Tuesday, 3 December 2019

TUESDAY, 3 DECEMBER 2019

TUESDAY, 3 DECEMBER 2019

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Transport

1. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Associate Minister of Transport: What recent progress has been made on regional roading projects?

Hon SHANE JONES (Associate Minister of Transport): With characteristic modesty, I would like to announce to the House that the Taipā bridge championed by the Rt Hon Winston Peters in the year 2014 was opened on behalf of the New Zealand Transport Agency, the community, and myself yesterday. That bridge suffered nine long years of neglect, and it has now been opened in the second year—

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Mark Patterson: What benefits will the new bridge bring to the local community?

Hon SHANE JONES: The completion of this bridge fulfils the need for trust, reliability, and delivery. After two years of suitable leadership, the people of Taipā have enjoyed not only a bridge but the improvements to stormwater infrastructure at the local school—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Not the responsibility of the Associate Minister of Transport.

Hon SHANE JONES: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In actual fact, the development of the bridge required the relocation of a memorial to the local school, which required an improvement to water infrastructure, reflective of the wide-ranging responsibilities I hold.

Mark Patterson: What other regional transport projects are progressing?

Hon SHANE JONES: State Highway 43, otherwise known as the Forgotten World Highway, a particularly symbolic name, as much of the regional areas of New Zealand have suffered the “Forgotten World” scenario as a consequence of neglect for at least nine years—$9.6 million from the Provincial Growth Fund will ensure not only that the unsealed section is sealed but that new opportunities will arise through improving the Tangarakau Gorge, an important freight route for beef, lamb, dairy businesses, and bees. Belonging to a party so pro-farming, that’s good news.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, Mr Jones, that’s one bridge; what happened to the other nine bridges that Simon Bridges promised?

SPEAKER: Order! There is no ministerial responsibility for that Bridges.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, especially my statement that nearly every school and community in New Zealand will benefit from a capital injection next year valued at $693 per student to bring forward urgent school property improvement. I’m proud that students and teachers will be the first to benefit from our infrastructure package. We are taking advantage of historically low interest rates to improve school buildings and grounds, creating jobs up and down the country. It’s the biggest capital injection for school maintenance funding in at least 25 years. It’s also great for local tradespeople as schools engage local builders, plumbers, landscapers, roofers, and those to re-carpet the floors. This has been well received across the country except, sadly, by the members opposite.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why has economic growth nearly halved since her Government started?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would reflect on the fact that the member experienced some relatively modest economic growth when he was in office. He, of course, turned and looked at the economic environment, but, somehow, the economic environment in which New Zealand exists doesn’t matter. We are in a situation where global headwinds are having an impact on just about everyone that we compare ourselves to. Relative to others, at 2.4 percent we are doing very well. The OECD also holds that up with its latest analysis too. So, relative to others, I think we can hold our heads up high.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why has monthly job growth decreased nearly 70 percent since she’s been Prime Minister?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: My recollection is that with some of the lowest unemployment rates that we’ve had in a decade and job creation, from my recollection, sitting at around 80,000, at the same time—very proud on this side of the House—we also care about what happens to wages, and they are at some of the highest rates that we’ve seen in a decade, at over 4 percent. We know that New Zealanders are benefiting from a Government that looks both at putting people into jobs—but good, decent, well-paying jobs—at the same time as growing jobs. It’s bizarre to, in one breath, have the member criticise announcements that help job creation and, on the other hand, question us over it. We are doing both.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept that the cost of living has increased sharply in the last two years, with petrol prices up and rents rising on average almost $50 a week?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We continue to have this stoush around rent rises. What I’d point to is Statistics New Zealand’s latest rent measures, which show annual rents rose at 2.1 percent from a year ago. That’s the lowest annual growth in over three years. Within that, the flow measure of Auckland rents, our biggest rental market, fell 1 percent. The last time there was a larger negative move in Auckland rents was in July 2009. On the cost of living, I would also add this is a Government that, when we came in, recognised we needed to focus on low and modest income earners. We cancelled that member’s tax cut, we gave it to families who needed it most, and, on average, by the time our Families Package rolls out, families will be on average $75 a week better off. That is directly to ensure that families can meet cost of living issues.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why does she think seven out of nine measures of child poverty have worsened under her Government?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because that measure was focused up until 2017, and that member did nothing about poverty. It’s a measure of what you didn’t do, not what we didn’t do, and I would thank the member to stop blaming this Government for what his Government didn’t do, because that is what those statistics showed.

Hon Simon Bridges: What, then, does she say to the head of the Christchurch City Mission, who says, “Things were much better under the previous Government. We are underfunded. The poverty we see is worse.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Then I would ask the member whether or not the last Government introduced a winter energy payment, increases to the family tax credit, removed some of the punitive sanction that was hitting families disproportionately, brought in a Best Start payment that goes to families with newborns and extends to years two and three of those on middle and low incomes, extended paid parental leave, and made sure that those who need additional assistance are getting it through the Ministry of Social Development. Anyone who claims that we have somehow not done as much as the last Government—I would seriously question what they are basing that on.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why have food grants doubled?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because we give people support when they need it. If the member wants to create a situation, a perverse situation, where we focus on getting that number down by sacrificing people’s ability to access the help they need—I would rather see people supported than living in cars without the help they need.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why have no significant roading or other major infrastructure projects started under her Government?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I completely reject the premise of that question.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister stand by her Government’s action of rushing legislation through Parliament to ban firearms in only nine days in April?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I absolutely stand by it, because it meant that we’ve got tens of thousands of dangerous, military-style automatic weapons off our streets, and I think that’s broadly supported by New Zealanders.

David Seymour: Why can’t the Prime Minister accept that rushed legislation leads to unintended consequences and accidents, such as 37—

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That’s two questions.

David Seymour: —thousand people—

SPEAKER: Order! When I tell the member he’s had his two questions, he stops.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Standing Orders state very clearly that you’re allowed to make the question intelligible. I asked if she accepted there were mistakes. The question is not intelligible if I’m not allowed to give an example of the mistake, so I don’t see how that could possibly be out of order.

SPEAKER: If the member had given one, I would’ve let him; he gave two.

David Seymour: I had not given one.

SPEAKER: Right, you have.

Hon Simon Bridges: Will the Ihumātao land dispute be resolved before Christmas?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We of course will seek to have it resolved, the time line of which I hope is as soon as possible. I’m sure that member would share the ambition of seeing this peacefully resolved.

Hon Simon Bridges: Will her Government’s electoral law introduced today deal with the situation where foundations and trusts receive donations which are then provided to political parties for electoral purposes?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Actually, the question I got asked on the tiles was whether or not it would deal with the more recent foreign donation example of the National Party. The answer to that is, actually, that’s a bit more complex. Obviously, that’s something the Ministry of Justice has asked for a bit more time to work on, that issue, and I look forward to the cooperation of the Opposition in developing those proposals.

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister deflected and didn’t come anywhere close to my precise question.

SPEAKER: Well, I suggest the member listens.

Hon Simon Bridges: Will her Government’s electoral law introduced today deal with the situation where foundations and trusts receive donations which are then provided to political parties for election purposes?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member well knows that it focuses on foreign donations—again, I’ve just acknowledged, though, the scope of which does not cover the substantive issue that some have raised around the way the National Party have used foreign donations. That’s an area of work where we need a bit more time because it is a bit more complex.

Hon Shane Jones: “Genghis Khan”.

SPEAKER: Looking backwards, Mr Jones, doesn’t help—no one else has a voice like yours, and it will be turned down for the rest of question time.

Question No. 3—Education

3. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What investments is the Government making in most State schools so that they can upgrade and modernise their classrooms over the next 24 months?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Some very good news. On Sunday, the Prime Minister announced that $400 million is being spent so that most State schools across New Zealand can bring forward urgent school property improvements over the next two years. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’d like to hear the Minister, rather than the seals in the background.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: This is the biggest capital injection for school maintenance funding in at least 25 years and is the first part of the Government’s wider infrastructure package.

Marja Lubeck: How many schools will benefit from the Government’s latest investment in school property?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m very pleased to say that 2,050 schools will receive funding from the package, with benefit for 661,000 students. Allocations will be based on recent roll numbers. The smallest schools will receive no less than $50,000, the larger schools will receive up to a maximum of $400,000, and special schools will receive $200,000 each, regardless of their roll size, to recognise their property requirements. Schools will be able to spend this money on things like upgrades, replacing roofing, replacing stormwater and drainage systems, installing energy-efficient heating systems, and resurfacing outdoor courts and paved areas.

Marja Lubeck: How will schools apply for the increased funding to upgrade their classrooms and facilities?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: A very good question. Schools are now able to go directly to the Ministry of Education with their property plans, and the school can then go out and obtain quotes for the work. This means that they’ll be able to use their existing contractor relationships and local providers to deliver that work. A quarter of our State schools are in small and isolated communities, which means that this cash injection is going to help to assist in stimulating regional economies as well as benefiting their local schools.

Kieran McAnulty: What does the school property funding announced on Sunday by the Prime Minister mean for schools in Wairarapa?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m very pleased to tell the member that there are 52 schools in the Wairarapa that will receive a total of just under $7 million for their property budgets to bring forward their upgrade work.

Kiritapu Allan: What does the school property funding announced on Sunday by the Prime Minister mean for the schools in the mighty East Coast?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Even better news. I’m pleased to tell the member that the 90 schools in the East Coast will receive a total of $12.3 million to upgrade their properties.

Marja Lubeck: What other recent investments has the Government been making in school property?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m very pleased to say that this latest investment comes on top of the $1.2 billion that we invested into school capital through the Wellbeing Budget to ensure that we’re keeping up with roll growth. This Government, so far, has announced the upgrade or new build of at least 1,100 classrooms, benefiting 33,000 students across the country, and 726 new classrooms have been built or upgraded, benefiting 15,000 students since the Government took office.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

4. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, especially today’s official opening of the Cancer Control Agency, who will play a critical role in ensuring all New Zealanders get world-class cancer care, no matter who they are or where they live. Modernising our approach to cancer won’t happen overnight, but with strong leadership from the agency, a greater focus on prevention, screening, and treatment, we’re well placed to make progress. In doing this work, I do want to acknowledge the family of Blair Vining, who, of course, was integral in some of the advocacy around greater consistency of care.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she stand by her statement that it was “always a part of the policy design” to allow authorised firearms dealers to get greater access to information regarding the gun buy-back scheme?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: My reference there was to the fact that dealers had sought to be agents who are able to collect firearms, store them, and then hand them over to police as part of the buy-back. The feedback we had when we were looking at the Australian model was that some gun owners would prefer to hand over their guns to a dealer rather than to return them to the police. We made provision for that in the development of the programme which enabled dealers to be part of those arrangements.

Hon Simon Bridges: How many people have accessed private data from the gun buy-back database?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The advice that I have received via the authorised agents in this case, which is SAP, is that one person was able to access that information.

Hon Simon Bridges: When was the data first accessed?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m aware that the police were advised yesterday. The member will forgive me if I can’t tell you exactly when the access was obtained, but my belief is recently.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is she certain her police Minister was right when he said that the only group who has shared this information are the Council of Licensed Firearms Owners’ lawyers?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Sorry, can you repeat the question?

