General Debate

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. All of New Zealand has now seen that we have been drawn into the grubby, sordid world of international tax evasion, and what is worse is that we have a Prime Minister and a Government that just do not care—they do not care about the damage it is doing to our reputation, and they do not care about the fact that it is not going to help us stand on the world stage and ask the rest of the world to get the multinational corporates that are not paying their fair share of tax here to do so. John Key has lost touch with what New Zealanders expect of a responsible Prime Minister: a Government that actually stands with New Zealand and for New Zealanders. What we have got is a Prime Minister and a Government that are just about duck-shoving and butt-covering for the world’s mega-wealthy to get wealthier and wealthier, and for inequality to grow and get worse.

What New Zealanders want is a Government that is on the side of hard-working New Zealanders, who have just a few simple ambitions and aspirations: the idea that they can get the health care that they need when they need it—not a Government that runs down the health service to the tune of $1.7 billion and sees the nation’s elderly getting sicker and worse and in greater pain before they can get their treatment. That is what this Government represents.

What New Zealanders want is a Government to support New Zealanders to know that the schools they send their kids to, or their grandkids to, have got the support and the teachers and the facilities to do the job of helping their kids to be successful. That is not what we have got at the moment. We have a Government that is running down our education system, putting more of the cost on to parents and families, and running down the successful achievements of our schools. Now we are performing even worse in literacy and numeracy and in many other areas. That is what happens when you have a Government whose priority is standing up for the world’s mega-rich rather than looking after the aspirations of middle New Zealand.

And what about New Zealand’s regions, which are going through a tough time at the moment and which just expect a Government to understand that and to provide that extra little impetus, through decent road funding and through good public services and social services? But the Government is just spending its time running them down. We do not have a Government that is interested in the aspirations of middle New Zealand any more, and we should not be surprised that we have a Prime Minister who is not the least bit concerned about us now descending into that grubby world of tax-dodging foreign trusts that we are now in.

The reality is that that is what he has wanted for 10 years or more. This is what he said in 2010 when he could not get the Government’s departments, the Inland Revenue Department and the then Ministry of Economic Development, to get on side with his ambition for this international financial services hub. He was reported as having slammed what he described as “bureaucratic pinpricking” over his proposed financial services hub. That “bureaucratic pinpricking” was actually trying to preserve the interests of New Zealand but he rode roughshod over it, with the help of Bill English and with the help of Gerry Brownlee and Steven Joyce and the rest of that motley crew over there.

What John Key complained about was, as he described it, advice coming from the Ministry of Economic Development, which, basically, says that if you want to do this, you have to deliver the Magna Carta of documents. You do not want accountability and responsibility when you just want to run your sham project of trying to get grubby money into New Zealand at any cost, which is what he wants. He went on to criticise the Ministry of Economic Development for saying, in his words: “You’ve got to do all these things and need bipartisan support.” Here is the thing: the Ministry of Economic Development did not say that he needed bipartisan support. What it said was that he needed to build the political support for that whole idea. Once again, we see with this Prime Minister, as we have seen for the last 8 years, that he is not an intimate friend of the truth; he is a passing acquaintance of it.

Here is the truth about it. In just the last few years, under his and Bill English’s Government, the number of foreign trusts used for dodging taxes in overseas countries has grown like Topsy, from roughly 4,000 in 2009 to nearly 11,000 now—prolific growth over that time. We are marketed overseas by law firms and agents here as the great place to do business, because we are stable and we have a good reputation—but put your dodgy money here. New Zealanders deserve better. They want a Government with honesty and integrity and that will look after their things—helping them to get their first home and helping their kids to succeed in a good education system.

If Mr Little and Mr Twyford were decent human beings, they would have come down to Parliament today and apologised to the Chinese community. The gall of that speech from Mr Little, to talk about truth and integrity when he has spent the last year telling New Zealanders that 40 percent of the people who are buying properties are Chinese when he knew and Mr Twyford knew that that information was false. It was deliberate, it was calculated, and it was an attack on one group—one ethnic group—of New Zealanders for cynical political gain.

The whole debate has been a shameful chapter in the once-proud history of the Labour Party. I have come to expect that sort of politics from Winston Peters. I have come to expect that sort of politics from the Donald Trumps, from the Le Pens, from those in Australia like Pauline Hanson, and from the United Kingdom Independence Party, but I did not ever in my career in this Parliament expect that sort of tawdry politics from the once-proud Labour Party. I have got no doubt that people like Peter Fraser and Norm Kirk will be spinning in their graves knowing that people like Mr Twyford and Mr Andrew Little are prepared to trash the heritage of the Labour Party as a party that is prepared to stand up for minorities and stand up for inclusiveness while, over the last 12 months, they have used such an awful argument to target that Chinese community.

