Genter Julie Anne: General DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGenter Julie Anne: General Debate[Sitting date: 06 April 2016. Volume:712;Page:10250. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): The Prime Minister’s defensive reaction to questions this week about New Zealand’s potential status as a tax haven because of our limited disclosure for New Zealand foreign trusts tells us exactly what sort of person he is working for and whom he is backing and what sort of leader he is. We heard this week from the Prime Minister that we have full disclosure on New Zealand foreign trusts but he and the other members of the National Government are pretty much the only people who will make this claim.When we look at Mossack Fonseca and the huge leak of documents that occurred we can see that it was recommending New Zealand to wealthy clients because our foreign trusts have a tax-free status and light disclosure requirements. So clearly we do not have full disclosure; we have light disclosure and of course there are a number of tax experts who have said this for many years and who have asked the Government to resolve this problem in some cases.We have of course Michael Littlewood professor at Auckland University and tax specialist who told the National Business Reviewthat “the Government … has denied that New Zealand is a tax haven which for anybody who knows how this works is not a plausible denial”. His Auckland University colleague well-known tax expert Professor Craig Elliffe told Newstalk ZB that New Zealand is in effect a tax haven “in this area of foreign trusts”. Professor John Prebble an expert in taxation law at Victoria University wrote in 2009 that “Since the enactment of the country’s international trust regime in 1988 non-residents have come to rely on New Zealand as a safe haven for their funds a haven that will not suddenly tax those funds”.Over and over again there are a number of tax specialists who say that it is the case that we do not have full disclosure and yet the Prime Minister comes into the House and insists that we do have full disclosure. That suggests to me that he is not completely honest with the New Zealand public and he thinks that by insisting that black is white over and over again he can hide the problem and his failure to deal with it from the New Zealand public and voters. This is not the actions of a real leader.Of course he did admit in the House after saying that we do have full disclosure and that “There is nothing to see here—no problem.” that the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) has not been working on the problem because it is not a priority. So which is it? Do we have full disclosure already or is it not a priority because the Government’s priorities are to focus on tax evasion in New Zealand by New Zealanders—probably those who are not on incredibly high incomes—rather than stopping New Zealand from being used as a tax haven by the rich and powerful?Finally the Prime Minister said that we already have full disclosure and the IRD has not been working on the problem that does not exist because it is not a priority and then he said that full disclosure would be “barking mad”. A proposal that would enable other jurisdictions—our tax partners—to find out which people who evade tax overseas are using New Zealand foreign trusts would be “barking mad”. Of course he did that by mischaracterising the Greens’ bill and falsely claiming that it would require the publication of IRD numbers which is not the case—not the case.Who is John Key really representing? Who is he working for? In the first place when he came to power we had tax cuts for the wealthy primarily. Since he has been in power we have had protection for property speculation because the Government has failed to implement a capital gains tax despite Treasury saying in 2010 that it was desperately needed. He has been saving landlords money with no minimum requirements for a warrant-of-fitness standard for rentals. He has been weakening the protection of workers for Hollywood. He has been subsidising oil and gas exploration and wining and dining oil and gas executives inviting them to rugby games and inviting them to come and open up New Zealand’s shores to pollution—climate pollution.There is such a gap between the rhetoric of this National Government and the reality of who it is actually working for but we can take its actions to see exactly whom it is working for.