Hon Simon Bridges: Is she certain her police Minister was right when he said that the only group who has shared this information are the Council of Licensed Firearms Owners’ lawyers?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Actually, we’ve been advised by the police—and the private provider, of course, who has overseen the development of this programme that’s allowed people to log on and register the return of their guns and then dealers, also, to be involved—that only one dealer logged in and viewed information that they shouldn’t have. That individual person has given assurances to the police that they have not shared that information subsequent to that. I have seen the claims by the Council of Licensed Firearms Owners. I would ask them to cooperate with the police, because, at this stage, we have no further information to demonstrate that it has gone as far as has been claimed. At that point yesterday, the Minister of Police was referring to statements that have been made by the Council of Licensed Firearms Owners.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of his policies and statements?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context in which they were made. I particularly stand by the careful management that has seen this Government have net debt below 20 percent in our first two years and run surpluses over that period of time. That now puts us in a position to take advantage of very low interest rates to correct the infrastructure deficits that were left behind by nine years of blue darkness.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Regarding his statement at the weekend’s Labour Party conference, “At the World Economic Forum in Davos this year I was so proud to hear our Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern tell the world how the Wellbeing Budget would work, and, more importantly, why it mattered.”, was the world’s response any different to what he is hearing from ordinary Kiwis who are wondering what happened to KiwiBuild?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The response was very positive, as indeed it has been to the Wellbeing Budget right across New Zealand. For example, the fact that among business audiences around New Zealand, among NGOs, the idea that a Government might take mental health seriously and put it at the core of a Budget is something that has been very, very well received.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has the feedback from Davos been any different than the feedback from Kiwi motorists wondering why 12 major road projects were cancelled or postponed by his Government?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I completely reject the premise of that member’s question. It’s all very well to stand in the middle of a field all alone, as the then National Party leader did, and make empty promises about ghost roads, but not actually fund them. That’s not the same thing as actually funding roads, and I’m very proud of our record in that regard.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Was the feedback from the crowd at Davos different to what he’s hearing from Kiwis running small businesses as they struggle with rising costs?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Look, I can feel the members’ jealousy about the lack of an invite to Davos, and I can say to him that I’ll do my level best to get Klaus Schwab interested in the member from Epsom—not for Epsom—and get him an invite to the next one.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: With export prices and our terms of trade at the highest level in decades, why does he always blame global headwinds for slower growth since he’s been in Government?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It’s not just me who has a focus on the fact that New Zealand exists in a global economy. In fact, if we refer to the Mood of the Boardroom survey, he would have noted—the member was there when that was released—that seven out of the top 10 concerns for business leaders in New Zealand were to do with the international environment. We are in an environment of global headwinds; the New Zealand economy is well-positioned to deal with them.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister tell us as to whether the feedback from Davos was one of envy at the NZX in New Zealand right now being at an all-time record since it was first formed?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Indeed, that is the case that we have at the moment. I think it’s a sign of confidence inside the economy, and I do believe that if members opposite looked beyond their negative mind-set, they’d see signs all over the economy that spring has indeed been here.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Atu kōrero pai—more good news. On Thursday last week, ANZ released its latest business outlook survey, showing both that headline business confidence and own-activity indicators jumped by double digits in November to their highest levels this year. It’s pleasing to see that the business community are feeling a little bit more optimistic as we head into the festive season. And while, of course, this remains a sentiment survey, I’d like to note the turnaround in what is a favourite measure for those on the other side of the House.

Dr Duncan Webb: What reports has he seen on consumer confidence?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We also saw the release of the ANZ-Roy Morgan Consumer Confidence survey for November, showing consumer confidence lifted three points to 121, above its historical average. Encouragingly, confidence in the economic outlook overall lifted. Consumers’ perceptions of the economy over the next year lifted seven points to a net 4 percent expecting conditions to improve, while the five-year outlook rose five points—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: From below bottom.

Hon Simon Bridges: From ridiculously bad to really bad.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —they’re loving this over there!—to a net 15 percent expecting improvement. When viewed alongside the business outlook results, this survey paints a picture of increased confidence in, and a more positive outlook of, the economy going forward.

Dr Duncan Webb: What is the Government doing to further bolster confidence and certainty in the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On Saturday, I announced that the Government will bring forward major investments in New Zealand’s infrastructure. This package will help address the infrastructure deficit that we inherited, boost growth and job opportunities, and create certainty in the construction industry going forward. I know many in the Chamber will be very keen to hear more details of this package, and I’ll have more to say about the size of it and how it will support the economy at the Budget Policy Statement next week.

Question No. 7—Police

7. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of Police: Does he have confidence in New Zealand Police’s ability to keep the information of firearm owners secure?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Yes.

Brett Hudson: Is he concerned that a claim exists that 19 people—not just firearms dealers—have accessed private information about firearms owners?

Hon STUART NASH: The evidence doesn’t show that, and whoever makes that claim, I suggest they get in touch with the police.

Brett Hudson: Does he accept that unauthorised access to information about the ownership of firearms could pose a risk to affected individuals?

Hon STUART NASH: My understanding, according to the latest police update, is 34 people had their information accessed and all 34 of those people are going to be contacted by police today.

Brett Hudson: What actions is he taking to ensure that firearms owners whose information may have been breached do not have that information used against them?

Hon STUART NASH: If that information is used against them, or in any way which is illegal, then the police will be investigating this. There is a full investigation under way at this point in time, but, as mentioned, the 34 individuals who had their full information breached will be contacted individually by the police.

Brett Hudson: Will he apologise to the firearms owners who provided their information to the Government to assist in the buy-back scheme, and now face a potential breach of their privacy?

Hon STUART NASH: Let me read a statement from SAP, and I quote: “A new security profile was incorrectly provisioned to a group of 66 dealer users due to human error by SAP. We unreservedly apologise to New Zealand Police and the citizens of New Zealand for this error.”

SPEAKER: Order! The member will address the question.

Hon STUART NASH: I will not apologise, but SAP, who made this error, has.

Brett Hudson: Will he now agree with National, who called for the Government’s firearms register proposal to be separated out from the Arms Legislation Bill so that more care can be taken with protecting the privacy of New Zealanders?

Hon STUART NASH: The National Party voted for the legislation that is seeing the removal of this, and it would be good, for once, to actually see them support this.

Question No. 8—Employment

8. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister of Employment: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that Mana in Mahi will provide “places for up to 4,000 young people”?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): The Prime Minister said that at the launch of Mana in Mahi in August of 2018, and I absolutely agree with the context of her statement, which was that our aspiration is to have up to 4,000 places available. I also agree with the Minister of Finance, who said the Wellbeing Budget boosts Mana in Mahi, the programme that subsidises employers to take on apprentices, “extending the places available from 150 to almost 2,000, and progresses towards [our] goal of 4,000 places”.

Hon Louise Upston: When did the Minister have the conversation with the Prime Minister to advise her that the 4,000 placements were too aspirational for him to deliver?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I speak with the Prime Minister all the time, and the 4,000 remains aspirational. I’m sure after four years, when we’re going to get to 2,000 people, we’ll be looking at that number.

Hon Louise Upston: How does the Minister reconcile the written question response stating that the Ministry of Social Development expects to deliver 2,000 placements by June 2023 with previous Government statements, including that from the Prime Minister, that up to 4,000 places will be available by the end of 2019?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: As I said earlier, the Prime Minister was talking about an aspiration. I support, and this Government supports, that aspiration.

Kieran McAnulty: What is significant about the people participating in Mana in Mahi?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Mana in Mahi is opening up career pathways for all Kiwis, with a targeted focus on our young people. It is especially pleasing to see that many participants are moving from long periods on a benefit into skills development while they are working. In fact, 39 percent have already spent more than one year receiving a benefit before starting the programme. As Minister of Employment, I want to see labour markets that all our people can participate in.

Hon Louise Upston: When will the number of Mana in Mahi placements exceed the number of young people that are joining the dole?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: In time.

Hon Louise Upston: Of the 5,500 young people that have joined the dole since that Government has been in office, what percentage are enrolled in Mana in Mahi?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: In terms of the percentage in terms of Mana in Mahi, we’re at a point where we’re at, in terms of the percentage—we’re at a percentage that is at a lower rate than the unemployment rate.

Hon Louise Upston: Ha, ha! Sorry, Mr Speaker. Is Mana in Mahi just another one of the Government’s broken promises letting down some of our most vulnerable young New Zealanders?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, not at all. In fact, Mana in Mahi has been a huge success. We have an 84 percent success rate in terms of young people not going back to the dole—84 percent. Now, I know the member has problems with numbers, but it’s 84 percent not going back on an unemployment benefit. That is a huge success for Mana in Mahi and for this Government.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: What reports has he seen recently on Mana in Mahi placements, and can he confirm stories such as those of the young person who was on an unemployment benefit for a number of years due to longstanding mental health issues and has now found employment that has given them hope and dignity, because of Mana in Mahi?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Absolutely. Thank you to the Prime Minister. We have these types of stories coming through all the time—all the time—and we care about these individuals.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Making it up.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: They’ve been long-term beneficiaries—long-term beneficiaries.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. The Hon Gerry Brownlee will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It would help me to know what I’m apologising for.

SPEAKER: The member is a member of considerable experience, and he would know that both myself and my predecessor and his predecessor repeatedly ruled out as disorderly and inappropriate the interjection that he just made. The Hon Willie Jackson—I did interrupt; the member’s had enough, has he?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: In terms of the stories, the stories are endless in terms of Mana in Mahi. We’re really proud of this, and we’re shocked that the National Party is continually condemning our young people. Eighty-four percent of these young people are not going back on unemployment benefits—what part of that does the National Party not understand? Eighty-four percent.

Question No. 9—Health

9. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What recent reports has he seen about the impact of cost on access to primary healthcare?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): In a country like New Zealand, no one should have to put off going to the doctor when they’re sick, and that’s why I bring more good news. In December last year, the Government made it cheaper for around 600,000 New Zealanders to visit their GP.

Hon Member: How many?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: 600,000. The latest results of the New Zealand Health Survey suggest that that is already making a real difference. The survey found that last year, 57,000 fewer people put off visiting their GP due to cost compared to the previous year. That’s an almost 10 percent reduction in just one year and takes the rate of unmet need for general practice services due to cost to the lowest level since the survey started reporting on this, in 2012.

Angie Warren-Clark: What are the benefits of making primary care more affordable and accessible?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Access to primary care is a key entry point to preventative healthcare and early intervention. Put simply, the more people who seek help from their doctor early, the better. Not only does it mean that health issues can be picked up early, when it’s often easier to treat them; it can also help people to avoid the need for costly hospital treatment. We know that cost is a barrier to GP care. That’s why it is so encouraging to see this sharp decrease in the number of people who have put off going to a doctor, because now they can afford it.

Angie Warren-Clark: What other progress has been made in improving access to primary care?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The New Zealand Health Survey also showed encouraging progress in two other areas where cost can be a barrier to care. Last year, 50,000 fewer adults reported that cost had prevented them from filling a prescription, and 33,000 fewer people avoided going to after-hours primary care because of cost. Obviously, there is more work to be done, but that is real progress from a Government committed to making healthcare affordable for New Zealanders.

Question No. 10—Foreign Affairs

10. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What is the Government’s official reaction to claims made by the Russian foreign ministry that New Zealand is responsible for the “murder” of seven children in Afghanistan?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): First, I would like to thank Mr Brownlee for his question. The last time the Minister of Foreign Affairs received a question from the Opposition was on 20 February this year. Evidently, things have been going perfectly for the last 10 months. The firing ranges in Bamian have been used by a number of international force—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was an interesting introduction to the question. These are important matters. Mr Peters often tells the world how important he is, so he’s only ever asked important questions. I think his response—or his opening to that question—was somewhat unparliamentary.