Let us look at the data. We now know the tax residency of every single—every single—home purchased and settled in the 6-month period to 1 April. We know exactly the number—1,692 buyers were overseas tax residents, and 1,695 sales were from overseas residents. Is this some tsunami of foreign ownership that is coming over New Zealand? In 6 months there was a net change of three, and that is a reduction of three in terms of the number of overseas residents.

💬 Hon Bill English: Were they Chinese?

The member asks whether they were Chinese. Actually, we know exactly—444, or 0.7 percent, were tax residents in China, and I have already heard from a New Zealand citizen who is an overseas tax resident in China who bought a property in that 6 months and who is a New Zealander who is included in that number of 444. There is a power of difference between 0.7 percent and the claims of 40 percent by members opposite, and I ask again: who in the Labour Party has the courage of their convictions to get up and do the right thing and apologise to the Chinese community in New Zealand?

💬 Hon Annette King: And when you—

I know Annette King—Annette King knows in her heart of hearts that this is wrong. I know that some of the backbenchers are on record saying that this was wrong. I simply say to members opposite: let us move forward and have an intelligent, honest debate on housing. Let us focus on land supply, let us focus on the issues of the Resource Management Act, let us focus on the issue of building materials, and let us have a debate on the issues of infrastructure, but can we at least unite as a Parliament in saying that targeting and scapegoating one element of New Zealand—one group; the Chinese—is a disgrace, and this Parliament will not have a bar of it.

It is actually that member, Nick Smith, who needs to apologise to the Chinese. It is that member who needs to apologise specifically to the Chinese Premier himself—the man who came to New Zealand and looked John Key in the eye and said: “You have to help us.” What was he asking for help for? The corruption, the money-laundering, the tax evasion, Mr Nick Smith—that is what you need to apologise for, because your Prime Minister and your Government are not doing a thing about it, and it is completely, absolutely unacceptable.

We are a small country. We are a proud country that punches above its weight in the rest of the world, and that is because of our integrity and our professionalism and the dignity with which we conduct our overseas transactions in trade deals, for example. When we go out and we support peacekeeping efforts, we are New Zealanders supporting the rest of the world, standing up with them. So how can the Prime Minister stand up and use the same tune as Sergeant Schultz and tell the world: “I know nothing. I know nothing.” He denies and he disclaims knowledge. It is unacceptable. In Schultz, it was endearing; it was cute. In a Prime Minister of New Zealand, it is abhorrent and it is absolutely unacceptable.

What we have been seeing lately is a Prime Minister under pressure, and when a man is put under pressure, you start to see his true colours. What we saw today, for example, was the nature of the man come to the surface. So what have we seen? What we have actually seen is the history of the Prime Minister coming to the fore. He is a money-trader, a player of the international markets, who held—well, I am not going to say that, even in the House. But the man was playing games with ethics, and we have to question where his stand is now.

The reality is that what was once endearing for the New Zealand public, who saw a self-made man making millions of dollars in this money market—now we see that it is unacceptable, and the man is, basically, selling the country down the river. He is a man whose instinct it is to defend the 1 percent—the 1 percent who use phantom corporations, shell companies, and zombie directors. He talks about a database, a list, but this party, New Zealand First, has shown National real cases of real convicted people in companies who are on this list, who are evading their tax obligations offshore. They are using New Zealand as a tax haven. The Prime Minister—listen to him in his interviews. He speaks vehemently in denial and in opposition to this country being a tax haven. Listen as he is pressed on detail, and goes: “Oh, hold on. No, you can’t ask me that. I don’t know. I’m not a tax expert.” That is his go-to answer. As a layman, it seems ironic and distressing that he would stand up against the world tax experts who actually use expert knowledge and fact to decry the very real reality that New Zealand is being used as a tax haven—experts who use fact against a layman Prime Minister who decries: “You can’t ask me that. I’m not a tax expert.” This is a farce.

New Zealand First simply says to the Prime Minister: “Act—act now. It’s not acceptable. You cannot just sit there and sit back and watch this happen.” New Zealanders are seeing that our reputation is being sullied in the world. They are not comfortable with this. This Government needs to fix up these tax-evasion problems so that the 1 percent—the money-launderers, the gun runners—cannot hide their money here in New Zealand. It is unacceptable, and it must stop right now. Thank you.

It is time that the Labour Party members apologised for what they have said and done regarding Chinese Kiwis and house buying in Auckland. I attended a meeting at the time when Phil Twyford made the comments that he did—when he racially profiled in Auckland. I attended a meeting of a whole lot of Chinese Kiwis. They were hurt and they were upset, and they had every right to be hurt and upset. What I know in politics is that, in respect of the people who lead New Zealand and get support, it is when you actually tackle the real issues, when you actually understand that they are sometimes more complicated, and when you are actually truthful about what is really going on.

