Cosgrove Clayton: Estimates Debate — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCosgrove Clayton: Estimates Debate — In Committee[Sitting date: 28 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5394. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): That member David Bennett reminds me of the Edmonds cookbook where you used to have to buy a desiccated coconut and what you would get with a desiccated coconut is that they would break the coconut open and hollow it out. That is what that member reminds me of.That member asked for numbers. Well if he cared to have a look at Vote Revenue it is on page 138. We will go through a few numbers. I know that Todd McClay who inherited the revenue portfolio—poor soul that he is—from Mr Dunne cannot take absolute responsibility for the massive overspends in this portfolio. The member wanted some numbers. Well let us give him some numbers. In the Finance and Expenditure Committee report it talks about the child support reforms. They were originally estimated to cost $30 million but because of delays the budget was revised to $210 million and then after Mr McClay came in like the nightwatchman to clean up after Mr Dunne he bodgied a few figures and revised it down to a blowout of $163 million. So there for the desiccated coconut in the corner over there who has just spoken are some numbers.We will also turn to a couple of other numbers shall we? Look at the Business Transformation project on page 139 in the Estimates—$100 million has been spent to date and what have we got to show for it? Do we have a computer program? We have got some reports and we have got a few piles of paper but do we have one keystroke banged on a computer keyboard? No. And the first $100 million has been spent—Brett Hudson: The difference—that’s because we plan to succeed not plan to fail.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: No no you keep quiet over there. The first $100 million has been spent—[Interruption] The old tumbleweed in the corner over there—you keep quiet.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I will just remind the member on his feet that his nicknames for various members of the House have got him in the brown stuff before. I would suggest that he refrain from using those nicknames and tend to refer to members by their proper names.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I take the point Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not understand the first technical point but I am sure we can have a chat about it afterwards.If we can look at some numbers on the Business Transformation project as I have said there was $100 million spent. The latest estimate for this amorphous beast is $1.3 billion to $1.9 billion.Brett Hudson: It’s called planning Mr Cosgrove—planning and design.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: For the new member at the back Mr Hudson—I do not know where Mr Halls is but Mr Hudson although he was not a member here may remember that we had a thing called INCIS. There are a number of members who are here in this Chamber—it was the police project remember? That was put down to what they called spec creep at the time. That project rolled out at a couple of hundred million dollars—I think the final bill for it was well over $1 billion from memory. Like that member I was not in the House. I was working in Parliament but I well remember that one. So I wonder whether Mr Bennett will come back and maybe take another call andwhether as he is fond of addressing numbers and those sorts of things he will address some of those.The final point I want to deal with is what was foreshadowed in the Budget which is the infamous land register for overseas interests—if I have time. This is an absolute doozy. This is a cracker. This is a Bill English special. After Bill English along with Dr Nick Smith said that a register of foreign ownership in residential land or any type of database one would be a complete waste of time; two would be totally unworkable; and three—to quote Dr Smith—would cost millions of dollars what did they do when their feet were put to the fire and they needed to look as if they were doing something about the foreign ownership issue? Well they came up with a land register. Then we found out that it will not be universal. It will not cover the main home. You will not have to provide an IRD number for your main home. Why? Because it would be a financial and compliance burden to you for somebody to ring up and ask: “Where’s your IRD number? Can we get it?” Also we find out that it may well be possible—I do not know whether Mr McClay knows this—to have two main homes. So this register—Hon Members: You can’t have two main homes.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Oh yes. Oh yes according to the Inland Revenue Department officials at the select committee.Ernst and Young could not find a reason why people should not universally provide their IRD number regardless of whether it is their main home or a second residence or whether they are a domestic or foreign purchaser. In fact Ernst and Young got up and said: “There is no compliance cost. There is no financial burden or other burden to people doing that. But what it would do if you made the register universal is it would give you high-quality statistics and a real register if you really as a Government wanted to know what is going on.” So I look forward to the debate over that and I bet the Minister whatever he likes that we will be back here inside 12 months amending and patching up that piece of legislation.It is designed as a piece of political propaganda so that the Government can appear to be worried about foreign ownership inresidential property but it is putting together a regime that you could drive a bus through. Even Mr Bennett in his own limited and weird way may be able to find a way around that—I think he might. Even Mr Bishop nods in agreement.