SPEAKER: Probably at about the same level as the point of order. The Rt Hon Winston Peters—with the substance of the answer.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It was out of appreciation. I was beginning to feel neglected.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think the member’s coming very close to misleading the House.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The firing ranges in Bamian have been used by a number of international forces over multiple conflicts. This makes it extremely difficult to definitively link specific unexploded ordinance incidents with particular munitions or countries. The members should also note that it was the previous Government which failed to clear the ranges to an acceptable standard introduced in November 2013. Therefore, it’s strange that they wish to raise this of all issues in the House, though we are more than willing, Mr Brownlee, to engage.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Will he be calling in the Russian Ambassador to set the record straight, telling him the New Zealand Defence Force did clear to the acceptable standard at the time the particular range in question?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of myself, the Russians have been aware of the New Zealand Defence Force statement issued on 5 November 2019, which makes it clear what the New Zealand position is. It’s publicly available and we’re not deviating from it.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Does his inaction in engaging with the Russian Ambassador here in New Zealand in defence of the New Zealand Defence Force indicate a Government acceptance of the allegations made by the Russians?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: This Government is famous for defending the Defence Force and provisioning them with the equipment they need for the first time in about 11 years. Here’s the reality, though. Just because some apparatchik in the Russian foreign service makes a statement is no reason for us to react.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Has he been told by his ministry that the Russians left an estimated 30 million landmines in Afghanistan and that those landmines kill or maim some 2,000 Afghans every year; and, if so, why is he accepting the allegations made against New Zealand defence forces by the Russian Government?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: If any member of this Parliament had a grasp of history, they’ll know it was decades ago that the Russians left and that they had nine years to tell the Russians about their failure, and never did.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Will he be calling in the Russian Ambassador to explain to him that it is unacceptable to the New Zealand Government—the allegations that have been made against the New Zealand Defence Force—when they have left 30 million landmines that kill or maim 2,000 Afghans every year?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is we will consider the member’s request, and it may be that we’ll have to overcome the neglect of nine years before us where they said nothing. But we’re not going to react to an apparatchik in the foreign services of the Russia, which had, as that person’s intent, an attack on the UK where they saw us as collateral damage. We don’t react like that.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Can the Minister confirm that the Government sought to set the public record straight by acknowledging that the New Zealand Defence Force, yes, met the standard at the time when they cleared the ranges and departed from Afghanistan; and had been undertaking work to go further and meet the additional new standards; and, at the same time, had cleared a significant—

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: —amount of unexploded munitions—

SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister is now on to—[Interruption] Order! The Prime Minister will resume her seat. [Interruption] No, no, and I’ve ruled the question out. There are four legs to it. The Prime—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: No, no; the member will resume his seat.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With this exception, I’m not challenging your ruling, but lives matter and people’s lives have been lost, and the accusations that are being attempted—to sheet them against our country. And I’d like to defend our forces who, after all—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. If the Minister or anyone in the Government wants to ask an in-order supplementary question in order to do that, that will be acceptable, but I do want to make it clear that the Prime Minister is not exempt from the rules for asking supplementary questions, even if she is relatively out of practice.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: Can the Minister confirm that the Government set the public record straight on the matters that the member has raised?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answers to all the Prime Minister’s questions have been yes, yes, and yes. More than 200 tonnes worth of unexploded munitions have been cleared by our Defence Force, and a number of those will date back as far as the 1980s after a decades-long war. We support our defence forces going about their public duty.

Hon David Bennett: No, you don’t. You’re a dreamer.

SPEAKER: Order! Mr Bennett, at least get your interjections in order.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Will the Minister be calling in the Russian Ambassador to express to him the Government’s dissatisfaction at the allegations laid against the New Zealand Defence Force, and to perhaps even ask for the Russian Government to consider putting a little bit of funding into the extreme costs now being met by the New Zealand taxpayer to clear up some of the 30 million landmines left in Afghanistan by the Russians?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I don’t have to. The Russian Ambassador’s watching this programme as I speak and is hanging on every word.

Question No. 11—Arts, Culture and Heritage

11. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: Does she stand by all her statements and actions around data breaches?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): Yes.

Dr Shane Reti: Can she confirm written questions that show the data breach of a sensitive, unencrypted email titled “Upcoming Ministry for Culture and Heritage papers for the next two months, beginning 19 August 2019” was incorrectly sent by her ministry to a Victoria University email account?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member has used the written question system to extract the details of that; it is absolutely his prerogative to use the House to do that also, but I would categorise the issue of information being sent to an incorrect email address as a result of an autocomplete error, which was detected immediately and has obviously engaged the ministry’s usual response to privacy breaches, and it has disclosed the issue—as the member is already aware.

Dr Shane Reti: Is it another data breach on her watch when as well as her answer to written question No. 35941, her ministry also sent me all the background information advising her how to answer the question?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If the member chooses to use the House’s question time for inadvertent emails being sent—as the member can well imagine, back in the day when Shane Ardern was in the House, I used to get a fair amount of information as well.

Dr Shane Reti: I seek leave to table background information to a written question No. 35941, that is not publicly available. The source is the Minister’s own ministry.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that being tabled?

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I seek for this question now to cease: everyone has the information I am about to provide the House—ha!

Dr Shane Reti: Can she confirm that the background information that her ministry incorrectly sent to me reveals that the very first time her office knew about a data breach, it was stated, “Your office first became aware of this issue in the course of answering earlier written parliamentary questions from Dr Reti”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If the member is asking whether or not the first time I was told that a ministry staff member autocompleted an email address and sent an email to the wrong person—yes, the first time I knew about that was then. I expect the member wouldn’t be surprised by that, though.

Dr Shane Reti: How many data breaches have occurred in background information to written questions that have been incorrectly sent to me by her ministry?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Given you are the recipient of information, you would be better placed to answer that.

SPEAKER: Well, the member would be anyway.

Question No. 12—Civil Defence

12. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Civil Defence: What recent announcements has he made about the national emergency management system?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Civil Defence): Last week, I announced the establishment of the new National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA), from 1 December 2019, to replace the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management. Can I thank my predecessor, Minister Faafoi, for the hard work that he has done. I offer to the new agency the confidence of this House in the good work that NEMA does and will do into the future.

Kiritapu Allan: Why was there a need to establish the National Emergency Management Agency?

Hon PEENI HENARE: NEMA will provide strong national leadership, putting whānau and communities at the heart of our national emergency management system. This Government is committed to ensuring that all New Zealanders can rely on a system that supports them to reduce, get ready for, respond to, and recover from any emergency or disaster. Post significant events, a review was completed. The review found that while the system was fundamentally sound, it needs a number of improvements to meet today’s challenges. I am pleased that this Government has been able to deliver on its commitment to establish the new agency.

Urgent Debates Declined

Gun Buy-back Scheme—Data Breach

SPEAKER: I have received letters from Brett Hudson and David Seymour seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 a data breach in the gun buy-back registering. This is a particular case of recent occurrence. The operation of the firearms buy-back scheme is a matter for which there is ministerial responsibility. The test for whether a particular case requires the immediate attention of the House is a high one. The Police has reported that only one person had access to the data. In light of that, I am not convinced that this matter is urgent enough to warrant setting aside the business of the House today. The applications are therefore declined. If the data breach, however, turns out to be more widespread, I would reconsider the applications.

Bills

International Crimes and International Criminal Court Amendment Bill

First Reading

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): I move, That the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to consider the bill.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

Bills

Referendums Framework Bill

Third Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Referendums Framework Bill be now read a third time.

I’m very thankful for the efforts of the committee during the committee of the whole House stage of this bill. It was a very, very thorough examination of the legislation; a very closely fought debate at that time. I’m very pleased with the state in which the legislation now is, as we come to this third reading stage.

It’s very important for our democracy that we have very clear rules on every aspect of our voting, not only for those parts of it that are about electing people to this House but also when it comes to referendums. We don’t have any standing referendum legislation to provide a framework. It is probably an adventurous task to take on something that would be enduring over time. But, nevertheless, this Government has made commitments to hold referendums now on two very important topics; matters upon which the voting public of New Zealand ought to have a say because they represent a major shift in social policy and values and approach. So this bill provides a framework for the conduct of those referendums at the 2020 general election.

Now, I know it was the habit of some members in the committee of the whole House stage to want to engage in the substance and the merits of the particular issues that will be the subject of referendums next year. But that is not what this is about right now. This is about making sure that the bill that provides that framework—under which the referendums will be held—has integrity, is robust, and allows those referendums to take place under a set of rules that most voters will recognise because they are pretty comparable to the rules under which the voting next year will happen anyway.

So this bill is about sustaining and maintaining those very important democratic values that underpin what happens when voters in New Zealand go to the polls. We will have two referendums now to engage with next year. Making sure that those referendums run smoothly means that we have to have a good set of laws in place, so we have taken the prudent step of making sure this bill sets out those rules and puts in place a single set of rules to govern the conduct of both referendums.

Both will have slightly different origins. This House has already passed the End of Life Choice Act. That Act can come into force only upon a successful vote—or a Yes vote—at a referendum. So that will be one of the referendums that are conducted. And the other referendum, which relates to the legalisation and regulation of cannabis, comes through a different process. Both will be the subject of questions that are as simple as possible but both questions are slightly different, to recognise that in one case there is an enacted piece of legislation and in the other there is a draft piece of legislation which at least the parties in Government have said they will be bound by the result from.

So the Referendums Framework Bill draws on the basic foundations of our electoral law that have been in place for a long time. It does not seek to be specific to any particular referendum. It is a generic bill, providing for those basic rules, and it provides those mechanics that we expect to be in place for the referendums for next year. The bill enables the Electoral Commission to conduct the referendums using the same voting places and the same voting staff as for the general election—that would make sense—and it provides for the counting of the referendum votes and the release of the results either with or following the release of the general election results. We know that, on election night, whatever the designated election day is, the priority will be getting out the results relating to the candidates and the parties. The results related to the referendums will almost certainly follow, and the bill provides for that as well. Also, the bill provides that the offence and penalty provisions in the Electoral Act apply to similar offences committed in relation to referendums.

One of the big concerns that many submitters to the original bill had was the possibility that these two very sensitive, very important issues that the New Zealand electorate is being asked to express a collective view on would be subject to campaigns where some interests might have very deep pockets, others not so much. So, to the best extent possible, we want to level the playing field—equalise the chances—to make sure that no one has an undue advantage. The same rules that apply to advertising for candidates and parties in the general election will apply to the referendums. And, of course, we’ve also foreshadowed, earlier today, a slight change in the advertising rules so that online advertising—advertising on social media—must now carry that attribution statement. New Zealand voters are entitled to know who it is who is seeking to influence and persuade them in the exercise of their vote. That will mean that we do have a set of rules and laws that have some integrity, some fairness, and mean that people can vote with a degree of confidence and, indeed, enter the public debate that these referendums will almost certainly engender with a sense of confidence that no one is getting an unfair advantage or no one is being unfairly shut out.

With all these things, the big challenge is often striking the balance between openness and transparency and freedom of expression but also making sure that those with the means don’t seek to unfairly influence and distort the true expression of the electorate’s opinion. So, with those matters in mind, the rules will require promoters of referendum advertisements to put their promoter statement on any advertisement and to register if they intend to spend more than $13,200 on referendum advertising during the regulated three-month period prior to the designated election day. As well as that, the registered promoters will also be required to submit a return of their expenses to the Electoral Commission if they spend over $100,000, and there will be an overall limit on the amount that can be spent of $330,000. Those are the rules that will apply when it comes to spending and to those who seek to influence the outcome of the referendums.

The bill also addresses some minor areas of difference from some rules that apply to the election, which reflect the nature of referendums. So, as I said, there’ll be no preliminary count on election day itself; that will follow, but the results will be duly released so people will know what that result is. It’s very important that we put in place very fair rules, very transparent rules so that the public debate, when conducted, is one conducted in a spirit of openness and fairness. That is what this bill seeks to achieve. I know that members opposite were concerned about some sort of procedural aspects of it. The reality is that this is a measure designed to deal with the exigency of referendums in the 2020 general election.

I think it is right, when those submitters who came to the select committee to say we ought to have a standing framework for referendums, particularly those that accompany a general election—I agree with that, and I’m very keen to see in due course a framework put in place that aligns with our electoral laws to allow that to happen. What has become apparent, the more I look at—and I know officials look at—our electoral law at the moment, is it is very clear that that is a law that is well overdue for an overhaul, and it may well be that in subsequent Parliaments that work will get under way, where we look at both the requirements for our electoral law generally and also for the conduct of referendums as well.

On that note, I’m very pleased with where this has ended up. This sets us up for a good, fair election for next year, and I commend the bill to the House.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members of the public who have followed this debate as this bill has been rushed through the House by the Government in recent weeks will know that the National Party is utterly and implacably opposed to it. There is very little that I can agree with in what we have just heard from the Minister of Justice, but he did at least acknowledge towards the end that the Opposition has some procedural concerns. Well, that speech was riddled with platitudes and euphemisms, and “procedural concerns” just doesn’t underline in any way how strongly opposed we are to this bill.

He spoke of level playing fields. Well, I can assure him and members of the Government and their coalition partners that this bill does not deliver a level playing field in the very important aspects of our democracy that will be decided at the same time.

Hon Shane Jones: Don’t exaggerate!

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Hon Shane Jones says that I am exaggerating. I take it, therefore, that he is happy to go into an election having a referendum on marijuana. I’m sure that he, as a member from Northland, is very keen to see marijuana liberally dispensed and in a very liberal regime in his area.

Hon Shane Jones: That’s a big call!