So what happened? What we heard from Phil Twyford was that 39.5 percent of the houses being purchased were being purchased by people with foreign, Chinese-sounding surnames. The reality—and we spent a lot of time working through an information regime to have a look at this—is that, actually, we may be dealing with, possibly, 2 to 3 percent. Even if you believe that data could be better, it is 2 to 3 percent. It is time Phil Twyford stood up in this House and said to a whole lot of people who were offended that, actually, he was wrong. He was wrong, and there are much more pressing issues in terms of housing for New Zealanders, around supply, around the issues of having special housing areas, and around Resource Management Act reform, which that side of the House is not supporting and which will make a greater difference to New Zealand than smearing a whole lot of Kiwis, some of whom have lived here all their lives, with the kind of half-baked information that Mr Twyford put up—another group of people who need an apology from Labour.

We have heard a lot about tax and we have heard a lot about the Panama Papers. The reality is—again, you learn in politics—that when people go on conspiracy hunts, when they do not have proper data, and when they have not thought through what they are actually looking at, innocent people can be hurt. We have an inquiry into whether there are genuine things that we can do to improve our tax system, and that is absolutely the right thing to be doing, so any question by the Opposition that we are not doing something is absolutely false and not true. But when you take hacked information and you start Googling through it, and other people’s names are then put on national television, the reality is, I think, that New Zealanders can see what it is. They can actually see that the people who should be running the country are the people who are focused on big issues and initiatives.

Yes, there may be genuine issues around some of the tax stuff, but, actually, again, using half-baked data, like with the Chinese surnames, does not command the confidence of a country that you can run the country. What that is about is the Opposition members trying to get air time—trying to be able to get enough time on the national news to be able to raise their profile. But what they are actually doing is destroying their credibility, because they are not being rational in terms of policy and they are not recognising that there are people who are collateral damage—whether it is Chinese Kiwis or whether it is other innocent Kiwis who have been brought through with this Panama situation.

The next area that I want to tackle is what our Government has been doing this week. What was our Government doing last week? It has been focused on some of our most vulnerable Kiwis. People can see it. When I was doorknocking the other week, what did people ask me about? They did not ask once—not one person asked me—about Chinese foreign surnames in Auckland or about the tax issues. What they asked me about were things like emergency housing. What they asked me about was what we are doing in terms of some of our most vulnerable, and medicines.

The reality is that this week has been a great week for the Government because we have announced real packages of support for those people. There is $39 million in terms of Pharmac, and 3,000 more emergency places in terms of housing. We have announced 1,250 more teacher-aide support hours. That means that we are now up to 550,000 more hours of teacher-aide support time. These are the issues that matter. I do believe it is time that the Labour Party members stepped up to the plate, started to focus on policy, stopped dragging people through the mud, and apologised, particularly to those Chinese Kiwis who were offended by Phil Twyford’s remarks.

I rise to address the issue of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). It is just as well that I am doing so for 5 minutes in the general debate, because there is no other chance for any member of Parliament to address the treaty as a treaty.

Yesterday the Green Party proposed that the select committee report on the treaty, tabled 2 days ago, be subject to a parliamentary debate. The proposal was rejected. That is extraordinary because the TPP is one of the most important treaties to affect New Zealand in many years, yet the Government, unwavering in the belief that it knows best, feels no obligation to have the treaty examination by the select committee debated in Parliament. It is required under the Standing Orders to have debates—three readings, and a plenary Committee, in fact—on the implementing legislation but not on the prior policy issue of the merits of the treaty itself.

There is something weird about the way we do things here in New Zealand. You would think that the policy considerations of negotiating and acceding to an international treaty would be the most important aspect of a nation’s judgment on the issue. You might think that this matter needs to be settled through robust debate before we proceed to implementing legislation. And you might be forgiven for supposing that the technicalities of legislation—of 11 bills—to make our law compatible with the new treaty requirements would be a matter for legal technicians, perhaps a parliamentary subcommittee of MPs with expert advisers. That would free up the time of the House to debate the real issue, which is the merits and demerits of the treaty itself. But no; we devote about 10 hours to debating 11 bills, which total 78 pages, and are required by the Speaker to stay on message, part by part, and even clause by clause. It defies logic, even constitutional logic, to suggest that 10 hours should be devoted to the technicalities of draft law, judged by worldly but inexpert members of Parliament, but nothing to the general policy of the national interest on whether or not to negotiate, sign, and ratify a major international agreement that imposes unprecedented new obligations on New Zealand.

These reflections raise the underlying question of the role of Parliament in general when it comes to treaty making. The Cabinet Manual at least tosses off an honest appraisal. Treaty making, it says, lies in the hands of the executive. What a masterful understatement. The executive decides whether to negotiate. It decides whether the negotiated agreement is worth signing. The executive, in the form of the relevant Government department, drafts and submits the national interest analysis.

