Little Andrew: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 11 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10964. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]2.ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statements in the House yesterday?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes and in particular my statement quoting Michael Cullen from 2005 when the current disclosure rules were being developed: “The government has sought to develop policy that works for all concerned one that enables New Zealand to co-operate with other tax jurisdictions while not disrupting the legitimate financial transactions of foreign trusts.” [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! If the member wants to ask a supplementary question I am happy that he rise and do so but that level of barrage is unacceptable.Andrew Little: In light of that answer and returning to matters of relevance why will he not give an apology to the Red Cross Amnesty International and Greenpeace following his failed attempt yesterday to divert attention away from his support for the grubby foreign trust tax-dodging industry? [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been asked.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because what I said yesterday is factually correct. If you go into the database it is quite simple. A very quick search of Greenpeace International shows you that it is a beneficiary of the Exodus Trust. What this actually goes to prove is that all of the names of innocent New Zealanders that have been dragged across the TV sets and sullied by members of the House all because they unwittingly ended up on this database should be taken with a grain of salt by other New Zealanders.Andrew Little: Was it appropriate of him as Prime Minister to attack an MP over her family trust in the UK which allows her to stay in her grandmother’s house—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The question is at this stage a legitimate question. I need to hear it so the level of interjection from my right-hand side will cease. Would the member like to start the question again?Andrew Little: I am obliged to you Mr Speaker. Was it appropriate of him as Prime Minister to attack an MP over her family trust in the UK which allows her to stay in her grandmother’s house in his once again desperate effort to distract from mega-wealthy foreigners using New Zealand as a tax haven?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Far from attacking an MP the point I was simply making is that (a) it is in the member’s pecuniary interest and has been stated in the media (b) it is a statement of fact that she is a beneficiary of a foreign trust and (c) the very reason that foreign trusts can operate legitimately is that people use them all the time for legitimate reasons.Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is that the inaccuracy of the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Metiria Turei: Sir it will take just a moment. The inaccuracy of the Prime Minister’s statement was dealt with in a personal explanation yesterday by Mojo Mathers. As a result of her personal explanation the Prime Minister is not entitled to restate that false accusation in this House.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I do not need assistance. I listened very carefully to the answer from the Prime Minister and at no stage did I think he stated anything that is not correct. He actually referred to a member’s pecuniary interest. If the member involved feels she has been misrepresented there is an appropriate place to go but at this stage there is nothing—[Interruption] Order! There is nothing that I can see incorrect in the answer that has been given by the Prime Minister.Metiria Turei: Speaking to the point of order.Mr SPEAKER: I have dealt with that point of order.Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am seeking some clarification from you about the Speaker’s ruling.Mr SPEAKER: It is not the point of a Standing Order or a point of order to seek clarification. I will give the member the benefit of the doubt.Metiria Turei: Thank you Mr Speaker. Speaker’s ruling 152/3 says that “the member’s personal explanation may not be debated or otherwise challenged” in the House.So I would ask whether that therefore means that if a member in this House stands up and says that Mojo Mathers is the beneficiary of a foreign trust that is a direct challenge to her personal statement as of yesterday and is not allowed in this House.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am a little perplexed that the Greens have brought this issue up. I would have thought that it might be discussed when the question was agreed between them and Labour this morning.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] No I need—[Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. When the personal explanation was allowed yesterday it was done by leave of the House. Mojo Mathers gave a personal explanation. It was not challenged in any way yesterday. The Prime Minister is now referring to a question from Andrew Little. I do not think in any way that that breaches the personal explanation that was given yesterday by Mojo Mathers. If she thinks she is being misrepresented her best course of action now is to study the Hansard very carefully and use Standing Order 359 if it is necessary.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is very important that members have the ability to raise points of order that are genuinely points of order. It is also particularly important that the Leader of the House in his role should have the ability to raise points of order and is given some prominence in the point of order - raising process. However twice in 2 days the Leader of the House has used that to raise points of order that are not points of order and are in fact attacking members or the whole Opposition. I ask you to actually pay attention to that and ensure that that right of members to raise a point of order is not abused in that way.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Point of order.Mr SPEAKER: No I do not need any further assistance whatsoever. In regard to the point of order raised now by Mr Brownlee I think there is a little bit of substance in the member’s message. [Interruption] Order! It was not actually helpful to the order of the House the way it was asked. In regards to a suggestion that the same thing happened yesterday I certainly did not detect it at the time and I did not detect it when I re-examined the Hansard last night.Andrew Little: Why has he fallen back on his old tricks of deny distract and demean those asking questions rather than focusing on cleaning up the foreign trust industry?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly the Government has been dealing with the issue in a number of ways. John Shewan’s review is an important part of that and the work we are doing on base minimisation is part of that. For the last couple of nights New Zealanders have been on TV and their names have been there because they are in the database—they happen to be in the database along with a great many organisations like Greenpeace. I think New Zealanders will now know that if they go into that database and they type in a name and they see a name they should take that with a high degree of scepticism that it is real.Andrew Little: If New Zealand is not a tax haven as he has been claiming why is an online gambling magnate Calvin Edward Ayre who is on the run from US authorities for money-laundering and tax evasion able to use a New Zealand foreign trust to stash his assets?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly I do not have those details and the Inland Revenue Department will not be able to until it gets all of the data which has not been released yet by the investigative journalist. But if it does it will be able to look through that and if that trust is true and the person has been established—and established by someone who is covered under the anti - money-laundering rules in New Zealand—then it will be quite clear because that person who had established it will have failed in their obligations. Secondly it is not me who says New Zealand is not a tax haven; the OECD says that. Interestingly last night when I was watching Newshub they went through asking the obvious question: “Was New Zealand No.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! No the answer is now going on for far too long.Andrew Little: If—David Bennett: Come on Andrew. Pitch it.Mr SPEAKER: Order! My last warning to David Bennett: if he interjects again through question time he will be leaving the Chamber for the balance of question time.Andrew Little: If New Zealand is not a tax haven as he has been claiming why was a French investor able to move his holding company from Luxembourg to New Zealand and then tell the French Government that he owed it no tax because he had paid the zero-rated tax rate in New Zealand?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member makes the right point that there are mismatches around the world and that is why New Zealand is working with the OECD. But when the member says—this is the whole problem is it not—someone has moved something from Luxembourg it is as if there should be a hiss across the House. That is the whole point with the database because when I go into it I see that Greenpeace is a beneficiary of the Exodus Trust.Andrew Little: Why does he not do what most New Zealanders expect of their Prime Minister: protect our reputation rather than protecting the foreign trust industry and demeaning the people who want to clean it up?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: We have been absolutely protecting and defending New Zealand’s reputation in a great many ways including the automatic disclosure legislation that is before the House the changes we have made to shell companies and the like and the work we are doing with the OECD. If anyone is to blame for sullying New Zealand’s reputation it is people like Andrew Little and James Shaw who on Saturday night were parading to the world that I was responsible for the Cook Islands because one of their mates wrote something when they knew it to be patently incorrect.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Again the answer is long enough.