Hon TIM MACINDOE: It is a big call, Mr Jones. In other words, the point I’m making is that you as a member from Northland, you as an iwi representative in this Parliament, ought to be defending your people, ought to be speaking up and saying how concerned you are—

Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand this is a spirited debate, but I should not be misrepresented, and the member needs to come back to the content of the bill, which is not about how Shane Jones might cast his vote.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Speaking to the point of order—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don’t need any help, thank you. First of all, I’d make the point that I decide what’s relevant or not. Secondly, I’d refer you—I don’t have the exact Standing Order, but there’s one that relates to interjections, which you do at your own risk. I listened very carefully to the retort. Any member who has the floor is entitled to respond to an interjection, and he did just that.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate that. The Minister of Justice also spoke of the fact that this is a Government that believes in openness and transparency. Well, this bill and the referendum—or “referenda”—framework that it seeks to initiate is the exact opposite of openness and transparency, because any member of the public ought to be able to go through the process next year of listening to a public debate clearly understanding exactly what it is that they have to decide on two very important referenda questions, now, that we have been given, and to know that the Parliament played the important role that it has always played in the past in setting those questions.

So what is it that is most obnoxious? It is the fact that in all of our constitutional history all previous referenda in this country have been decided by a mechanism which puts Parliament front and centre in the decision making, in designing the framework, in designing the wording of the referendum question—but not this time, and not this Government. For the first time ever, we have a Government that has decided to use its executive power to take away the very important constitutional responsibilities of the Parliament to determine the question.

So, as a result, can any member of the Parliament tell me right now what the cannabis question will be? Silence. This time next year, we would assume, the general election and the referenda will both be over. We will know the results. We will probably be looking at the formation of a new Government and a new Parliament, and yet here we are, that close to that important democratic obligation that we all have as New Zealanders to make important decisions, and not one member of the parties opposite can even tell us what one of the most important questions will be. Well, as I said in my reply to the interjection a few moments ago, the questions that we will have to decide on the future regime for cannabis for recreational purposes in this country is of huge significance to every community the length and breadth of this country, but particularly in some of our more deprived areas where cannabis and other drugs are wreaking havoc and doing enormous damage.

We in the National Party believe that Parliament ought to have been given its constitutional right and responsibility to determine the questions. We ought to know exactly what those questions are now. We do know what the question will be on the euthanasia bill, although it is to my considerable regret that the question we are being asked will not reflect the nature of the issue—but that’s another matter.

Coming back to this one, it is simply wrong that this bill that we are being asked to consider at its third reading this afternoon transfers the decision on the topics and wording of referenda at next year’s general election from Parliament to Cabinet. That has never happened before. Since 1853, every referendum that has ever been held in conjunction with a general election has been determined by the Parliament. I recall being on the other side of the House three or four years ago when we were dealing with the flag referendum question and the outrage that was being fired at us from this side of the House over process, and yet what we were doing then was having a very thorough debate in the Parliament so that the Parliament as a whole would determine the question. The utter hypocrisy of that situation was that National, Labour, and the Greens had all gone into the previous general election promising to hold that referendum and yet, for cynical reasons of their own, the Labour Party and the Green Party then completely reversed their particular position and decided to try to adopt some moral high ground—I don’t know how you can do that when you’re going against your own party policy—and then to say that somehow the flag referendum issue was a John Key vanity project. I think that’s a huge blot on their record, and yet that was the way it was.

In this particular issue, we have additional hypocrisy, because the bill is time limited. We have a Government that’s saying, “We’ll make this work for ourselves, we’ll use it for our own convenience, but in case there’s a change of Government next year, we won’t allow it to carry on. We’ll revert to the way things have always been since 1853.” Well, if they were right from 1853 to 2018 and they’re right again from 2020 for the foreseeable future, they are right now. This Government—it isn’t too late—should say “OK, we’ll go back and we’ll do the thing properly.”, because the Parliament ought to be having a debate right now on what the wording of that cannabis question will be.

I’m sure that some of my colleagues who will follow me in this debate will explore that particular matter in greater detail, because, as I say, this is of huge significance to communities the length and breadth of this country. It isn’t just something that’s on the periphery. Drugs, and the recreational use of drugs, are doing enormous damage, and we ought as a Parliament to be able to frame a question that the Parliament can then take to the people and say, “Here it is—here are the issues you need to consider. Here’s the public information campaign. Listen to the experts, consider all the evidence, and come to a considered decision.” Well, this bill takes that important opportunity away from the public of New Zealand, as a result of which New Zealanders don’t know now, and probably won’t for some time, exactly what they’re voting for, because even if they make a particular decision, they can’t even be sure that it will be binding. It will then presumably go to a select committee after we have a referendum result, and then it could change. Well, that is an insult to the voters of New Zealand. That is an outrage, constitutionally.

The National Party is simply arguing for a consistent and principled approach. We are arguing that our important democratic and constitutional traditions should be respected and upheld. It’s very well-known that the wording of a question in a referendum can influence the outcome, the decision, and sometimes in a most unfair way. I mentioned a moment ago that I have great concerns about the euthanasia bill and referendum for that reason; I believe it is misnamed. We need to know, in the cannabis question, exactly what it is that New Zealanders are going to be asked to deal with.

We’ve also got the fact that now we’ve got two very controversial topics being held in conjunction with a general election, and that in itself may well distort the outcome, may well take away from New Zealanders the ability to focus on the important issues that the election should be decided upon, or, equally, may mean that they give inadequate attention to the questions that they need to determine via the two referenda that we are going to be deciding.

The Prime Minister said that it will be a binding referendum for the public, and the justice Minister said we have a commitment that it is binding, yet neither of them seem to have any idea what a binding referendum actually is. So, again, we have an example of the senior members of this executive saying one thing to the public but actually doing something quite different. For the Minister of Justice to describe that as openness and transparency is absolute nonsense. He talked about a spirit of fairness. Well, there is no spirit of fairness in this particular measure. There certainly isn’t in the way that they have rushed this bill through the House. So National remains utterly opposed to this. It’s an outrage, constitutionally. The Government should not pass this bill, even at this late stage.

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, there’s certainly been a lot of hot air and debate—heated, emotive debate—about this piece of legislation. I did think maybe we might have a more reasoned debate in the third reading, but the claims of “outrageous” and “unconstitutional” continue around what is, essentially—I think I called it a mechanical bill in previous readings; in this reading, I think I’ll call it a scaffolding bill, to set up the process through which referendum or referendums can be conducted for the 2020 election.

Firstly, I just want to acknowledge the work of the Minister, Andrew Little, on this. This is a piece of scaffolding which, essentially, sets up the framework for the ability for New Zealanders to answer questions at the election through referendum, which doesn’t happen very often, and it’s very important that we get that process right. For the people listening out there wondering what all of the huff and puffery is about, that is essentially what this bill does, is set up a mechanism for those referendums to occur. I also just want to congratulate the Minister for the use of the term “referendums” as opposed to “referenda” as being the plural of referendum. I had to get that in there given that there’s been a bit of to-ing and fro-ing on that particular matter during the passage of this bill.

I also want to say to Tim Macindoe that it’s actually perfectly legitimate to argue a case against the issues that sit around these referendums—what we’re actually asking the people of New Zealand to give us their opinion on. It’s perfectly legitimate to put a point of view for or against and to be angry about a particular issue that’s being put to referendum, but what defeats the purpose of this House is to argue against there being the best possible framework or scaffolding for those referendums to occur.

That’s what I have been puzzling about right throughout the debate on this legislation: how the depth of passion that’s being used against having a really good set of mechanisms in place for people to make sure that we’re getting it right as to how those questions can be asked so that the public can be reassured that there will be minimal confusion for voters, for electoral staff, and for all the other stakeholders that participate in the referendum—for example, the political parties and campaign groups.

In terms of the claims around unconstitutionality, or the outrageous constitutional overreach, which has been the phrase used over and over again by the Opposition, I’ll say this again—and I said it in the first reading, as well—there is no set procedure for setting referendum questions. So the claims that there is a constitutional overreach are incorrect—patently incorrect. I’m not going to use inflammatory language around that. The Minister has already signalled that he thinks there should be a standing framework for referendums. I absolutely agree, and I’m sure that’s a piece of work that he will put under way.

Just in closing, there’s been exhaustive debate, so I’m not going to relitigate all of that, but what this bill does is it sets up a process to establish a referendum. There are two mechanisms to do that: one is through Order in Council; the other requires an Act. Given that we’re going to have two referendums, it looks as if both of those triggering mechanisms will be used. It sets up a process for the conduct of the referendums which aligns with the conduct of the general election around electoral officers, eligibility to vote, the form of the paper, the counting and declaring, the offences and the penalties, etc., etc., and it sets up a process around the advertising which regulates that advertising during the three-month period immediately prior. Again, this aligns with the general election.

Finally, it provides a mechanism to appeal, to challenge. Just as there is a mechanism in the Electoral Act to challenge the election of a constituency candidate or the allocation of party list seats by way of petition to the High Court, there is a mechanism in this bill to require a minimum of 200 electors to make a petition to the High Court.

This is fair. This is something that New Zealanders can be reassured is good, well-built scaffolding to provide a framework for the referendums for the 2020 election.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Another contribution by me on the Referendums Framework Bill—and, of course, my last, with this being the third and final reading that we’re engaged in today—and still I have a number of questions that I regard as, essentially, unanswered, notwithstanding that during the committee stage, we did have some interaction with the Minister in the chair on a number of points. But, as I say, I don’t regard those as having been answered satisfactorily, and so I intend to run through some of those in my contribution today.

The first: I’ll just allow myself to pick up on the points made by the Hon Clare Curran in relation to what she describes as scaffolding. So the framework in the name of the bill, the Referendums Framework Bill, she characterised as a scaffolding, which is sort of interesting, considering that what actually is being put in place is surely much more substantive than that. Surely it’s the entire building, except to say that the bits that aren’t in the bill because they’ve been delegated to the executive, conveniently for the Government, are such key matters as the question of each referendum—or at least in one case, that’s so—and so, surely, I don’t think that’s the right metaphor.

But even if it were, the more fundamental question remains, as proposed by the Hon Tim Macindoe: why are we erecting a structure that is simply going to be taken down at the end of the next election period? Why are we setting up scaffolding, or foundations—as I would probably rather describe it—simply to be taken down so that someone else does not have the opportunity to use them? I suppose I could leave that almost as a rhetorical question. It’s inconvenient to the current Government, no doubt, the thought that their successor Government from 2020 onwards—it seems it’s so increasingly likely that that will be the National Party and friends. So it just seems to me extraordinary that we can hear, with a straight face, from the Minister of Justice, first, and, now, from the Hon Clare Curran, that we will have this sort of structure that’s been set up, only to be taken down—this sort of scuttling the ship as they desert it, like so many rats swimming away, if you’ll forgive me the metaphor.

So the question that I have as well is: why is the question of each referendum not going to be the subject of a parliamentary debate? It’s certainly the case in relation to the drug liberalisation effort—and I deliberately don’t say “decriminalisation” or “legalisation” because at this stage, we don’t know which it will be, and that is half the point. That’s a large part of the contention that will be played out up and down the country in terms of those who are for or against the proposal, but, again, as a Parliament now, we don’t have the opportunity to scrutinise the question itself.

Just to illustrate, without going into too deep a lecture on semantics, it just seems to me interesting that the kind of opportunity that the Government, through Cabinet, will have to suggest a particular outcome in relation to the drug referendum would come in when you have things like undefined terms. So it might be, for example, that they’re planning to ask about the use of recreational drugs for adult New Zealanders, but that might mean different things to different people; in fact, it almost certainly would, whether we’re talking about those who are over 16 or over 18, being different ages of majority in other legal contexts, rather than perhaps those who are 25 years old or older, with a certain amount of further brain development happening between those years, and so on.

We might also have in the referendum question in relation to liberalising the drug regime perhaps an emphasis on harm minimisation. That’s not necessarily a bad thing in itself, except to the extent that it could suggest to those ticking the box on the ballot paper that it will simply be a matter of minimising harm to allow the greater use of whatever substances we’re talking about, without highlighting the inherent dangers still in some of them. In any case, I don’t intend to go into the substance of that particular debate but just simply to highlight there are a couple of different ways—actually, more too, but I’ll leave it there—that a question of a referendum can suggest the outcome or make one outcome more likely than another, and that is power that is being delegated by the Parliament, through this bill, to the executive—Cabinet.