This is a useless document because it is, by definition, redundant. They who have just negotiated the treaty are concluding that ratifying it is in the national interest. Of course they will; they just negotiated it. It is fine for them to convey the reasons why the ministry believes it was worth pursuing. The document could have passing value as an explanatory review, but it is a classic misconception and is deceitful to the public interest to convey a descriptive pretence that this is an objective analysis of the national interest. Who do they think we are?

I hereby announce, in advance, to the Speaker that because of the decision of the Business Committee not to hold a debate on the committee’s report on the treaty examination of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, I shall be allowing myself complete freedom during the three readings of the bill to address the general policy aspect of the agreement. There is no other way to ensure that the people of this country are given their democratic right to witness not inexpert legislative oversight but informed political judgment based on natural contestation on the intrinsic merits of a major policy decision.

I am waiting. I am waiting for the apology from the Labour members. I do expect that I will be waiting quite a long time, because never before in the 8 years that I have been a member of this House have I seen such a despicable display as when a party in this Parliament has singled out one ethnicity—one ethnicity—and absolutely trashed them.

So as we have seen, the real facts come out. And no, not the figure of 39.4 percent of Chinese buyers in Auckland, which one of the Labour members so recklessly and shamelessly put out in the public domain; we are talking 2 to 3 percent—2 to 3 percent of all property transactions over a 6-month period, and of that 2 to 3 percent, a very small number, 1 percent in total, were from China. Mr Speaker, I do not know about you, but it is absolutely disgraceful, and the members of the Opposition party should be embarrassed for using and singling out one ethnicity in the country of New Zealand, where we have over 200 ethnicities. We are a country rich in our multicultural values, and our country embraces our place in the world.

Unlike the Green member who spoke previously, Dr Kennedy Graham, we actually believe that taking our place in international trade is an important part of that and brings benefits for New Zealand businesses and New Zealand employers, because, at the end of the day, the Trans-Pacific Partnership is about those who benefited by it. And if you think about hard-working New Zealanders of whatever ethnicity, actually, they are interested in a job that pays well, where they continue to have security, and to have a growing economy. Although this side of the House has an outward view that embraces our place in the world, we are seeing more and more examples of Labour members who are focused on their own navels and who are becoming completely insulated and losing touch with New Zealanders.

Let us have a look at some of the facts because, clearly, the members on the other side do not want to talk about facts. They want to make up some fiction. So if we look at the first 6 months of the data—and I want to put on the record that, yes, it is the first 6 months; it is too early to make definitive statements about it, so we will watch to see how the data continues—we have seen that 2 to 3 percent of the total property purchases were by those who are non-resident for tax purposes. But the second part of the information, and the data that is collected by Land Information New Zealand goes further than that, is the information that is useful for us in informing housing policy. The first part of that asks of the property transaction: is there a house on this land? Ninety percent said yes. And then, of those who said yes, the next question was around their connection to New Zealand. Only 3 percent were not New Zealand citizens, residents, or here on a work permit or student visa.

Unfortunately, on this side of the House, we are focused on the issues that matter. When it comes to housing, is housing affordability a concern for New Zealanders? Yes. So, actually, we are doing things to tackle it. We are looking at land supply, we are looking at building materials, we are looking at lowering compliance costs, we are looking at speeding up local government processes, we are looking at reform of the Resource Management Act, and we are looking at practical things that make a difference in the space of housing. All the Opposition can do is make wild accusations that offend a huge number of hard-working New Zealanders and offend them terribly.

This is a Government that is focused on the issues that matter. We are not focusing on desperate measures, like the Opposition. This side of the House uses facts to support our policy, whether it is about growing jobs through trade, improving education, keeping people safe, having greater access to medicines, or assisting them into their very first home.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. [In New Zealand Sign Language]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I know it is an official language, but the member needs to also speak at the same time.

I need to speak at the same time? I have just said “Thank you, Mr Speaker.” I am pleased that I am able to use New Zealand Sign Language to take this call. In acknowledging that, I would like to acknowledge the Hon Ruth Dyson for her initiative in ensuring that New Zealand Sign Language became an official language of New Zealand.

Today the Prime Minister lost the plot. He completely lost the plot—and over what? It is almost unprecedented for a Prime Minister alone to be thrown out of the Chamber, but that is what happened. What did he lose the plot over? He lost it because he has been caught out. He has been caught out protecting the mega-wealthy who are using New Zealand as a tax haven. He has been caught out aiding and abetting them. That is why he has lost the plot. New Zealanders are asking themselves: “Who on earth is this Prime Minister running this country for?”. His behaviour over his need to protect the mega-wealthy has become so extreme. He is shrugging his shoulders at the idea that New Zealand is a tax haven, whereas most New Zealanders find that idea abhorrent. They are concerned about the reputation of New Zealand on the international scene, and so they should be.

