Shaw James: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeShaw James: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 10 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10881. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]2.JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes especially the one where I was shocked actually to find Greenpeace International on the database.James Shaw: Does he stand by his statement that New Zealand is not a tax haven when the Australian Financial Review and the US Congressional Research Service have New Zealand on the map as tax havens?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes I stand very much by the view that New Zealand is not a tax haven. In fact New Zealand has been ranked as the most compliant in the highest category. There are four factors actually that would go into a country being a tax haven; the most important of course of which is secrecy and New Zealand does not have that. Even prior to the Panama Papers this Government had been working towards automatic exchange not just to Australia and through the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act but to 60 international jurisdictions.James Shaw: Does he stand by his statement that the international media have not reported that New Zealand was a tax haven when more than 40 different international outlets from around the world including USA Today the Independent The Telegraph TheWashington Times the Australian the AFP The Age the Sydney Morning Herald and The Guardian have reported on New Zealand’s role in the Panama Papers?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes I stand very much by the view. If you look at the international reporting of this New Zealand has been but a footnote. A single mention of New Zealand is not actually what has been in the news and in Australia today what they are talking about is not New Zealand when it comes to the Panama Papers; it is some issue in relation to Chinese money.James Shaw: If New Zealand is not a tax haven why would Mossack Fonseca—a company which by its own admission has 95 percent of its business in avoiding tax—urge its clients to use New Zealand’s foreign trust and company structures as a way of avoiding tax?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Two things. Firstly there can be quite legitimate reasons why people have a foreign trust and I suggest the member leave the House and ring Greenpeace Amnesty International and Red Cross because they are implicated in the papers. But more importantly the member should just turn around and ask his colleague—Mojo Mathers has a foreign trust. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! If it is required of me to ask someone to leave because they consistently interject I will do so. It is not my wish but when the barrage continues uninterrupted particularly by a front bench Labour member they leave me no choice.James Shaw: Thank you Mr Speaker. In the conversation when Mr Whitney assured him that he had no links to Mossack Fonseca did Mr Whitney mention that he was a director of two companies with connections to Mossack Fonseca?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have no responsibility for that but I stand by the statements I have made which are that incrimination by insinuation just because someone is mentioned—if you go into the database the very first thing you have to do is tick a disclosure form—James Shaw: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I recognise it is a boisterous question time Mr Speaker but it was a fairly specific question about a conversation that he had had with Mr Whitney.Mr SPEAKER: I allowed the question. I thought about not allowing it because I do not think there is prime ministerial responsibility. The Prime Minister is certainly addressing the question. It is difficult to hear because of the noise I do accept but on this occasion I cannot help the member unless he has a more specific question. Did the Prime Minister—Hon David Parker: Point of order.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am still on my feet. To the Prime Minister has he completed his answer to that question?Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister I submit does have ministerial responsibility. He answered in this House about the reference that he made to the gentleman concerned to go to the Minister of Revenue and to the department. He referenced that conversation which was within his role as Prime Minister. Clearly he as Prime Minister in that conversation came to the view that he should refer him to the Minister of Revenue. I cannot see how he can claim that he has no ministerial responsibility for what was told to him in that conversation and therefore the question was in order.Mr SPEAKER: I think on this occasion the member makes a reasonable point. As I said in my point of order it was a marginal call. I decided to leave the question standing; I certainly did not rule it out. The Prime Minister then addressed it. Mr Shaw asked me whether it had been addressed to his satisfaction. On this occasion I think it has been addressed—maybe not to the member’s satisfaction but he can continue with a supplementary question if he wishes.Hon David Parker: Point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Well just to be absolutely sure—I have ruled on that matter so to continue to raise another point of order that is anything to do with the question that has just been asked is in itself disorderly. But if it is a fresh point of order something dealing with another matter that has not been raised then I can hear it. If we are just relitigating that in itself is what is leading to disorder in this House.Hon David Parker: Thank you Mr Speaker. I will proceed with my point of order if I may.Mr SPEAKER: Yes the member can.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Your answer did not refer to the fact that the Prime Minister declined to answer the question saying it was not a matter of prime ministerial responsibility. That is my point of order. In fact you have conceded that it was a matter of prime ministerial responsibility; therefore it cannot be addressing the question to deny that it was.Mr SPEAKER: No the member is now just going back over old territory. I acknowledge I had some difficulty hearing the detail of the answer simply because of the noise. I ruled then that the Prime Minister did accept the question. I ruled it in—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! My patience will not last much longer with Mr Parker.Hon David Parker: Neither will mine.Mr SPEAKER: Well then the member can stand and leave the Chamber. [Interruption] The member can leave the Chamber.Hon David Parkerwithdrew from the Chamber.James Shaw: Will the Prime Minister now take this opportunity to broaden the review of foreign trusts into a full-scale inquiry into tax avoidance?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. There are two elements if you think about the whole issue for just a moment. One of those is in relation to disclosure and whether disclosure is adequate in New Zealand and what is happening in relation to that is that I think we have got the finest tax mind in the country to look at that issue and he will come up with recommendations. If they are good recommendations the Government will implement them. The second part of it is in relation to tax treatment of trusts and again the Government is working with both the OECD and with our like-minded partners to see whether there is more that we can do because of the mismatches in the arbitrages that happen around the world. Both of those elements of what we are doing I believe address this issue. The third point that I would make is the point I made earlier on which is that of all the mentions in the database the 500000 and the excitement that some people have brought to this issue there are fewer than 200 trusts registered in New Zealand that have a link to Mossack Fonseca and of those fewer than 200 in total all of them that the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) has taken a quick look at have been disclosed—in other words fully subject to exchange of information fully subject to making sure that the IRD can see them and I suspect that a great many of them are likely to be subject to the anti - money-laundering rules because they are likely to be established by a tier-one firm that is a part of Part 1.Mojo Mathers: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would just like to correct the statement by the Prime Minister that I have a foreign trust—I do not.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not in itself a point of—[Interruption] Order! Is the member seeking leave to make a personal explanation? [Interruption] Order! I can assist. There are two ways forward: if the member seeks leave to make a personal explanation I will put the leave and it is over to the House. The alternative way if the member thinks she has been misrepresented during this question timeis that she has the ability to refer to Standing Order 359.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order.Mr SPEAKER: I am just dealing with a point of order.Mojo Mathers: I would like to make a personal statement please.Mr SPEAKER: No you need to seek leave to make a personal—Mojo Mathers: I would like to seek leave to make a personal statement.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation presumably—[Interruption] Order! Leave is sought to make a personal explanation in regards to a statement made by the Prime Minister. Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none.Mojo Mathers: Thank you. I would like to clarify that I am a beneficiary of a UK-based family trust. It is not a trust that I own and it is not a foreign trust.Mr SPEAKER: The member has—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! Mr Robertson! [Interruption] Order!