Yule LawrenceLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): Thank you for the call. I'm pleased to support this bill and acknowledge the work of the Hon Judith Collins and the Hon Stuart Nash in getting to this point.I've sat on the Finance and Expenditure Committee. It's been a learning experience a significantly complex piece of legislation but we're here in urgency to get it to the next stage. That being said Mr Chair—and to the Minister in the chair the Hon Stuart Nash—there is a suggestion I'd like to make for no other reason than I think we are potentially exposing ourselves unnecessarily to a whole lot of legal fights and a whole lot of lawyers' interpretations. I specifically comment on clause 50 new section 17(1CB). In this section there is a specific mention around how we can access information for multinationals in other jurisdictions. It says disregarding any law of a foreign country relating to secrecy of information".Now I worry that that is something we don't need to say. It is something in the legislation that particularly points us to a fight that I'm not sure we will necessarily win. I say that on the advice of the submitters to the select committee including ASB BNZ Chapman Tripp Corporate Taxpayers Group New Zealand Bankers' Association Russell McVeagh Westpac and Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand. They considered this a significant overreach in terms of what the powers are or actually more so what is the reality of the situation. So I understand we're trying to be able to reach into other countries and other entities of multinationals but in May the OECD published figures that show there are 2700 bilateral relationships already and that continues to grow.My point is that if we set amendments that are impossible to comply with and are not necessary all we're doing is offering a chink a bureaucratic nightmare—or whatever word is you want to call it—to something that may not need to be there and would need to be tested in law anyway. While I'm not a lawyer—and I freely admit that—I do think taking on and telling a foreign country that this bill supersedes any other law related to that foreign country is a fight we might not want to have.So the Inland Revenue Department does not consider it's appropriate to allow multinational corporations to locate information overseas. I understand that and I have some sympathy actually in our ability to go after multinationals. But I have put in a tabled amendment in my name which specifically seeks to remove the words "disregarding any law of a foreign country relating to … secrecy of" in clause 50 new section 17(1CB). I do that because I think it's superfluous. If I'm wrong I'd encourage the Minister to show us in this Chamber what value it would in fact add to this piece of legislation.I'm very supportive of this bill. It's been a steep learning curve as I've said and I offer this point in a way to help future Parliaments and the New Zealand Government—and the Inland Revenue Department actually—to make sure that we do not get caught up in some big multinational sort of activity and court case when if you look at the OECD website that looks at this work massive progress has been made. I suggest we keep going on that path rather than putting in what I regard as unnecessary over-the-top sort of inflammatory comments in a clause which I'm not convinced can actually be enacted anyway.So I ask the Minister to take a call and specifically outline the reasons for that and if he cannot then I respectfully request that he consider my tabled amendment and make an amendment to this piece of legislation. Thank you."