The Kathmandu Post, I am informed, ran a headline this week that said “New Zealand prime place for rich to hide money”. The Kathmandu Post ran that headline, and New Zealanders living in Nepal are appalled because this is their country being run through the mud because we have a Prime Minister who just shrugs his shoulders—a Prime Minister whose Minister, when he was advised of the tax loopholes that were inviting this sort of dirty money to come to New Zealand, was then rung up by the lawyer of the Prime Minister, and suddenly the review to fix that problem was off. That is undeniable. That is why the Prime Minister has lost the plot. He has been found out to be donkey deep in this dirty little affair for New Zealand. So he has reacted in a way that we are not used to seeing him react, actually. But he got thrown out of the House today, and that is the reason why.

He said some years ago that his vision was that he wanted to see New Zealand become a financial services hub. We all know now that that has just been code for allowing the mega-rich to use New Zealand as a tax haven. That was the code that he used: a financial services hub. It is shocking to note that since 2009 the number of these foreign trusts that are operating in New Zealand has risen from around about 4,000 to 11,000. So it has mushroomed under John Key’s leadership, and it is no wonder.

We have got a situation where the Prime Minister will stop at nothing over this issue. He is prepared to take down the reputation of organisations like Greenpeace, like Amnesty International, and like the Salvation Army in his determination to continue to allow this process to happen in New Zealand. In his determination to protect the wealthy at the expense of the reputation of New Zealand, he is even prepared to take down some of our most reputable charitable organisations in trying to defend his position on that. It is indefensible, and the Prime Minister should be listening to what most New Zealanders say.

On that issue, most New Zealanders understand that we do have, in many of our cities, a housing crisis. Of course we have had one in Auckland; that is plainly obvious. Everyone knows it except for the current Government; it cannot seem to accept that. Because it has failed to fix the housing crisis in Auckland, because it will not even acknowledge it, now we are finding that that problem is landing in cities like Hamilton.

Here is what Nick Smith has to say about the housing crisis that is developing in Hamilton—we have had increases in house prices in the order of 34 percent in the last 12 months in Hamilton. That is what people are facing. Most New Zealanders know that there is something fundamentally wrong with that—well, not Nick Smith. He says that first-time owners need to play the long game; that is what he told the Waikato Times. How long do they have to wait to save up a deposit to get into a home, Mr Smith? The long game—well, the long game that New Zealanders know that they must play now is they must vote for a Labour Government next year. He also said that it is just a natural correction. So that is what the National Party thinks about the housing crisis that is developing in places like Hamilton. It has failed to fix it in Auckland, and it is failing to represent most New Zealanders.

There comes a time in a person’s life when they often have to face the truth. I can say—and I too have got a witness there, Mrs Sue Moroney—there were actions in this House that I was not proud of. At that time, I took the courage of my convictions. I went up to see the person—and Mrs Sue Moroney will know who that is; I will not name who they were—and I apologised. I apologised because I was wrong. I was wrong in my actions. I was wrong because I took the privilege of the House in a situation that I should not have. So when I stand up here in this House and I say that people should be held to account, I do mean it and I back it up by my actions. I believe the fact is that Mr Phil Twyford should apologise. He should say sorry, because what he did is he took the privilege of the House, he took a leadership position, and he turned round and used politicking as a way of making a point.

I want to talk about what I think is called the “Ng factor”. We are talking about the whole aspect of Chinese- and Asian-sounding names; it was called the “Ng factor”. So this is what he did: he went searching for evidence that would hopefully put him in a position where he could make a political statement, and, in his searching, he thought that he found the answer. What do we call that? We call it blaming. So what did he do? He began to blame what he thought was a statistic—that over 40 percent of Chinese who were buying houses were to blame for the issues of the Auckland housing affordability crisis. That is what he did. How do we know that? Because Keith Ng, who calls himself a Kiwi, turned round and wrote an article asking why he was blaming them, saying that, as Chinese, they are not foreigners and have been here for many years. Instead, Mr Twyford went along with the line of blaming. That is what he did, and what did it lead to? It led to shaming.

So how does shaming become real inside the Labour Party? Well, when you go to The Daily Blog, you do not often hear a lot of stuff that is supportive of where the Government is at, but every now and then you get a little gem. Here is where shaming makes a difference for the inside of the Labour Party. Young Labour wrote this: “Oh dear. Late last week, Labour Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford caused outrage and upset … This was, predictably, pretty bad – and justifiably backfired hard on Labour. It’s not that we don’t have a problem … It’s just that a list of Chinese-sounding surnames doesn’t prove anything”—here is the punchline—“except the laziness of Labour’s Parliamentary Research Unit.”

That is what happens when you go searching, blaming, and in the end it becomes shaming. If you have got integrity, even in this House—like I said, I will back it up; I have done it—then how about Mr Phil Twyford stands up and apologises.