On a related note and, again, as we’ve discussed extensively on this side of the House, that power will be exercised behind closed doors. Cabinet decision-making is behind closed doors, naturally so. The doctrine of collective responsibility is such that they will all be expected, those Ministers, to toe the party line, so to speak, once the decision is made. That’s fair enough, as far as it goes. But that opacity of decision making is such that the people of New Zealand, through its Opposition—in fact, through the whole Parliament—won’t have the ability to engage with the crucial question of what the question will be. That’s a shame, to say the very least, in constitutional terms.

Another outstanding question actually arose more recently in relation to some discussions that have been had with the Minister and his officials—I think at select committee, but please don’t quote me on that, if I’m incorrect about where I’ve read or heard that particular comment. The question was about how the unit to be set up in the Ministry of Justice is to play its role in relation to the referendum—or “referenda” or “referendums”, for my friend across the House. So we don’t have a lot of clarity in terms of the legislation, and we don’t have any clarity on an official level either, in terms of PRs being set out or other statements in the public domain. So that’s not really clear at all, and yet this is crucially connected with the subject that we are discussing here today, or at least that we should be discussing—that is to say, what the subject of the referenda themselves will be.

An interesting question arises from that, then, which is to say that the next Parliament would be very strongly able to argue that it shouldn’t be bound by the actions of this one. That’s a generally accepted principle, that one Parliament can’t bind another. It would be anti-democratic to privilege one set of lawmakers over another and, effectively, deny the ability of the people to have ongoing exercise of their democratic will, but we’ve got a situation here, via this bill, where that’s actually entirely possible.

Actually, worse still than one Parliament binding another, what we’ve got is a situation where the current executive could, effectively, bind the next Parliament to the extent that they can set the rules—or some of the rules of the game, to be fair. In particular, again, I emphasise the referendum question. The current Government can set that question. It will be expected, as a matter of moral, political, and possibly legal weight, that the next Parliament will enact the decision of the referendum, and yet this Parliament will not have had the opportunity to thrash it out in the way that we do in parliamentary debates, ugly as it is sometimes, and certainly through the creature of Parliament that is select committees.

So, again, it’s a lack of transparency in relation to matters that aren’t merely academic that will, indeed, influence the way of life in New Zealand. However one feels about those respective questions, I don’t think we can deny that they’re serious and weighty matters. So that’s a real challenge in terms of the next Parliament arriving, and being expected—and I’m sure the people of New Zealand will expect the next Parliament to enact the will of the people at the referendum. But if, as I say, the foundations have not been built solidly, if the house, or even the Hon Clare Curran’s scaffolding, is not made on firm ground, then we can expect it to be washed away by the tide of public opinion, or at least some sort of great constitutional forces. There’s an extended metaphor there which I’m reaching for and cannot attain at this stage, so I’ll move on.

Hon Kris Faafoi: That’s the last eight minutes.

CHRIS PENK: That’s the last eight minutes. Thanks very much. So I’ll just finish with one point that seems to me particularly important, which is really in relation to the particular aspects of the drug liberalisation legislation, or maybe the legalisation legislation—it is a bit of a tongue twister, that. It’s particularly, in the context of this bill, not actually providing us that kind of clarity or certainty. It’s simply this. I posed the question to members of the Government: when will we see the terms upon which that question will be asked of the New Zealand people and answered by them? There’s nothing in this bill that explains for a moment or comes close to explaining what we can expect in that regard, and yet we should be able to know the answer to that question. We should have the opportunity for an open and transparent conversation. I know that the phrase “open and transparent” tends to be somewhat of a punchline in political circles these days, but that’s not my fault.

Nevertheless, the lack of openness and transparency about a crucial question that will affect the fabric of the nation—to use the high-flown phrase that New Zealand First are fond of in relation to referenda. That much we don’t have yet. I’m asking earnestly when members of the Government will actually tell us, because until such time as they are open and transparent about that, then they should not expect any support whatsoever in relation to the shaky foundations, the shonky foundations, which they’re proposing to put in place via this bill.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): I follow the member Mr Penk, who was searching for a suitable analogy or symbol when he talked about fragile foundations. As a man who has very strong views, and I respect him for his strong views, he should look no further than the Book of Corinthians, where the foundation is laid by the wise builder and others will follow on. So in that context, I suggest, sir, that you stop catastrophising what this piece of legislation actually is endeavouring to do.

I want all of the House members and the public to know that this is a piece of legislation that shows that our constitution is dynamic. We don’t take these artificially inflated, static views about how matters of significance to the New Zealand voters should be phrased or should be endorsed. Indeed, the parliamentary committee that will enjoy oversight over the wording to be included in a referendum is actually chaired by a member of the National Party. Now, when you hear these shrill denunciations, quite unintelligible, you would think that they are looking at a completely different piece of legislation. Unfortunately, they are studying it from the wrong end.

This piece of legislation is incredibly important because it enables the two referenda to be held at the next general election. The member from Hamilton made a very good point that one of those questions is an incredibly vexing issue for, especially, those of us from our Māori communities, as to what level of liberalisation should those who want to enjoy and grow cannabis enjoy. I will cast my vote, and that level of liberalisation will not change one inch, but that’s my right as a Māori rangatira in Tai Tokerau to vote how I like.

My obligation as a parliamentarian is to ensure that this bill passes to give confidence that the structure to enable the referendum to be held at the next election is robust. We’ve already referred to the question that will be held in terms of the euthanasia debate. That also is a vote that each of us will be entitled to cast. We will bring both our family histories, our social and medical histories, and, indeed, the values of our upbringing to that question. But to suggest that this bill is somehow undermining the constitution—the notion that the person trying to defend the constitution through this bill is Nick Smith is further evidence why this bill is very good.

There, obviously, are some rules around advertising. I do have some anxieties, because these are such polarising questions that we are going to require a robust set of rules around the advertising pertaining to the referenda. They need to have the same level of strength that pertains to election advertising. It could be said that there could be a diversion of effort, and people will not be focused on the brag list—which is considerable out in the provinces as a consequence of my advocacy—and it might be eclipsed by questions around the referendum decisions. But the House has had ample opportunity to debate. The House is empowering the Electoral Commission to conduct referenda using the same voting places and electoral staff as for the election. None of that is revolutionary. None of that is radical. It will provide for the counting to referenda votes, the release of those results following the release of general election results. This is something that the vast majority of New Zealanders are incredibly familiar with and, indeed, will suffer no confusion about as a consequence of this bill.

I do think that the notion that Cabinet will conspire and Cabinet will conceive some dastardly mixture of words designed to undermine people’s ability to cast a vote is driven by not only exaggeration but a very poor understanding on the other side of the House as to what we are actually doing.

Now, people who do break the rules, they will suffer the negative results in terms of penalty provisions. These are not provisions that are vastly different from how you conduct a three-yearly election. The conduct of both the referenda at the next election and the rules in terms of running a transparent and robust election are going to be virtually indistinguishable. That’s the virtue of openly debating this piece of legislation. I repeat again: once an Order in Council is eventually agreed upon, such matters go to a specific parliamentary select committee. There is every opportunity in that select committee to debate the worth, the lucidity or otherwise—and, indeed, there’s the ability for members of the House to come back and put it as an issue for the House to debate. What could be more transparent than that tried and true process?

Now, there’s likely to be quite a lot of money tossed around, if we’re not careful, in terms of advertising in respect of the referendum. Now, it’s a highly emotional topic, as we’ve seen in the House, in so far as the right to choose to die. There’s also a host of people that will be promoting, I dare say, the vices and virtues of the question of recreational cannabis. Providing that the framework is understood, providing the limits of expenditure are understood—and I’m not going to weigh into another debate about the source of funding or anything like that—those are areas that thinking members of the public expect us to deliver upon.

The notion that, somehow, because the House is not conceding, or writing, or holding the pen of the actual question, overlooks the fact that we are a country with a Westminster democracy that does defer—after an election, many of those responsibilities are delegated through the House to the people who hold enough votes to exercise power. Now, that’s not a boast of who came out on top in terms of the electoral fortunes, that’s just to remind everyone that there really is nothing radical being promoted here, as Mr Little has already said. I am disappointed that Mr Little did suffer quite a lot of dramas in terms of the language from Mr Nick Smith.

Now, I want to get on to a topic that Mr Nick Smith does know a lot about, and that’s the High Court. The Electoral Act will provide for electors to challenge, in terms of conduct and approach, the result of a referendum. For one of the two referenda, I suspect that could be an issue, which is why we’re doing the right thing now. We are ensuring that a structure, a piece of legislation, is in place, because there will—in a number of our constituencies, in a number of particular electorates—be a huge amount of interest in terms of either topic. The level of further liberalisation we should agree to as a nation in respect of the growing recreational utilisation of marijuana. And just to remind the House that in order to gain access to that High Court remedy, in so far as the High Court believes that it ought to be embroiled in such questions, 200 electors are required to make a petition to the court. This is all outlined clearly, after enormous debate in the House, as an important safeguard. The High Court represents an incredibly important institution, with its inherent powers in our constitutional make-up.

Now, any suggestion that we are undermining either the role of the High Court or the role of the parliamentary select committee which deals with Orders in Council—essentially subsidiary levels of legislation called regulatory interventions—is an exaggeration, and most Kiwis realise this is an important bill.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Sorry, Madam Speaker. I was engrossed in the breaking news on Twitter about the wording of the Government’s cannabis legislation bill. We’ve got the wording out, and I want to come back to the wording and why it matters, in my contribution on the bill, because, actually, the reason we’re having this bill is for that referendum which will be held at the 2020 election.

But I want to make three points in my contribution. We’re opposing this bill. The first is about the process. We think the process leading up to this bill was objectionable. We think it was wrong. We think it actually does make a difference and it is an important bill that’s constitutionally significant. It’s not constitutionally significant in the same way the Constitution Act 1986 was or the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 was but it is constitutionally significant, and we think the Government should have consulted with the Opposition.

Sadly, as we’re about to discover later on in the House today, this Government is making a habit, when it comes to electoral law, of not properly consulting with the Opposition. I, for one, think that is regrettable. I think it is bad process. Of course, our constitution depends on conventions, and it depends on—to some extent—Governments doing the right thing when it comes to electoral law. That has not been the case when it comes to this bill. I think it actually undermines the argument that the Hon Shane Jones just advanced about there being no Cabinet conspiracy. Well, that might be true for a National-led Government Cabinet, but, frankly, the behaviour of this Cabinet when it comes to electoral law puts a lie to the claim that there would be no conspiracy. And I think members of the Opposition would be rightly fearful of a Cabinet arrogating to itself the power to set referendum questions like we see with this bill. So that’s the first point: we think the process has been wrong from the start.

The second point is we think this bill is wrong in principle, and we think that Parliament should determine referendum questions, not Cabinet. That’s been the case since 1853; every previous referendum question has been set by the Parliament. Why does that matter? I want to advance three particular reasons to why we believe that. The first is that the questions matter, and Chris Penk made quite a lot in his speech about that. The questions that are asked make a difference, and we think that should be within the provenance of the Parliament because, ultimately, it will be the Parliament delegating to the people whether or not a particular thing happens. We, therefore, think it should be the Parliament that decides on the question put to the people. We think that’s a simple concept, we think it’s the right concept, and we think that the way in which the question is worded is important.

Labour members previously have thought that to be the case as well. In the last Parliament, I sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee, as it then was, as we considered the flag referendum bill, or the New Zealand Flags—plural—Referendum Bill. People have forgotten about that. It was only three years ago, but there were thousands of submissions. The Labour Party ran a petition website and there were 50,000 submissions through it, or some very high number. It was sat at committee for a long time, and it was highly controversial. Actually, it should have been quite a simple matter, which was the question of putting to the people the various options for the flag, or the possible new flag, and then the second question: do you support the final option up against the current flag? But there was all sorts of heat and light.

