wrong reason and that's the wrong signal we want to send. This is
about
about taxing speculators, bringing them within the tax net
and maintaining the integrity of the
system.
I move that the question be now put. OK, Andrew Bayly, I call
Andrew Bayly. First of all, I would like
to congratulate the
congratulate the Minister for standing up. A couple of things that
he just said that I would like to
pick up on. And it would
be very nice to hear
Very good. The first thing is, Madam Chair, he said that this will affect
roughly only 3,000 properties or
question is if that's the figure you're actually talking about, why
on earth would you be
putting this
terms of what the Minister has just said, and I think it's
actually because he is incorrect about the
number of houses this potentially
affects, this SOP no. 13. Because if
you look at
affects, this SOP no. 13. Because if
market at the moment, Madam Chair, of all the houses in New Zealand
roughly
of all the houses in New Zealand
dads in New Zealand who own those second houses quite legitimately
and for a number of different reasons.
I've talked
for a number of different reasons. I've talked about the people
for a number of different reasons. I've talked about the people who
have BAC
I've talked about the people who
rules at the moment, I'm not sure if you have an investment in a second
home where you've been providing
support to offspring,
whether in fact this is going to be captured
by this draconian bill. I think this
is the issue that I'd like to hear
back from the Minister because, first of
all, I think he's erred on his facts
because I think what he was
in fact referring to was of all the houses,
potentially, the small number
that Treasury and officials
have assessed may enter into the situation
where they're sold under a
are many other houses that are bought and sold within five years
for quite legitimate reasons. I
think this brings know the
second point. Yes, of course,
the National Government brought in the
we were very judicious about it. Because, of course, we wanted
to stop speculators flipping houses, to
use the common parlance. That's what
successful on and has been recognised by officials to
be exceptionally successful on.
What
What this SOP has done is extend it to five years. What I haven't heard
is any logic to that because
we actually, unfortunately, haven't had
the ability to have
an open conversation around it. Why take it
from two to
conversation around it. Why take it
implications of that are incredibly significant. Going back to the
example I set earlier, if you
significant. Going back to the
and you are a mum and dad and get into financial difficulty... I
hope I don't. Madam Chair, I
hope not and I know you wouldn't! For those
who get into financial
conservative culty under a two
get into financial conservative
frame we have now entered a realm where the unintended consequences
are quite significant and, Madam
Chair, the issue with that, as
is noted in
noted in the summary, the officials haven't been able to assess the
impact of this change. So if you
cannot assess the impact of this
change, why on earth be proposing it
and with all the potential downside
of the unintended
consequences. These are the issues that we haven't
had discussed with us. All we have
had during the election was a
sort of a nice mantra about stopping
speculation but we've had
of a nice mantra about stopping
one actually sitting down and doing the hard thinking behind
this policy. It sounds great but what
it ultimately does is potentially
affects many New Zealand people who,
for the correct and honest reasons,
decide to buy a second property who
are now potentially going to
be in a situation where they
will have to pay tax. I think that is the
travesty around that. The last
thing I do not think the minister
has properly addressed the issue of
the stranding or the abeyance of those
stranding or the abeyance of those
tax losses for those unfortunate people who do have to
sell their property. They will sit there in
abeyance where no one can access
them, only the
people if they are lucky enough to be
able to get back into the property market and to
be into the property market and to be
able to access that, they'd have
to get back in and
retrade property. All that does is incentivise
people if they have tax
losses somewhere at some point to start
trading again, which is actually counter
productive to the whole intent of this bill.
Madam Speaker, this bill lacks
to the whole intent of this bill.
Kiritapu Allan. I move that the question be now put. I move
that the question be now put. All those in
favour say aye.
question be now put. All those in
have it. The question is that the minister's tabled amendment to SOP
number 13 be agreed
minister's tabled amendment to SOP