But in the short amount of time that I have, I want to talk about the “Ng factor”. It is called the “doing”. What are we doing as a Government? I could talk about blaming and shaming and all sorts of things, but what are we doing? If we are talking about housing, let us talk about the 3,000 emergency housing places—and that is right, for Māori—under Whānau Ora. And I also want to acknowledge the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell and what he has been putting forward, in regard to meeting the needs of Māori in housing. I cannot know all the statistics; I know that he will know what they are. But this Government is doing the things that matter most.

What are we doing? Emergency housing: $41.1 million over 4 years to making a difference—3,000 places every single year. Yes, that is right. The other side can talk about people in houses, people in cars, people in caravans, but guess what? What are you doing? Absolutely nothing.

💬 Hon Annette King: We’re in Opposition.

This Government is making the difference. Even if you are in Opposition, that is the laziest, lamest excuse I have ever heard. That member should know that even if you are in Opposition, this is what you can do: you can listen to the people, you can advocate to Housing New Zealand. You can make a difference, Mrs King, even when you are in Opposition.

Let us talk about the affordability of housing: the KiwiSaver HomeStart programme that was launched in April at the Henderson Baptist Church in west Auckland, in Te Atatū—nearly 12,000 New Zealanders, spread right throughout the country, have been helped into their first home. That truly is making a difference. It is projected that for the $435 million that this Government is putting through, 90,000 Kiwis will have their first home over the next 5 years.

This is not the party that is about blaming or, even, shaming. I will put it again, as I started—here is what it is: if you have the courage of your convictions, then stand up and apologise. I have had to do it; how about Mr Phil Twyford does it to the Chinese community. They deserve it.

If we are talking about who needs to apologise, the National Government needs to apologise for the disgraceful actions that it has inflicted upon Māori in the past. Who remembers Don Brash in Ōrewa? Who remembers that speech? Who remembers the hate that was whipped up from that dog whistle, from that Government over that? We all remember it, because this is the Government of smoke and mirrors. It is the Government of smoke and mirrors, or, as Oscar Kightley performs it, they like to perform Jedi mind tricks. They like to distract, and deflect, and distract the population, especially, and the ringmaster is John Key.

Well, we know that those tricks are not working any more. He is under pressure, and his powers are weakening, and that is why the Government is under pressure today. Why have they been trying to say that Labour needs to apologise? We were merely seeking information as to what the true picture was in terms of overseas foreign speculators buying property in the New Zealand market. And what have we received? We have received absolute bogus data—bogus data from this Government. It is absolutely bogus. It is a mockery to mathematics—a mockery to mathematics. If anyone needs to apologise, the National Government needs to apologise to the Egyptians, the Babylonians, and the Greeks for absolutely destroying mathematics with their appalling so-called analysis of foreign-buyers’ data. That is who they need to apologise to.

How do we know—because the chief executive of Land Information New Zealand has even doubted the report himself. He is unsure of those figures. He says that you cannot trust this—you cannot trust these numbers. It is actually not very robust. So for this Government of smoke and mirrors and of Jedi mind tricks to try to say that “Oh, yes, this is our report, and the numbers are all good, and it was only 1,600 foreign buyers.”—hello! Forty-five percent of the sales in Auckland were excluded because they were in businesses and trusts and the like, so how can we actually get an accurate picture?

This is the Government that likes to be very selective only on what it drip-feeds out, and it tries to manipulate the population. As I said, the game is up for John Key. His powers are weakening. His powers are weakening because middle New Zealanders are wising up. They are wising up; they know whom John Key and this Government serve. They know whom they are there for; they are there only for the top. They are there only for the wealthy. They are not there for middle New Zealand. They are not there for the battlers. They are not there for the everyday folk out there who are working hard, who want to get their kids educated, and who want to have a good health system when they get māuiui. They are not there for them. They have been running down all those very institutions that are the absolutely pillars of our just New Zealand society. That is what this Government of smoke and mirrors has done, and it is an absolute shame.

Let us go to the Panama Papers. You know, a month ago I thought that Mossack Fonseca was a football player for FC Barcelona. How we have come a long way in one month—we have come a long way. What we have seen now is our reputation—our reputation internationally as Aotearoa—besmirched by the fact that we are labelled as a tax haven, that we are harbouring funds. Who knows where they come from, but our laws are permitting that. Our laws are welcoming the corruptness of the wealthy class from around the world. And the ringleader of all that and the chief sponsor of all of that is John Key and this Government. It is an absolute disgrace.

It is a Government of smoke and mirrors. But the good people of Aotearoa are waking up to that, and they are blowing the smoke away. We can see the pressure on the Government right now. That was evidenced by John Key getting kicked out of this House. Thank you.

On behalf of the current and all former New Zealand Governments, I sincerely apologise to all Babylonians who may have been affected at some stage, in a way that they find detrimental to their own well-being, by those Governments of the day.