The key point I remember from that whole process—and it was actually the current Speaker who was particularly exercised about this, Madam Deputy Speaker. The current Speaker was particularly exercised about the question, because he said, “The question matters and we’ve got to get the question right.” His particular argument at the time was that we should ask, “Do you want to change the flag?” before we asked what to change it to. We had this long back and forth about whether or not you could vote, whether or not that was legitimate, because if you asked, “Do you want the flag to change?”, you might have an answer, yes or no, but, of course, a lot of people’s answer would depend on, “Well, it depends what it is. I don’t know if I’m in favour of changing the flag because I want to know what the change is.”

In the end, the Cabinet and then the Parliament decided that we would have a two-stage process where everyone would vote on the various options. We had the Lockwood versions, the two different Lockwood versions, and then everyone got upset about Red Peak. It’s amazing, looking back at that time in our history when everyone became a vexillologist—which is a flag expert—and we were told by Gareth Morgan and all the self-proclaimed vexillologists out there that the way the Kyle Lockwood flag had been designed was inappropriate and you couldn’t have a particular line in one way and it was appalling and there’d be international outrage and condemnation, so we had to quickly change the law through urgency to put Red Peak into it. I mean, it was a hilarious process in some ways. But the point is, we had a long debate about the question and, actually, Labour members were exercised about the question and they were right, so that’s the first point.

The second point is we don’t think it’s right that Cabinet should be able to set the number of referendums, because under this bill—which actually does expire at the 2020 election, but in principle it’s wrong, because Cabinet can set the number and, of course, that could potentially affect what happens at the general election. So that’s the second point.

The third point is that the legitimacy of the result depends on public buy-in, and we think that having the bill go through the Parliament with the question debated through the Parliament is important. Now, Shane Jones made some good points in response to this, and I want to deal with some of those things. He said, “Well, look, the Cabinet is not going to conspire. You’re tilting at windmills, you’re seeing things that aren’t there.” Well, you might well say that, but, actually, frankly, we don’t have a lot of faith in the current Cabinet. We’d have a lot more faith in the Cabinet of a National-led Cabinet. But that’s the point, isn’t it, that political parties have faith in their own Cabinets? So that is a trite way of saying political parties trust their own people. Well, of course, but that’s the point, that you put it to the Parliament and at least the Parliament can have a say through it.

The second point that he said is that, well, we’ve got the Regulations Review Committee, that there’ll be—and he went into quite some detail to say that there’d be an extensive process. The Cabinet would set something through Order in Council and then the question would end up at the Regulations Review Committee and there’d be submissions and people would come in and have their say and the Regulations Review Committee would investigate it.

Well, that seems to me to be an implicit admission that the committee process is important. If the rebuttal to “Cabinet can set the question and there’s no select committee scrutiny” is, “Oh no, but there’s the Regulations Review Committee and they can investigate it and have all these submissions and really get into the details”, well, that’s an argument for having a select committee process. That’s not an argument against—that’s not an argument of a Cabinet setting it, it’s an argument for the Parliament setting it, so he’s actually undermined his own point. And, actually, we would just make the point that the Regulations Review Committee is not appropriate for that; it’s not a body that has ever considered the wording of referendum questions. Yes, it’s true, it considers Orders in Council, a little bit like a court, and—people like to mock the Regulations Review Committee, but having spent three years on that under the wise chairmanship of the Hon David Cunliffe, I’ve come to appreciate the [Interruption]—Mr Jones laughs, but he’s actually quite a—

Hon Member: Easy, easy.

CHRIS BISHOP: Well, it was a good committee because we had the Hon David Cunliffe and we had the Hon David Parker. Anyway, I digress. I have a lot of time for the committee and it does a lot of good work but it is not the constitutionally appropriate body to consider referendum questions. It’s just not. If you really wanted a committee to get into the details, you should send it to a committee, which is the point we’ve made from the start.

The third point, in closing, is this is particularly inappropriate for the cannabis referendum. The real way to do these referendums is for them to be self-executing, in the same way the End of Life Choice Act is. So Parliament has extensively considered that bill; people have their own views about the rightness or wrongness of it. It’s now in law. It self-executes; in other words, it comes into effect upon a positive vote plus one of the people at the referendum, and if it doesn’t, it lapses. That’s the right way to do it. That’s what the Government should be doing on the cannabis referendum, but they’re not doing that. Instead, we’ve got this draft bill, the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill, which has literally, just in the last 10 minutes, been outlined at a press conference. That will be put to the people and the question will be: do you support it or not? Well, that’s a good question. The problem is the 2020 election may result in a completely changed Parliament which will have to, presumably, if it’s a positive vote, deal with this bill. And, actually, parties may campaign on amending parts of it. Parties may campaign on not implementing it altogether.

So the right way to do referenda is to pass the whole thing through into an Act, have it as self-executing, and have it coming into effect—not this halfway house, Mickey Mouse solution which is what we have with this bill, and that’s why we oppose it.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in support of this bill, and as the previous speaker who’s just resumed his seat, Chris Bishop, has pointed out, we now do have a question for the referendum. It is an exciting day in lots of ways for electoral reform in this House, as the next bill that we’ll be hearing is, of course, on foreign donations.

So it is nice to see this House dealing with some of these electoral and democracy issues, although I think the public, were they to listen to the speeches of the Opposition this afternoon or read over them as the different readings of this bill came through, would be really confused to find that this bill is actually about the mechanics of the way referendums come through to the New Zealand public. There are different ways that that can happen, and, you know, people keep talking about the constitutional norms and constitutional law. I’ve studied constitutional law, I’ve practised constitutional law, and there isn’t a constitutional breach here. There are different ways for referendums to come through, which is why this bill is here. It’s about the mechanics; it’s not about one referendum.

It is really interesting to hear the previous speaker keep talking about the question. The Minister has said repeatedly in this House that this is about any referendums that come through the 2020 election, and since the first reading of this bill we’ve actually had one more added.

How absurd would it have been if this bill had a question in it and we couldn’t add more to it. What a blunt tool legislation would be for that kind of thing. Then we keep hearing—we do keep hearing—about this lack of ability for the Opposition to feed into the cannabis referendum question and framework and substance, and that they’ve had no opportunity. Well, they have, actually, and they’ve refused to engage.

How much disdain would you have to have for this House and for our democracy to be invited to join a cross-party group to actually hash out these questions, to actually talk about what this referendum may look like, and to refuse—to repeatedly refuse. So it is a lie to say that there’s been no attempt to engage with the Opposition, because we know, and there’s been a lengthy record of this, that every other party in this House is engaged in the cross-party group and trying to look at what the substance of that referendum will look like.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That accusation cannot be made in this House.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: So that has happened.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I just remind the member that that is an unparliamentary statement in this House. She might like to rephrase it.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: I’ll move on, Madam Speaker, if that’s—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, it will be in your Hansard. You might just want to correct the word.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Oh, I see. So the Opposition has had an opportunity, and it is inaccurate were the public to assume that there has been no opportunity for all parties in this House to engage with this subject matter.

The next thing is that there will be an opportunity for this bill to go to a parliamentary oversight committee, and that committee is chaired by a National Party member. That’s the Regulations Review Committee. So the public will be engaged at that level. The public will come forward and make submissions, and members on that committee will also be able to engage at that level. So there’s the other opportunity.

I think members of the public will be surprised to know that this bill is actually a mechanical bill if they’ve actually heard the speeches in this House and thought that it was solely focused on the cannabis referendum at that point, and, in fact, that they do have an opportunity to submit. Of course, then, once the question goes out to the public, it becomes a broader democracy question and it becomes about the public’s choice. So we’re not, in fact, imposing anything on the public; it is all about allowing the public to decide—in this case, in the case of the cannabis referendum—whether or not it is time to adopt a new approach to the way that we deal with drugs.

The war on drugs has failed, so to speak, and we’re going to put it, finally, to the New Zealand public to say whether or not we would like a health-focused approach, an approach that actually treats addiction as a thing that we can come together on and we can treat, and move away from the approach of political parties where the tough-on-crime rhetoric has brought us down a path we are now so far down that our prison system is filled, our healthcare system is not equipped to deal with what we might see as an addiction problem, and people are being stigmatised to a point where they can’t seek help. So that’s something to celebrate.

But the other thing to celebrate in this bill and today in the House under other pieces of legislation is that this deals with the issue of unfair interference with our democracy. This bill does set limits on the amounts of donations that can be made in terms of the referendums that the bill may apply to. We are proud as the Green Party to have pushed hard to implement actual spending limits, because we do think that big money should come out of our democracy, that we shouldn’t have interference, and that we shouldn’t have our democracy up for sale, effectively, on the open market. So this bill does a little bit of that.

It also requires that advertisers be registered, or promoters be registered. We know that globally this has been a problem. The anonymity of those who, with bigger wallets than the ordinary voter—when they do take a stake in democracy, it has been a problem. We do think that it’s important for New Zealand’s democracy that there is a sense of transparency and implementation of that transparency in law, and this bill takes us closer to that.

I do have, obviously, a wish that eventually we will see limits placed on all political donations and that transparency mechanisms are implemented in relation to all political donations, and that’s why I do have a strengthening democracy bill in the House. So this bill moves us closer to that, to a Green Party position on both fairness and openness of our democracy, and today we can celebrate that together. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. National opposes the Referendums Framework Bill at its third reading, as it did at all stages, as I understand, not sitting on that committee. National has some very well-founded, in my view, concerns around this bill. Speakers on the Opposition side have made a number of points in this third reading, as they have done in prior readings, and I’m not going to restate those.

I do wish to make a couple of points and really just refer to something said by the member who has just resumed her seat, Golriz Ghahraman, where the member said it’s an exciting day for electoral reform in New Zealand. I could not disagree more, because electoral reform has, of custom, going right back through the years since 1853—since that time, it has been the custom of this Parliament that any matters to go to referenda or referendum would be considered by the Parliament, and that has been the parliamentary custom. A lot of the processes around this Parliament are built on custom, and there has been a very good reason for that. So I disagree with the member who says it’s an exciting day for electoral reform in New Zealand, because instead of that, it is another example of this current coalition Government turning its back, at its convenience, on what has been a proud history in the democracy of New Zealand and the New Zealand Parliament in determining the matters that go to a referendum question—or referenda, in this case—proposed.

To just a final point in the member’s quote—sure, electoral reform in New Zealand, which she finds exciting, only lasts until we have held the 2020 election, and then what? Is it still exciting? Well, no, of course it isn’t, because the bill—soon to become, regrettably, law—has only a life leading up to the 2020 election. Even from that point, I think it could be argued that this piece of legislation serves not Parliament but perhaps it serves the interests of the current Government.

To take the referendum question wording from Parliament and place it to be a decision by Order in Council and not by Parliament is a substantial change, and it is one where the general public, in the hurried passage of this bill—I doubt whether they have had the opportunity to really have a say on such an important question.

To the aspect of citing the Regulations Review Committee as the place for this bill after its third reading to be considered—it is not the appropriate standing committee of Parliament. The appropriate standing committee of Parliament is the Justice Committee. Now, why it isn’t going there, I’m sure that question was asked in the committee stage, and my understanding is that at the committee stage, that question was not answered.

So I just want to refer to some words the Ministry of Justice submitted to the Government in the preparation and passage of this bill where they said, “The decision on whether to put a matter to a referendum is primarily a political matter. There are very few statutory requirements [and] almost no restrictions on what [measures] are put to [a] referendum or how such decisions are made. The appropriate level of parliamentary oversight over such decisions and the appropriate extent of public and/or parliamentary input into the wording of a referendum question are matters of political judgment.” And I would say that this current coalition Government have exercised that political judgment, and I think Parliament and the people of New Zealand are not well served by this approach. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): During recent debates in this House I’ve heard members opposite with some fear and trepidation in their faces and voices saying, “We should be slow followers. We shouldn’t be fast movers.” On this side of the House, a progressive Government, we are fast movers. We are making sure that this Government, that this country, is where it needs to be.

