Browning Steffan: Companies Amendment Bill (No 4) Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third ReadingsText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrowning Steffan: Companies Amendment Bill (No 4) Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings[Sitting date: 24 June 2014. Volume:699;Page:18842. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]STEFFAN BROWNING (Green):I rise to speak to the bills divided from the Companies and Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill. The Green Party is definitely going to support this legislation. It was the Green Party that raised these issues a long time ago when we realised that there was so much rorting going on. In fact it was back in September 2011 when we realised that on 28 July 2010 Cabinet under Simon Power decided that it should do something about some of these rorts and some of this money-laundering and the using of New Zealand as a tax loophole effectively. We had through parliamentary questions found that a number of New Zealand - registered companies were being used to commit money-laundering tax evasion and fraud overseas but were coming here. It was through that that there were something like 1800 companies deregistered fairly quickly because they had effectively one address and were doing no business but were just sitting there. There were still at some time after a few to be taken off. It was good to see that there was some movement.But it was that long ago that there was a decision that something should happen and that it was acknowledged. The Minister of Commerce announced in September 2010 the intention to introduce a law in 2011 to tighten up the requirements around company registration and we waited and we waited and we waited. That was in the last Parliament and here we are in the next Parliament—it is fading out and its time is nearly up—and we have to ask where National has been in sorting the rorts. National has clearly been absent.Later in 2011 we were offering the Government help and asking whether we could help it get legislation through to sort these rorts out. We asked it whether we could sort that out. We asked whether we could have just one resident director—and clearly that has been a move made in this legislation—and ensure that directors document their identity better. One bit that seems to have been missed is to obtain an IRD number. Why would they not have an IRD number? Why should it not be included?Then just last year in November—and maybe this was what helped get it moving again—New Zealand was recognised as a tax haven by the Tax Justice Network for the first time ever. The Tax Justice Network produced a most comprehensive report of tax havens and as I say last November it ranked us on its financial secrecy index. That was really really unfortunate because that is a place where countries of real disrepute in terms of tax havens and tax rorts are included. We had a below-average rating and we needed to change that.Out of that in fact Russel Norman who had been promoting the fact that we should have these changes right back in 2011 as I say came up with his own bill and it is in the members’ ballot as we speak. That bill was to help deal with this situation. So it is really good that we have some movement now but we do not think it went far enough. As a result of some of the goings-on back in 2010 and 2011 and clearly previous to that New Zealand was struck off the European Union’s white list in 2012 and that added extra costs to New Zealand exporters doing business in Europe. As I say we have offered to support this legislation and we will support it. This legislation will strengthen the company registration process. Dr Norman’s bill is the Income Tax (Foreign Trust Registration Disclosure) Amendment Bill. That bill will still be worthy on a number of points over and above what we are passing through the House tonight.Our comment is: where has National been? Why has it taken so long when it was clear that our reputation was being impugned internationally and there were extra costs on businesses and yet it has taken from at least 2010 through the time of this National Government and through to where we are now June 2014 to have something actually happening? So we will be pleased to support the legislation for the positive parts of it. We are disappointed with the bits that are not being covered and not requiring registered companies to obtain Inland Revenue Department numbers is part of that as is not addressing some of the problems with nominee directors and not clarifying the confusion relating to beneficial ownership. It is very unfortunate that these things are still lapsing in terms of this legislation and we look forward to their being covered under the next Government. Thank you.