On a more serious level, the previous member, Rino Tirikatene, made the comment that the National Party should apologise to Māori. Well, I want to say, particularly while both members of the Māori Party are in this House, that I am incredibly proud of the fact that this Government is unparalleled in its record of being not only apologetic but also committed to righting wrongs that have been done to Māori in generations gone past. And with the Treaty settlements process now well advanced because of the energy of the Hon Christopher Finlayson, supported by the Māori Party and our entire caucus, I say that our apology is absolutely sincere because we have shown it through our actions.

As other members have noted, this is New Zealand Sign Language Week. Unfortunately, I do not—I do not know whether “fluent” is the right term—have the ability to communicate in sign language. But I do acknowledge all the hearing-impaired members of our community, including in my own constituency of Hamilton West. I also thank all those wonderful people who work with them to help them to lead full and fulfilling lives, because those of us who are not hearing impaired can only imagine just how alienating that experience must be. Although, having said that, when you are a member in this Chamber, you can quite often feel utterly deafened by the babble that is going on around us. I just have to hope that none of us suffers long-term impairment with our hearing, although I am sure that it cannot be good for our mental health to be here for ever and a day.

Can I also note that last week two very exciting things happened on my home patch in Hamilton. The first was the opening of Rototuna Junior High School, the first new high school for all—other than a kura kaupapa—to be opened in our city for more than a generation. I think the last one was Hillcrest High School back in the 1970s. It is a wonderful achievement. I pay tribute to the hard work of the North-East Schools Action Group and my colleague David Bennett, who has lobbied on this issue for many, many years, and I celebrate with that school community this wonderful, wonderful thing that has happened, which was funded by the National Government.

I also want to acknowledge an outstanding festival that was held at our magnificent Claudelands—the venue for the Waikato and Bay of Plenty secondary schools Pasifika by Nature festival. A number of people probably do not think of going to events of that sort. I simply want to say that if you have an opportunity—you, Mr Speaker, personally, and all who are listening—go to Pasifika by Nature next year, because it was one of the most outstanding pieces of entertainment I have seen in a long time.

To all of the secondary schools that took part, I want to say a very big well done because they worked hard; they entertained us brilliantly. I was able to stay for four schools, three of which were from within Hamilton, and I was particularly proud of their efforts. But I want to single out Hamilton Girls’ High School, which won three of the six special awards and was judged the winner overall. What a fantastic effort that was—and also, honourable mentions to Fraser High School, Melville High School, Hamilton Boy’s High School, and Hillcrest High School. Boy, they were good.

The great problem for the Labour Party members—and they are demonstrating it again right now—is that they are obsessed in this House with beltway issues. We have been focusing today on a really important issue. We are still waiting for the apology that the Minister for Building and Housing invited them at the start of this debate to deliver, because—and I say this with my good friend and colleague Dr Yang right beside me—they owe an apology and they should be delivering it to the Chinese communities, the citizens and constituents whom we are all proud to represent in this country. That is because this is a party, this once proud Labour Party, that argued last year that people with Chinese-sounding names were responsible for 40 percent of Auckland property purchases, and that has been shown in the last couple of days, with some data that has been collected, to be utter bunkum.

There was no evidence for that outrageous suggestion; it was just a bigoted hunch on the part of Labour members for short-term, populist, political advantage. And boy, did it rebound on them, and I am so glad that it did, because now that the data has been produced, debunking that absolutely ludicrous assertion, what do we have? We have got Mr Twyford and his colleagues attacking the data. Well, how ridiculous is that.

On this side of the House, we are focused on the things that matter. In our recent pre-Budget announcements, there is the extra funding for Pharmac—really important, really welcome. There is support for teacher-aides, which has been given today, and a whole lot of other things: the Battle for our Birds from Maggie Barry. We are getting on with the things that matter, and I am very proud to support those efforts. Those things matter to New Zealanders.

Yes, it is a day of apologies, and lots of people have been talking about who should apologise to whom. Is it not ironic that in Parliament we should talk about such things? I will tell you who deserves an apology, and it is Andrew Judd, the Mayor of New Plymouth. Andrew Judd deserves an apology from his constituents there, and from Mike Hosking, who is surely the one who is out of touch. When a broadcaster uses his platform to belittle a man who stands up for minorities, a man who stands up for his moral obligation to Māori under the Treaty and is treated despicably by the people in his community for doing it—instead of congratulating him, instead of saying “Well done, you, for sticking up for the minority.”, instead of saying “Well done, Andrew Judd, for standing up for our commitment under the Treaty to Māori in this country.”, he said: “Andrew Judd, you are out of touch.”

Well, I will tell you who is out of touch, and it is that broadcaster. That broadcaster and this party are out of touch when they do not support Treaty rights, because this country was founded on a treaty of partnership. Anyone who thinks you get into local government based on a meritocracy is fooling themselves. Anyone who thinks you make it through just because you are good enough is fooling themselves. It is a popularity contest, and when the majority are the ones who are voting in that popularity contest, then the tyranny of the majority takes over.