And one needs no more evidence of the fear, of how slow movers they are—every speaker over there has mentioned 1853 as being the pivot point we should be looking at when we look at this bill. In 1853, just a reminder, the New Zealand Constitution Act—it was actually 1852—passed. To vote, you had to be male. You had to be a British citizen. You had to be 21 years old. You had to own a certain value of land and not be serving a criminal sentence. While, by my reckoning, there were about 150 Māori in New Zealand at the time, they didn’t get to vote. There were at least half the people of New Zealand who were women. They didn’t get to vote. So, “Let’s go back to a law. Let’s go back to a point in time in 1853 or 1852 when the bill was passed, and let’s lock ourselves into that.”

One has only to hear the debate to see how polarised this referendum, this next election, is going to be, because the speakers who have spoken today, particularly on the other side of the House, have shown their colours and their disappointment at the way in which this Referendums Framework Bill is being introduced and is going to be passed. It is because they are afraid of the result. Mr Macindoe made it quite clear where he stands on both of the referenda issues that are going to be addressed in the next election. So therefore, if you have a polarised position, if you know exactly what the answer you want is, you will be fearful of any process which may deliver an answer that you don’t want.

I and those on this side of the House have faith in our democratic system. We on this side of the House are very happy that a well-informed New Zealand public—well-informed and, more importantly, those who are prepared to look at the arguments for and against—will actually make the right decision. And this Referendums Framework Bill simply ensures that the framework under which these two referenda are going to be voted on, how they’re going to be introduced, and how they’re going to be referred to is a fair one.

You only have to look at the way in which it’s going to be advertised. It’s important, we think. There are a lot of placards, a lot of billboards, around elections now. Just wait till next year, because there are going to be any number of organisations who perhaps normally don’t partake in the electoral process who will be partaking. So it is very important that there be a framework around which the two referenda are going to be conducted. For example, promoter statements must include all names and addresses on all referendum advertisements. Well, that’s pretty fair because surely anyone who is seeking to ensure that they are getting the right message should know the bona fides, they should know the background of those who are going to be putting up the billboards, those who are giving the messaging, those who are going to be putting material through their social media, and it is very important.

So for those listening at home wondering what this debate is about, it’s about ensuring that these referenda are as fair as they possibly can be. Promoters are to register if they intend to spend over a certain threshold on advertising. So, essentially, you’ll be seeing that the rules are going to be aligned to be the same as those for the election. I won’t go through the whole lot, but, importantly, this last one is that where expenditure on dual advertisements, where the advertisement is going to be for a position on the referenda and perhaps for a party—and we’ve already seen from the speakers on the other side, and we know where a majority of that party is going to be standing on many of these things—it is quite clear that the funding and the promoters count towards both the election and the referenda.

So no one should fear. This is about providing a very fair, workable framework on which the referenda and the election will be conducted. I commend this bill.

MATT KING (National—Northland): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to take a call—a short call. Smoke and mirrors—that’s what this Government’s all about. They are sneaking stuff through in bills, talking about advertising and all that, but we know what the guts of this bill is about and it’s undemocratic, it’s unconstitutional. It’s a little bit like the waka-jumping bill. It’s typical arrogant behaviour of this Government. But we can talk all we like on this side of the House. They’re going to do whatever they please. They’re going to do that.

We would never do this. We would never do this. This denies the public the right to consult, to provide their input, to provide feedback. You’re meant to put electoral law reform through to make substantive improvements to the system, and this does not. We’ve had a system that has worked really well since 1853. If it ain’t broke, don’t need to fix it. It’s worked perfectly well since 1853 and they’re going to change the rules now. So what I call this, I call this screwing the scrum. I call this underarm bowling. And I am very suspicious of their motives. I hope Kiwis are watching this. I want this Government to remember that they won’t be in Government for long, and when they get thrown out, it might be for passing legislation like this. They’re writing the rules to suit themselves.

Kiwis like fairness. They don’t like wool being pulled. And I can tell you, I don’t like where this Government is taking us. They claim to be the most open and honest Government ever, but that’s the biggest joke. Why put in a sunset clause to 2021? Why put in a clause there so it only makes it valid until the next election? So this Government are up to something and I don’t trust them. Today, we have legislation being introduced under urgency that we have never seen before today and that will go through the House in one day. Why the urgency? Why, when it doesn’t come into force until next year? Why is that? New Zealanders don’t like this sort of thing. It has an odour about it. New Zealanders don’t like this sort of thing.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

MATT KING: You can laugh. It has an odour about it that Kiwis don’t like. Roll on 2020.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of this bill. I think it’s a very fine initiative that Andrew Little’s undertaken and I’m very pleased to support it at its third reading.

I hate to channel Deborah Russell, but I have to say that democracy has quite a long history and some people trace it back to the Greeks. They were the ones to experiment with direct democracy, which is kind of what is being proposed here. Socrates was one of the people who was randomly selected to chair the council of 500 citizens in ancient Athens and he actually withheld the vote one day because the people wanted to execute some generals for losing a battle. They didn’t vote, but the next day, they selected a different chair for the council of 500 and he allowed the vote to go ahead. The generals were duly executed, the people were mad, and a few days later they executed those who advocated for the execution of the generals.

I tell this story because democracy has always been fraught. It relies on people making decisions for others, often with limited information. But that is actually a feature not only of direct democracy—as in the example I’ve just given from the Council of 500—it’s equally something that happens with representative democracy. I think about this country’s colonial history, when people used to be sent from distant provinces by sea to spend months at a time here in the capital—and, earlier, in Auckland and before that in Kororāreka—in order to represent their districts. Often, those people were seen to let down the people that had sent them. That might be why Governments in the 19th century seldom lasted more than a year or two before they were dissolved and fresh elections caused.

We see in places such as Switzerland direct democracy used to tremendous effect; one of the most effective democratic systems in the world and one of the best-governed countries. On the other hand, we see places like California where they have a referendum to reduce taxes and then they have another referendum to increase spending. It’s one of the reasons that the great state of California is broke. I could go on all afternoon about examples of democracy—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: But I’m not going to let you, because we are actually debating the bill. I’d like you to mention the bill at some stage.

DAVID SEYMOUR: —both direct and indirect. I’m getting to the bill, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh, good.

DAVID SEYMOUR: I’m glad to see from your smiling visage that you’re enjoying this Deborah Russellesque lesson in the history of democracy. The point is that we have representative democracy, we have direct democracy, and those who stand up and say that having a referendum is somehow wrong because we can’t trust New Zealanders to make up their mind about what they think of an issue—well, I’d have to ask the people in this House saying that, how can we trust the people that elected them? Because if the New Zealand public are smart enough to elect representatives, then the ACT Party says they’re smart enough to vote in referenda.

I look forward to the End of Life Choice Act having a referendum under this Act, and I look forward to the New Zealand public sorting through the facts and the fiction, because, if you’ll excuse me, the New Zealand public have a finely honed BS detector, and there will be all sorts of misinformation and fake news there but I trust that New Zealanders will get to the truth and actually will see the End of Life Choice Act being ratified by referendum under this bill. It will not only be a great day for our country, being more compassionate, more humane, and more caring, but it will also be a great day for New Zealand democracy because we will have let the best of both worlds come to pass: rigorous and robust parliamentary scrutiny of a bill—in fact, the most rigorous scrutiny of any bill in living memory for the End of Life Choice Bill, so we know we got the details right—and we allowed the people of New Zealand to have the final say. I don’t think that’s a bad outcome.

I see Nick Smith furiously scribbling notes there, thinking “What do I say now?” Well, I’ll say to him that the End of Life Choice Act has the question legislated—just in case he was going to use that one. So I commend this bill to the House. I think it’s a great day for democracy, and if the End of Life Choice Act becomes law, it will be a great day for a compassionate and humane New Zealand. Thank you very much.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s great to have the words of both those referendums now available, which pretty much put to bed the bulk of the arguments we’ve heard today about there being uncertainty around where this bill is heading and what the purpose of it is.

So what has been frustrating is that through the course of the debate on this bill—and we are now at the third reading—we have had the same two issues raised by the Opposition time and time again. I think they may have their taringa turned off, because there have been several responses from this side to explain the two main issues. The first being, why is this bill time limited? And the second being, where are the words for the referendum? So now that we have answers to both of those, I look forward to the sheer moral panic and cries of the unconstitutional nature of this bill that are completely unfounded. What we have is a bunch of panic monkeys that are really quite fixated on trying to make a problem out of absolutely nothing. It is interesting to see that the lead primate in this area has, in fact, returned from Nelson, so it’s great to see that we’ll have even more rigour in this debate, as the freelancer has returned to discuss how much New Zealand’s constitution will be brought into disrepute as a result of New Zealanders being able to vote Yes or No on two very important issues.

Just to reiterate for the umpteenth time, let’s go over the two key issues and the responses to those issues for the benefit of those New Zealanders at home so they will not be unnecessarily panicked by the false words being uttered from the other side.

The first one is around why this bill is time limited. It’s really important to state that the Government has committed to holding a referendum on legalising the personal use of cannabis alongside the 2020 general election. As we all know, there has also been a bill passed in this House that enables New Zealanders to now vote on the End of Life Choice Act. The reason why this bill is time limited is that a far more comprehensive piece of policy work, review, and legislation would be required which would be far more complex than the current bill and that would take far more time and it would risk New Zealanders not being able to have their say on this in the next general election. And that’s it—that’s it. No, Matt King, there is no ulterior motive or wider agenda here. It’s to enable New Zealanders to have a vote on two key issues of which I’m sure there is a great level of interest in New Zealand to be able to do so.

So if we want to be able to proceed without doing quite an extensive piece of work from the legislative framework required to review things like the Referenda (Postal Voting) Act 2000 and the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993, it would also need to have all of those issues addressed. By doing this, and having it time limited, it still leaves room for that wider piece of work to be done in the long term. And that can be done.

The second issue that’s been raised, as well, is that we don’t have the wording for the referendum available. It’s great to see that, in fact, we do. Let’s read it out now. It says, “Do you support the proposed Cannabis Legislation and Control Bill?” And you say, “Yes, I support the proposed Cannabis Legislation and Control Bill.” or “No, I do not support the proposed Cannabis Legislation and Control Bill.” They are the words that will be in the upcoming referendum at the next 2020 general election.

Attached to that will also be a draft bill that is able to be viewed and commented on and also a very interesting, informative website where people can log on right now—it’s live—and find out further information about how that operates. So I am lost to understand why there is an issue here. We have a good, healthy, thriving democracy that is able to go out and exercise their vote in the next general election, alongside two key issues that every single New Zealander who is 18 years or over can now vote on, including prisoners who are in prison for under three years as well—thank you very much. It will be up to New Zealanders to vote on and I think it’s incredibly important that we have the opportunity for these debates. By having all that information up front, by enabling New Zealanders to go into the election informed about the referendums, the Government is committed to a well-informed, impartial referendum process, and therefore, Madam Speaker, I commend—Mr Speaker; sorry, you’ve changed.

SPEAKER: Well, I haven’t changed.

GINNY ANDERSEN: I commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): The Speaker is changeable, the weather is changeable, and it seems with this Government they’ll go to any extent to change the electoral laws in the way that this bill proposes.

I want to express real concern about the heart of this bill because we need to be clear about what we’re doing. This bill takes the power away from Parliament and gives to the Government the decision about however many referendum they want to hold, on whatever topics they want to hold, and whatever wording they wish to have.

The most chilling words in the debate on this bill were those from New Zealand First Minister Tracey Martin, who said that Parliament could not be trusted. I have heard words of arrogance, I have heard words that are dismissive of our democracy, of this institution of Parliament, but none as bad as those from New Zealand First that would dismiss this democratic tradition that referendum will be determined at general elections by the Parliament and through good process.

This bill is not the first time, not the second time, but actually the multiple occasions of which the Government is riding roughshod over New Zealand’s democratic traditions.

We should be hugely proud that we are the fourth-oldest continuous democracy in the world. That democracy depends on respect for conventions. The convention, since 1853, has been that if a Government wants a referendum, it shall bring a bill to the Parliament, and that referendum—the topic and the wording—will be authorised by this Parliament. That’s been the case for 23 referendums. That has been the case in every single referendum held in this country since 1853, and what this bill does is take that power away from this Parliament and gives it to the Cabinet.

Now, the previous speaker, Ginny Andersen, said, “Oh, well, but the wording of the referendum that might be held at the next election has been determined.” No, it has not. This bill gives the absolute discretion to the Cabinet to decide whatever referendum and whatever wording that it wants.

