Bishop Chris: Taxation (Land Information and Offshore Persons Information) Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBishop Chris: Taxation (Land Information and Offshore Persons Information) Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 08 September 2015. Volume:708;Page:6314. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS BISHOP (National): I just want to respond to the charge from Dr Clark who has just spoken that this is a cynical Government. The only thing cynical around offshore buyers that has happened in this Parliament and in this society in the last 3 months was the cynical cheap crass and outrageous attack on Chinese migrants by the Labour Party. That meets the very definition of cynical: exploiting and demonising an ethnic minority for cheap and craven political purposes. The Taxation (Land Information and Offshore Persons Information) Bill is not a cynical piece of legislation. This is a well-intentioned and well-meaning attempt to obtain tax information from people buying and selling property in New Zealand by amending the Land Transfer Act 1952 and the Tax Administration Act 1994 to improve the enforcement of non-residents’ tax obligations. The key change that the bill provides is to require buyers and sellers of property to provide an IRD number or the equivalent tax number in the case of residents of other countries. Individuals buying or selling a main home are exempt from that requirement and in my brief contribution to the House I just want to canvass that exemption which is in the piece of legislation we are considering and which came in for some pretty robust debate at the Finance and Expenditure Committee as has been alluded to by Mr Robertson a few moments ago.There was some suggestion from members opposite and some suggestion from others at the committee that we should include all property transactions within the scope of this bill—in other words all property transactions in New Zealand whether or not they include a main home or whether or not they do not include a main home; all buyers and sellers of property would be required to provide their IRD number. Why did the Government decide not to do this? The first reason and the most fundamental reason is that the proposed brightline test—which as members will know is in the companion legislation to this bill that we will consider in a few moments’ time—exempts the main home. So there is little point in requiring everyone who buys and sells a property in New Zealand everyone who buys and sells a main home or buys a property with the intention of living in it as their main home to supply their IRD number when they are going to be exempt from the brightline test which is the major point of the legislation we are about to consider. That is the most fundamental reason.The supplementary reason which relates to the main reason is that it would greatly increase the volume of information that people would have to provide through Land Information New Zealand and the Inland Revenue Department. We also believe on this side of the House that it would make people worry needlessly about whether or not a transaction was taxable. In the vast majority of cases when people buy and sell a main home—a place they are living in a place they have a great connection to—those transactions are not going to be taxable but the requirement for people to supply an IRD number needlessly will make people worry about whether or not that transaction is taxable. That is why we are exempting the main home from this legislation.Grant Robertson said that the officials advised against it. That is I have to say a little bit rich. Governments are entitled to listen to what officials have to say and they are entitled to take a different course. In fact the previous Labour Government made a virtue of ignoring Treasury advice year after year. It ignored the official advice from Treasury and the Inland Revenue Department about a whole range of matters. In fact it made a virtue of it. Michael Cullen used to turn up in this House and talk at length about how Treasury had had an ideological burp and other such matters. So yes Governments are entitled to listen to the official advice but that is actually why Governments and parliamentarians are elected: to weigh up the competing advice to weigh up what officials have to say and actually to apply their minds as to whether or not a piece of legislation is a good idea. Officials are entitled to have their say but actually officials do not run the country. We do not have a Government of the bureaucracy in this country; we have a Parliament that makes laws and we have a Government that is made up of lawmakers elected by the people who are responsible to Parliament. The official advice in this circumstance here has been listened to but the Government decided to take another path.This is not a cynical piece of legislation; this is a good bill. Members over the other side are politicking as they are wont to do with pieces of legislation around non-resident buyers and as they are wont to do with migration and the role of non-residents generally in this society. It is regrettable that the Labour Party and Mr Twyford have such little regard for migrants to this country and for foreigners but sadly that is the way it is. I commend this bill to the House.