Genter Julie Anne: Oral Questions — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGenter Julie Anne: Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 05 April 2016. Volume:712;Page:10148. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]7.JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “New Zealand has full disclosure of information” with respect to allegations of New Zealand being a tax haven?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes as I said in answer to question No. 2 the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) gets information on foreign trusts and gives it to tax authorities in other countries if requested under a relevant tax agreement. Tax havens on the other hand are characterised by financial secrecy so it is ridiculous to suggest that New Zealand is a tax haven. We have a strong tax treaty and information exchange network that helps to discover and prevent tax avoidance through exchanging information between tax jurisdictions. New Zealand has also been a very active participant in the OECD and G20 work to combat tax avoidance. We continue to be a strong voice in this area.Julie Anne Genter: How does an overseas tax department access all of that information if it does not know the name of the foreign trust registered here or the trustee?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It asks for it.Julie Anne Genter: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Perhaps I did not clarify my question. [Interruption] I meant how do they ask for it if they do not know their name.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to invite the member to ask her question again. I could not hear the question because of the level of interjection that was occurring across the Chamber. Can we start again?Julie Anne Genter: Thank you Mr Speaker. How does an overseas tax department ask us for that information if it does not know the name of the foreign trust registered here or the trustee?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It depends on the country. In the case of Australia that information is automatically given to it as it is in some other cases. Secondly each country will have a different regime and I am not an expert in them but many of those countries will ask for trusts to be registered listed and named so that they can get disclosure.Julie Anne Genter: Have there been any changes to the rules since the IRD warned his Government in 2013 that “there was a risk to New Zealand’s reputation” because of limited disclosure requirements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member would have to direct that question to the Minister responsible for inland revenue. They are the ones who have done all the work with the OECD on the base evasionprogramme. But as we know things like factor and anti - money-launderinglegislation have been changing.Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table an email dated 24 March 2016 from the IRD that states that it has not progressed any reform in this area.Mr SPEAKER: In view of the answer given I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular email. Is there any objection? [Interruption] Order! Is there objection? There is objection.Julie Anne Genter: How does he reconcile his statement that New Zealand has full disclosure with the Auckland-based Equity Trust International website which advertises its services in the following way: “in New Zealand law a properly structured trust is unbreakable which makes New Zealand at a par with jurisdictions like the Cook Islands but without the stigma of offshore. … This is the secret that wealthy families have been using for years …”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Lots of companies and organisations come out with slogans. I remember in 1999 the Labour Party slogan was “For a kinder more caring New Zealand”. They were the days before they wanted to throw out Chinese chefs and name Chinese people as bad people in New Zealand.Julie Anne Genter: So is Covisory Partners in Auckland wrong when it wrote in a paper entitled New Zealand A Tax Haven for Foreign Trusts that our foreign trust tax advantages “make New Zealand a great alternative to various tax havens which have negative inherent stigma attached to them.”; and is he concerned that that negative stigma is now getting attached to us?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: They are patently wrong if they are Australian and they may well be wrong if they are from any other country that has asked for that information.Julie Anne Genter: Will his Government beef up the rules around foreign trusts in New Zealand by adopting the member’s bill that my colleague James Shaw tried to table earlier; if not why not?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Government is not opposed to making changes and we will continue to work with the OECD on base erosion and the like. But if the member really thinks that we are going to adopt their member’s bill that wants to actually name taxpayers’ IRD numbers for instance the member has got to be barking mad if she thinks that information should be in the public domain.Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That insult was personal and unnecessary and I ask that he be required to withdraw and apologise for that.Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion—[Interruption] Order! I do not agree with the member. When I consider the tone and the length of the question it was a highly political question that was asked. [Interruption] Whilst I am on my feet if I can identify any interjector I will have no hesitation in asking that person to leave. I considered it carefully. I can understand the member may be a little bit upset. It is an expression I have heard used quite frequently by the Prime Minister—not in this House—but I do not think it is a matter for requiring the Prime Minister to withdraw unless the member was to stand to her feet and say she was personally offended.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just before the member starts the same rules apply to this point of order. I want to hear it without interjection.Hon David Parker: In the prior supplementary question you allowed the Prime Minister to raise irrelevant matters relating to the immigration policy of the Labour Party. If you want to keep order in this House you have to enforce the rules.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order.Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Hon Gerry Brownlee.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I do not want to prolong things but when a question is asked and there is a theoretical or a hypothetical statement put it is not unreasonable for the Prime Minister to say: “Well here was a statement made by a political grouping and look what was achieved.”Hon David Parker: Speaking to the point of order.Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Hon David Parker.Hon David Parker: That is not correct. You cannot raise irrelevant matter relating to another question that attacks another party on a subject matter that is not even the subject of the question. The Leader of the House is just wrong. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will have only one at a time.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There are clear rules on innuendo and epithets. If you were saying that some member has to get up and protest himself or herself otherwise you will not take redress it suggests that that member now suffers the embarrassment of repeating the offence. Frankly he might say it outside the House but he surely should not be allowed to say it inside the House.Mr SPEAKER: I am not sure what the point of order that the member has just raised in relation—Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well I will repeat it for you again slowly—Mr SPEAKER: Very slowly—and refer to the—Rt Hon Winston Peters: It is that the phrase “barking mad” is an epithet an innuendo and it should not be acceptable in this House. No one should have to tolerate having to get up and put it right and repeat the offence. Have you got that part clear?Mr SPEAKER: Order! No we are getting to the stage where this has gone on quite long enough. As I repeated earlier it is a remark—I think the Rt Hon Winston Peters makes a reasonable point but if the member Julie Anne Genter is offended by the remark she should stand to her feet and say so.Julie Anne Genter: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not offended; I am more disappointed that the Prime Minister will not answer a reasonable question.Mr SPEAKER: And that certainly is not a point of order.Chris Hipkins: Point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have ruled on this matter. If it is a fresh point of order—Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a fresh point of order. In your earlier ruling you made it clear that a political question would get a political answer. I wonder whether you would consider differentiating between a political answer and simply an insulting answer because I think that is an important distinction to make: one that simply hurls insults at the member asking the question versus one that is giving a political answer that is a legitimate exchange.Ron Mark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a totally new point of order. The ruling that you have just given could I ask you to possibly reflect? It appears that you have just now countered completely a previous ruling you gave with reference to members taking offence. Previously you have sat members down for taking personal offence and said that it is not whether the member is personally offended; it is whether you the Speaker determine that for the House as a whole this statement was offensive. Now you are saying that we can stand up and take personal offence.Mr SPEAKER: I gather the point. I will decide and in this case I did not think it was particularly offensive so I decided not to do anything about it. As has already been well and truly stated now I invited the member—if she was particularly offended then I would reconsider the matter. The member said that she was not offended. So the matter is now resolved.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Just before you ask—we have spent quite a lot of time on this—is this a fresh point of order?Hon David Parker: It is. It seems to me the problem is that I could now stand and the House would not be offended by me calling you barking mad. That cannot be the standard of this House because I should not be able to make that epithet—Mr SPEAKER: No. [Interruption] Order!Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order.Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Hon Gerry Brownlee.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think if you have a look later at the Hansard transcript of this and the later television replay which I know you watch every evening with some interest you will find that there was no specific insult. There was a hypothetical preceded with the word that indicates that by saying “if”.Mr SPEAKER: Order! As I said we have spent enough time on this matter. When I took it from the Hon David Parker that it was a fresh point of order it seemed to me we were just relitigating territory that we had already been through.Ron Mark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I will just check—we have spent a lot of time on this—whether it is a completely fresh point of order but if it is in any way canvassing where we have been in the last 5 or 10 minutes I will be asking—[Interruption] Order! I have ruled. There is no need to give me any further help. The member can come and see me later if he wants to but I do not need to prolong this debate. Is it a fresh point of order?Ron Mark: Well it is clarification—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Would the member just resume his seat. I want to just make it absolutely clear because if the member is raising a fresh point of order I am happy to hear it but if we are in any way relitigating the territory we have covered now for a considerable length of time I will have no hesitation to ask the member to leave the Chamber.Ron Mark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a fresh point of order regarding Standing Order 386(2)(c). Can you confirm that that applies?Mr SPEAKER: That is exactly the point that was raised by the Hon David Parker about 10 minutes ago. [Interruption] No. Order! We have spent quite—supplementary question?Hon Michael Woodhouse: Yes. Has the Prime Minister seen any reports on how others might attempt to change the foreign trust disclosure rules?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have. I have seen a recommendation from another political party that says that the IRD should disclose personal information including passport numbers and people’s IRD numbers. This is from a political party that says that it believes in privacy.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could I ask you what happened to the rule that the Ministers and the Prime Minister cannot spend their time referring to another party’s policy? The reason we have question time is to ask the executive as to what—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] I do not need any assistance. The question was a legitimate question asking about other reports. I was listening very very carefully to see whether it went into a territory of attacking another political party. Up until the time the member got to his feet and took a point of order it certainly did not do so.David Seymour: Has the Prime Minister considered the possibility that wholesale public disclosure of trust details might endanger people at risk of persecution extortion and oppression under repressive regimes overseas—i.e. the type of people the Green Party used to stick up for?Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. That is a question that was in order until the last part of it. I now rule it out of order.