Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): I rise in opposition to this Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill in this its first reading. The fundamental basis of opposition to this is that this is a piece of legislation that is simply unnecessary. I mean we should always permit the facts to get in the way of a story whether that story is a good one or a bad one—in this case a bad one. The reality is that since this Government announced a tightening of the rules around foreign or non - tax residents purchasing property particularly investment property in New Zealand well over a year or so ago now we have been collecting data on the extent to which that actually happens. So that is the extent to which people who are foreigners and who are not paying tax in New Zealand—not tax residents—are actually purchasing and buying up New Zealand properties. The sum total if you will—the percentage of the extent of that issue—is 3 percent. That now spans multiple quarters of data and there is a great deal of consistency across the information that has been collected. It is not that one quarter was 3 percent; it is that now we are seeing a trend and a very clear consistent line there. So why would we put in place this register for something that simply is not a great problem? It would add compliance time cost for no significant benefit. We have the measures already through the tightening that we did where if non-tax residents are purchasing our investment properties they will be taxed accordingly and that in itself will mean one of two things. Either it could put a brake on the scale and rapidity or the size of those transactions or where it does not it makes sure that we are collecting appropriate tax revenue from that. But this bill simply does not fix a problem. It does something; I am not denying that. It certainly does something—it certainly creates a register. But the register does not address a problem and the bill provides no solution indeed for that problem that does not actually exist. It misses the very clear distinction that I alluded to earlier there which is that individuals can have a nationality and country of tax residence that are different. In fact an individual can have more than one country of tax residence. If we look at what we might want to achieve—if we looked at a policy of ensuring that there was not just wholesale buying up of our land and property—what we are really trying to achieve I would suggest is a situation where people who have no personal investment if you will in our country might try to take it off us. But a tax resident is effectively invested in our country. By paying tax they are helping to provide the infrastructure that the country needs. They are helping to pay for our schools and our hospitals. They are actually contributing to the economic well-being of the nation. Why on earth would we as a policy—certainly here—look to penalise or prevent those people transacting in a country that they are actually helping to fund? It seems that there is a misplaced targeting here. Certainly on this side of the House we have got no issue with people who might be considered foreign. In fact the diversity of New Zealand is one of its greatest strengths. So rather than simply looking at the way that someone appears or the sound of their surname we actually believe that where one is contributing to New Zealand—and the best measure of that for someone who was not born here or does not have permanent residence is perhaps their tax status. So when someone is contributing to this country why on earth would we want to take some backward position from 40 or more years ago when a certain member first entered this place and say: Look you're not allowed to participate in our country and in our economy. You're somehow to be treated differently. You're somehow to be treated as a second-rate person in this country."? It is simply not necessary. For that reason and that I believe is a very very good reason I do not commend this bill to the House."