ask for submissions on
it in the normal course of events but
what's not alright, Mr Speaker, is
in the normal course of events but to take a bill like this, which is
very much
to take a bill like this, which is
really a past event, and also around the excellent aim
procedure, which is all about an
accounting income method for PAYE and tax generally to
make it easier
for small businesses to be able to operate and get rid
of some of the issues that they have
around provisional and terminal tax.
To take a bill like this and hijack
it with some form of attempt to skew
the market of housing. It is
simply not appropriate an when we look
at that particular skewing, I think it
is very important that
the New Zealand public not be skewered by a
Zealand public not be skewered by a Government
Zealand public not be skewered by a
Government that has used a convenient method to bring about
a major change in tax, particularly
around the administration of it.
Let's be really frank here,
nobody who is going to be caught by
this is going to be one of your
developer, speculator, developer, whatever you want to call them.
Nobody will.
whatever you want to call them.
The people who are going to be caught by this are very much mum
and dad investors. It is mum and
dad investors who have
a right, I believe, in this
Liberal democracy to be heard on what this
Government is wanting to do to their assets.
I think it is
absolutely incumbent, I know it is incumbent, on this
know it is incumbent, on this
parliament to take a major piece
of legislation which, changing the
and put it in front of a finance and electoral select committee. I
think any Government that is
too frightened to do that,
too frightened to hear from the people,
is a Government that's
too frightened to be the
Government. This is a Liberal democracy
and people expect this parliament to
follow its formal course of
procedures. When we hear about the
need for transparency
in parliament and what we're expected
to hear, people would like to say,
why is this suddenly going to be rushed through without the benefit
of a select committee
colleague is not asking for six months, she is asking for one
month. What is the problem with four
weeks of a select committee
to look at this, to get
some submissions quickly and to ask the
experts for
there is nothing wrong with that. That even to attach the
test changes, proposed ones, to a bill that has nothing to do with the
cynical attempt to push through and ram through legislation
without giving the public of New
Zealand, the mum and dad investors, the
lawyer, the accountants,
the tax advisors, the real estate
agents, the people two have to work and live
in the property market every day,
why can't they have
in the property market every day,
answer that we're getting is nothing really. Let's shut
down the debate on it. That's the answer we're
getting. Why shut down
This is a Government that has been in office for, what, five months.
We are already seeing a
tremendously arrogant move towards treating
New Zealanders who, by the way, pay the
taxes
Zealanders who, by the way, pay the
The Hon Carmel Sepuloni laughs at that, she laughs at the fact that
New Zealanders want to have a
say. That is her right to do so. Do you
know what, she can have that right,
know what, she can have that right,
wants in parliament because the people of New Zealand, those mum and
dad investors, they are
being told now,
dad investors, they are being told
matter. We are not going to let you have your say. We are just going to
do this anyway to you. If that's
what this Government is like after
five months, imagine
what they are five months, imagine what they are
going to be like coming up to
their
tells us. Business transformation as the Hon Stuart Nash has said is an
excellent piece of work. That's
why that bill, this bill, should
not be sullied with the
desperate political attempt to take mum
and dad investors out of the market, out of
the housing market. Who's going
to
be other mum and dad investors. It is going to be the big players or
else the taxpayers will
have to do it. Five years a long time to
commit when you are 65 or 70 and you
are buying something for your kids. It
is a long time. I think it is
really important, just
important, just one month, Mr Speaker, that's all we ask.
important, just one month, Mr Speaker, that's all we ask. I
call Kieran McAnulty. I move that
the question be now put. No. This is
a debate. I call the
Hon Paul Goldsmith.
debate. I call the Hon Paul Goldsmith. I would like to speak in
support of this excellent motion
from my colleague Amy Adams which is
very much focused on the
simple question of allowing this parliament
to have more time to