By passing those remarks at Ms Lee, he has forced every right thinking person in New Zealand to ponder and consider the underlying issue.

Mr Mark had asked Ms Lee to “go back to Korea”

If a member of parliament can be subjected to such remarks, inside the House, then imagine the plight of lay immigrants who endure such remarks so often.

But the restraint and grace with which Ms Lee responded to it, in fact shows that she is aware of the position and privilege that members of parliament hold and the decorum that they should live up to.

It appears Mr Mark is in a hurry. He may have been waiting for such an opportunity from a long time. We can understand his desperation to step up, by the time his leader decides to retire, or to put in the words of David Seymour, to be the “the brightest bulb in the tree”.

But this incident is saddening. Sad not because these unfortunate remarks were made in a place where the Bill of Rights Act and Human Rights Act have been debated and passed, rather it is sad because this debate will now do exactly what Mr Mark and his party thrive upon. And that is the politics of polarization.

The more they hammer the immigrants, in line with their agenda of divide and rule, the stronger their vote bank gets each time. More such bashing and more members of parliament their party is able to take into the house.

However, Mr Mark forgets that if the majority of the productive immigrant work force were to indeed follow the suggestion, made by him to Ms Lee, of “ going back “, then who will serve the ageing vote bank that his party champions to represent.

There was nothing wrong in Ms Lee’s statement about the short trading hours in New Zealand, due to closure of shops so early, when compared to most of the overseas markets. Irony is the hypocrisy with which Mr Mark responded. We hope he does not say the same to the current royal visitors or their ancestors.

Has New Zealand, as other countries around the world, not changed from riding on horseback and carts to motor cars and buses? Are we not using computers in place of type writers, emails in place of sending messages through pigeons, using power and gas rather than stones to light fire and the list goes on. So what offended him to respond in the way that he did, is beyond comprehension.

With globalisation, the world is changing. To progress would require us in New Zealand to adapt to those changes. Be they of the make-up of our population or the variety of its ideas.

In the late 1990’s while watching the Miss Universe beauty contest on the TV, an answer by a ravishing damsel caught my attention, alongside her beauty. These contests are generally looking for a beauty with brains.

The question was” If you were to choose between constant and change, what will you choose and why”?

Her short and impressive answer led her into winning one of the top positons.

She answered “The only thing that is constant in this world is change, therefore, I will choose change”.

I rest my case.

Gurbrinder Aulakh is a lawyer practicing at Auckland.

© Scoop Media