Twyford Phil: Taxation (Land Information and Offshore Persons Information) Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTwyford Phil: Taxation (Land Information and Offshore Persons Information) Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 25 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4822. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I did not hear in that contribution from the Minister for Land Information any kind of convincing explanation for why the select committee period for this bill should basically be cut in half. This isa bill—in spite of the fact that it is a bill that is disappointingin its potential impact as we have been saying for the last couple of hours of the debate—that still has some complexity. I would have thought that this bill deserves and needs proper scrutiny and review at select committee. Other than the Government’s bad planning I have yet to hear any reason why the select committee process should be cut in half. Unfortunately this is typical of this Government riding roughshod over the democratic process and particularly over the importance of select committee scrutiny of its bills.We saw the same kind of contempt for process this morning in the Vote Foreign Affairs and Trade estimates hearing when we saw basically collusion between the Minister and the committee chair—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! This is a very narrow debate—the member will sit—and I will refer the member to Standing Order 290(3). It says there that “Any debate on the question for a motion under this Standing Order is restricted to the special powers or instruction set out in the motion. It may not extend to the principles objects or provisions of the bill to which the motion relates.” so talking about the select committee process is not part of this debate.PHIL TWYFORD: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. What I would submit is that by cutting the select committee review period in half what the Government is doing is denying a lot of people—members of the public who have a big interest in this bill and the issues that this bill purports to address—their opportunity to have a proper say; there is no doubt about that.Think about the people who will have strong views about this bill. There are approximately 300000 people who own rental property in this country. They are going to have a lot to say about this bill. Almost every city and region around this country has a branch of the Property Investors Association. They will all have strong views about this. Think about the real estate companies—Barfoot and Thompson Harcourts Harveys—or somebody like Shamubeel Eaqub the eminent economist who recently published the book Generation Rent explicitly dealing with the kinds of issues that this bill purports to represent. He is the kind of expert opinion the select committee should be getting in to submit on this bill—and in fact organisations like Generation Zero which is an articulate voice for the interests of young people in this country who feel themselves shut out of the property market because of the rampant out-of-control speculation.These groups want to see a bill that actually has some real impact on property speculators. They are going to want to come along and they will have things to say about this bill. I have no doubt in my mind that they will have views about whether or not simply requiring property purchasers and offshore speculators for example to provide a bank account number and register with the Inland Revenue Department constitutes in itself a substantive serious and credible response.We have seen far too much poor legislation rushed through this House. And what happens? Every time it comes back to this House and we have seen that in the last day or so with the exclusive economic zone legislation that Nick Smith made a complete hash of. This House at huge taxpayer expense has to come back and clean up the mess that is left by legislation. It is my fear that this bill has been so rushed—it was a last-minute cobbled-together poll-driven panic before the Budget and we know that because Louise Upston did not know about it until a few days before the announcement. The Minister who is responsible for shepherding this bill through—and it is her officials who will be responsible for servicing any of the work that is done on this bill as it goes through the select committee process—did not even know about it until a few days before the announcement. So she had no say in it. It was imposed on her as a panicked political measure and I think that this House deserves better.This is an issue as so many people have said in this debate that people feel incredibly strongly about all over New Zealand: the fact that we have a housing crisis that is out of control. It is of intense public interest. So for the Minister to stand up and say that this taxation bill deserves only half the normal period of scrutinyis I think shabby.In spite of the fact that we have argued consistently that this is a half measure and we have quoted the commentators and the analysts who have said publicly that they do not believe it is going to make much difference to the problem of property speculation there are issues of some complexity in the drafting of this bill. You only need to look at what the Inland Revenue Department said. These are matters of complexity that go right to the heart of the fact—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): You can mention that but you cannot get into the detail of the bill. That is the point that I made earlier.PHIL TWYFORD: OK I am just saying that the Inland Revenue Department the Government’s own advisers on tax matters recommended—and I want to quote what the Inland Revenue Department said about it because these are the very issues that will have to be dealt with at the select committee—to the Government that it not exempt main homes from the register because it will not reduce compliance costs for the purchasers of a main home as almost all of those people will already have an IRD number anyway. What the Inland Revenue Department said is that it would make the rules more complicated for purchases and conveyances and create loopholes. So for example a person could buy a main home—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I have explained to the member that there is a truncated report-back period. You were doing well up until you started to get into the detail of the bill. That is what you cannot actually get into. It is a very restricted debate and that is really where you need to focus. It is limited in its content and you need to concentrate as you were doing on the reasons and the pros or cons for a truncated report-back period. You cannot get into the detail of what is in the bill and what the Inland Revenue Department is saying.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect I agree that you cannot discuss the pros and cons of the detail of the bill but you can discuss that the bill is so detailed that it ought to have a proper select committee process.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I agree with that. That is why I said to the member that in his first 8 minutes he has been on track and that he must relate it back to the motion and the reasons and the pros and cons for the select committee process being truncated. When you start to specifically get into what the Inland Revenue Department is saying it is fine to say that the Inland Revenue Department has concerns and so on and that is the reason why you need to have a longer time for people to have the opportunity to submit. That sort of thing is fine but you were starting to get into the detail.PHIL TWYFORD: Actually in what you just said Mr Assistant Speaker I think you have accurately summarised my argument. What I was simply seeking to do by quoting the Inland Revenue Department was to make the point that my colleague the Hon David Parker underlined and that is that there are matters of complexity in this bill that mean that it is not justifiable for the Government to cut the normal select committee period in half.The Inland Revenue Department has made a number of comments in the regulatory impact statements that suggest that the select committee will have some serious work to do. The Government made some choices as it scrambled together this measure in the few days before the Budget announcement but it is clear that some of those choices were arguable. There are a number of issues that the Inland Revenue Department has advised the Government on which I was just beginning to relay but the Government chose not to accept the Inland Revenue Department’s advice. For example the Inland Revenue Department said that the requirement to have a New Zealand bank account to obtain a New Zealand IRD number is unnecessary for individuals and of limited benefit because the Inland Revenue Department already has the power to require that.I am not arguing the pros and cons of the bill. I am simply saying that there is sufficient complexity and matters of real debate and argument contained in this bill so that it is going to take weeks and weeks of proper select committee scrutiny to tease these matters out. Expert advice will be needed and there is no question in my mind that not only members of the public and organisations that have a keen interest in fixing the housing crisis and dealing with the scourge of property speculation but also those with expert opinions—tax lawyers and tax advisers—will want to come in and have their say. We have had enough in this House of Ministers like Nick Smith rushing half-baked measures through. We need good thoughtful ordered approaches with real solutions to the housing crisis and we deserve a better select committee scrutiny than we are being given.