Here is what that man does not have to contend with. If he thinks he is out of touch, I will tell you who he is out of touch with. He is out of touch with the Māori in this country. Yes—hello—the Chinese people have been belittled through the actions of the Opposition party over there, in the housing debate, but Māori have had to deal with that for 175 years. I say: “Welcome to our world.” Māori are not the marker by which all people are measured in this country. Imagine that! Imagine turning up and seeing: “Are you as good as us?”. That’s the marker. “Do you live as long as us?”. That’s the marker. “Do you have to claim back your language, culture, and identity?”. No, because it was never taken from you. That man is out of touch. He does not understand the racist bigotry that he has thrown out in this country.

The “Iwi/Kiwi” debate is not the thing that is uniting us; it is separating us. I will tell you where that debate comes from. It comes from the stealth of the wealth—the entitled in this country who can afford to take out full-page ads in the New Zealand Herald newspaper claiming that there is some sort of undeserved privilege of a minority of people in this country who are the indigenous race, who all other indigenous races around the country look to as the example of how to achieve within a country—the example of how to have representation in a country. Yet, in this country we still debate whether representation on councils is just, whether we have distributed democracy in this country.

Distributed democracy is what MMP is, and I call on all councils to follow the Masterton District Council and have iwi representatives with voting rights on the board. That does not take away—tell me what that takes away from councils. What fears do they have of having somebody voice the opinions and the attitudes and the obligations of indigenous peoples in this country? That is an irrational fear. It does not take away; it adds to. It is value-add to this nation, and it is value-add to our communities.

Māori will no longer sit on the sidelines and be ignored after being consulted about what they think about something. We should applaud Andrew Judd, and we should feel shame that he has to stand down from his position because he has been abused and belittled for standing up for minorities, for Māori, and for indigenous peoples.

As the only Chinese member of Parliament, I would like to join my colleagues and demand that Labour apologise and demand Mr Phil Twyford and Mr Andrew Little apologise to the Chinese community. The initial data suggests that non-resident buyers make up only about 3 percent of New Zealand property transactions—only 3 percent. In Auckland, it is about 4 percent. And of the 3 percent, fewer than 30 percent are from China. So, in total, less than 1 percent of the New Zealand property transactions were made by people from China. This is a very small percentage. This makes nonsense of Labour’s call to ban Asians from buying and selling land. Remember what Labour said last year? I can quote what Phil Twyford said last year. He claimed that people of Chinese descent bought 39.5 percent of houses sold by a major Auckland real estate firm. “This is foreign money—this is foreign money.”, he said. That was typical Labour: desperate and lazy—desperate because the polls have been consistently low, and lazy, because its members have been fighting inside themselves—within themselves. So this is what Labour did to the Chinese community. Now Labour should apologise, and the Chinese community may accept the apology and then move on. But so far, Labour has not and refuses to apologise.

Look at today’s Labour—very depressing. Look at what it did. The Labour Party was the party that apologised in 2002 for the poll tax on Chinese. Labour signed the free-trade agreement with China in 2008, and this party has changed. Now it is targeting the Chinese community very cynically and shamelessly for political gain. This is the Labour Party today. The Race Relations Commissioner, Dame Susan Devoy, slammed Labour and Phil Twyford’s claims and said that Chinese New Zealanders deserve better than this. Of course, the Chinese community has been in New Zealand for many years, since the 1860s, when we came as gold miners and we made a great contribution to New Zealand’s society and economy—basically, in all walks of life. The Chinese community has been law-abiding, hard-working, and has made a great contribution in all sectors of New Zealand. And, also, some weeks ago I went to the launch of a book entitled Chinese ANZACs. A few dozen Chinese Kiwis participated in the World War, fighting alongside other Kiwis. So this is the Chinese community—we are Kiwis, although made in China. That is what I said in my maiden speech: “We are Kiwis, although made in China.” We are genuinely Kiwis.

Also, it is important to note that the Chinese community has been a major force in property development—talk to many developers in Auckland. Although the Chinese buy properties, the Chinese also build properties. I have been talking to so many Chinese developers. They have become so important in Auckland, although people tend to forget that we have been contributing to New Zealand’s economy. Labour has forgotten that.

Also, I will say this Chinese-sounding name approach could do much harm to New Zealand’s economy, to New Zealand relations with China, and, actually, to our global reputation. We came to New Zealand because we love New Zealand as a genuinely multi-cultural society—an open, tolerant society. We came to New Zealand not only because of the environment but also because of the social harmony. But now Labour has destroyed that kind of reputation, so it is important for us to make sure that Labour recognises its mistake and apologises, and then we move on. Fortunately, New Zealanders do not share Labour’s xenophobic views. Look at the Chinese Lantern Festival each year.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.