Now, I heard one of the Labour speakers say that those who criticise this bill are panic merchants. Well, I do not—

David Seymour: No, she said “panic monkeys”.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, maybe David Seymour thinks they are. Does he think that the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee—made of some of the most dry officials that I have heard—came before the Justice Committee and said this bill is undemocratic and is contrary to the conduct of fair and free elections—contrary to the conduct of free and fair elections is what the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee said of this bill.

Now, I can understand David Seymour, so pleased with respect to the issue of euthanasia that the only way he can progress that bill is through use of a referendum. But I think even he, in his heart of hearts, is concerned about the carte blanche power that this bill gives to the Cabinet to hold whatever referendum they like. I see there are members of Parliament that feel very strongly about the issue of Māori seats. It would mean that a future National Government could just decide off its bat: “Oh, we’ll have a referendum to get rid of the Māori seats” or of any other subject.

It’s not just the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee that has been highly critical of this bill. Peter Dunne, who has been a Minister both in Labour and National Governments, has described this bill as “Putinesque”, as the sort of referendum you hold when there is a failure of democracy in those sort of authoritarian states, and of which has no place in New Zealand.

I want to challenge members opposite, to remind them of what they said about the flag referendum bill. They argued that it was undemocratic that members of the public only had five minutes to submit on the wording of the flag referendum. So I say to the members opposite: how many minutes will the public get to make submissions on the recreational cannabis referendum?

Hon Member: Less than five.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Less than five? None at all—absolutely not a boo! How much opportunity, Mr Seymour, was there for the public to submit on the question of the referendum on euthanasia? Absolutely zip; zero. So how can members opposite, when in Opposition, call it undemocratic for the flag referendum in which members of the public had extensive opportunity to be able to submit on both the topic and the wording, when this bill takes that power away and gives it solely to the Cabinet?

As the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee rightly said, this bill involves a substantive shift of power away from the Parliament and to the executive. That’s what it does, and we in this Parliament have to question whether that is appropriate. Let’s be quite clear, what members opposite want to do is cut out the most popular political party in New Zealand. They want the party that’s got the most seats in the Parliament to be completely deprived of any process. Under the Official Information Act, what the parties in Government have said is, “Let’s have a nice, cute process where we’re involved in deciding what referendum there will be, deciding what the topics and the questions will be.” But this is a vehicle for cutting out Parliament, and the process is primarily about cutting out the largest party in the Parliament, and that, again, is undemocratic.

As the Minister said, this is just about providing a good framework for referendum, but the bill has got a termination clause: it only applies to the 2020 election. In other words, let’s be plain, the Government wants to pull this constitutional rort while it’s in Government but it is not something that it wants any future Government to have the power to do, and that just exposes how shallow the true intent of this bill is.

I’d also just want to raise the issues of which we’re having referendum—what a dog’s breakfast. David Seymour is correct. On the euthanasia referendum, at least the question has been voted upon by the Parliament; with the recreational cannabis referendum, that has simply been decided by the executive. There is also the potential, under this bill, for there to be a referendum on abortion. There will be those that would argue that if it’s good enough to have a referendum on the issue of euthanasia, why would there be a different approach to abortion? Let’s be plain, the Government is simply rigging the referendum to get the outcome that it wants for its social agenda of reform, whether that be recreational cannabis or whether it be the issue of euthanasia. Every member of this House knows that the wording of the question matters. Extensive polling shows that if the question is around “assisted suicide”, for instance, the answer is likely to be no, but if you use the language of “euthanasia” or you use the language of “end of life choice”, it’s far more likely to pass; equally so on the issues of recreational cannabis or others.

I would challenge the Government that if you wanted to have a good process, if you wanted to respect the constitutional conventions that have been around in this country for over 160 years, if you want to do what you said you would do, when you were in Opposition, then each referendum would be authorised by the Parliament, the public would have the opportunity to be able to have a say on both the topic and the wording, and then you would have a robust process. Here is the risk: why should Parliament be bound by the result of a referendum in which it’s had no say in the framing of the question or the topic? That is where we should look to Brexit and the dangers of referendum being held in a willy-nilly way. This is a bad process. This is a bad bill. This is another chink in this Government’s record of doing the political thing rather than doing the right thing.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema o Te Whare. You would think that the sky is going to fall in after listening to that speaker, Dr Nick Smith, who has just resumed his seat. The Referendums Framework Bill is putting in trail the process in which these two referendum questions are put to the general public in election 2020.

Let’s be really clear. As part of the confidence and supply agreement between the Labour and the Green Party, we said we would take the cannabis referendum question to the general election year. It is simply a yes or no question—it is simply a yes or no question. How Dr Nick Smith can draw it out that it is unconstitutional or the scrutiny of Parliament’s not going to have the ability to answer a yes or no question is beyond me. So let’s get it really right around the recreational cannabis reform. It’s simply a yes or no question.

In terms of end of life choice, the entire House not only debated that particular bill but it also debated the question. So in terms of the allegations that somehow this side is bypassing the scrutiny of the Parliament, well, it’s unfounded—it’s completely unfounded.

This is a simple bill, as many speakers on this side of the House have avowed; it is to give the tools to the Electoral Commission around answering these two referendum questions in next year’s general election. It’s nothing more; it’s nothing less. It’s consistent with this Government’s confidence and supply, and it’s to honour the debate that this whole House had on the End of Life Choice Bill.

It is important that we assure this House that we are taking this seriously as a coalition Government to ensure that the general public have their say. This allegation of it being a constitutional overreach is purely an exaggeration. It’s not that. It has had the scrutiny of the select committee, and I would challenge what Dr Smith said about the legislative advisory committee. He tends to do that; he tends to stretch what people’s allegations are about it being unconstitutional, but it isn’t—it isn’t. It is not. He is over-stretching that point. It’s a simple, simple question of what we are trying to do here, consistent with this Government, around setting clear direction to the Electoral Commission as we go to the polling booths next year.

What I did want to talk about is the alignment with what we’re passing here, which is currently in the Electoral Act, particularly around advertising. I just wanted to make a couple of comments around ensuring that we are very clear that, when we are talking about advertising, we are applying the same three-month rule prior to referendums as we do in the general elections. So I think that’s a really important point.

I want to talk about the advertising rules: to make sure that campaign statements are clear so that we know whoever’s supporting the pros and cons of the two referendum questions; that the public get to know who’s advertising, that their name and address is there. I think that’s really, really important. So as we go into next year’s election, those that are pro - recreational cannabis or opposed to it—similarly with end of life choice, pro and against—those that are advertising, the general public should know who’s promoting the advertisement and the address around it.

We also want to make sure that we are consistent around the amounts of money that we’re spending—so, under $13,000 for those over a certain threshold, a referendum advertising of $100,000, and also applying the limit of $330,000 on referendum advertising. These are really important frameworks around the advertising as we lead into next year’s general election on these two particular questions. This is what the Referendums Framework Bill is enabling the Parliament to do—it is to give that consistency to the Electoral Commission, the general public knows what they’re being asked to agree on, and that we set the tight frameworks consistent with the Electoral Act under this particular bill.

Now, there have been allegations of “Why throw it out after 2020?” Well, clearly, any future referendum should actually be scrutinised by this House and should be scrutinised by the public. So it makes absolute sense that this bill terminates at the conclusion of the general election 2020. It is really a simple bill enabling us to conduct the referendums, as agreed by this House and also in the confidence and supply agreement between Labour and the Greens. It is a straightforward bill that gives those frameworks. I support it, and I commend it to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Referendums Framework Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 64

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Bill read a third time.

Urgency

Urgency

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded the passing through all stages of the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2), the third readings of the Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2) and the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (No 2), and the second reading of the Maritime Transport (Offshore Installations) Amendment Bill.

The Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) takes action to protect New Zealand from foreign interference in our elections by banning donations to political parties and candidates. It’s an issue that is being faced around the world, and, of course, it is one that we will face next year in our election year. The Government believes it’s important that the measures in the bill are put in place as early as possible before election year gets under way, which is the reason that we are asking the House to pass it through all stages under urgency.

It’s likely that consideration of the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) will continue into tomorrow morning, meaning that select committees will not meet. In order to make optimum use of the House’s time, the third readings of the Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2) and the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill (No 2) and the second reading of the Maritime Transport (Offshore Installations) Amendment Bill are also included in this motion. Both of the agriculture sector bills make important contributions to safeguard the future of the country’s most important industry.

The Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2) is scheduled to commence in part on 1 February next year, and the Maritime Transport (Offshore Installations) Amendment Bill also commences at the start of next year. It’s important that these bills complete their passage through the House this year, which may not be possible without the granting of urgency.

I do want to undertake publicly, as I have given an undertaking to the shadow Leader of the House, that the Government does not intend to progress with urgency beyond 1 p.m. tomorrow, so that the House’s regular business of question time and members’ day can resume in the afternoon.

A party vote was called for on the question, That urgency be accorded.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2)

First Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time.

This bill amends the Electoral Act 1993 to ban foreign donations in New Zealand parliamentary elections. It establishes that only those who are part of New Zealand’s democracy should participate in our electoral system. It reduces the risk of foreign money influencing our political process, and it does that by banning foreign donations.

The risk of foreign interference is of real concern and is a real risk. The Justice Committee has heard evidence in public of the nature of this risk as they’ve conducted their inquiry into the 2017 general election, which also coincided with their inquiry into the 2016 local body elections. That inquiry, at least into the 2017 general election, has been going on for a long time, and that inquiry showed, from those who made submissions and those who gave evidence, that the risks around foreign interference and foreign influence are very real. It would be negligent and irresponsible of the Government of the day to not take note of that evidence and of the risks that are apparent as we head into our general election year next year.

Now, when it was pretty clear what the risks were and that we had gaps in our law and that it was appropriate that the Government of the day do something about it, I indicated publicly that I was keen for the Justice Committee to conclude their inquiry and give them a chance, and for this House indeed, to consider the recommendations of that committee, because that committee is looking closely at these issues. I know they’ve got a range of issues that they are considering—that’s a matter of public record—and I am eagerly awaiting their report, but I also said that if the committee was not able to conclude their work in this area in enough time for us to make changes for the next general election, the Government would proceed to make those changes. So here we are, in the last session of Parliament for the year, on the cusp of an election year next year, and we need to make these changes.

This House would be failing its duty to the electors of New Zealand if it pooh-poohed the evidence given to the Justice Committee, disregarded it or played games or did whatever, and thought that it was OK to expose our democratic system, our electoral system, to the risks that are very clear cut and have been manifest in democracies around the world. This Government is not prepared to take that risk and is not prepared to dither and dilly-dally and play games. It is time to make sure that the gaps in our electoral law are covered off so that New Zealand voters can face our democratic system, our election system, free from the threats and risks of foreign interference. So that’s why this bill is here, and that’s why this bill is being considered under urgency. What a pity—what a pity—that the Justice Committee has not been able to conclude their very important work, come up with their conclusions, and inform the House, but it is what it is and we’re stuck with what we’ve got.

I might add, too, that the advice has been very clear to me, as Minister of Justice, that there are a number of problems with our Electoral Act 1993. The way it has been characterised to me is that it is, effectively, the 1956 Act with MMP added, and a lot of distortions and gaps have opened up in it that really need to be seriously addressed cohesively, coherently, and together. But it simply isn’t possible to do that—to cover off every problem, to cover off every gap—in time for next year’s general election. But the promise that this Government makes is that, if re-elected, we will commence that work—ground up, thoroughgoing review—of our electoral laws and our electoral framework with a view to making sure that in an election, probably by 2026, we will have legislation covering our electoral system relevant to the 21st century and safeguarding New Zealand’s democratic interests. Ideally, one wants to do these things on a cross-party basis, but sometimes personalities and parties opposite are not capable of engaging on that basis, and so one has to pick one’s time and look at the moment to do that.

So we come back to this, the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2), and its objective. In addition to banning foreign donations, with a de minimis sort of allowance of $50 to cover off the odd raffle ticket sold to a person who is not resident in New Zealand, not qualified to vote but is here, or the bucket collections that sometimes happen. It nevertheless bans foreign donations, because I think the one thing that is very clear is New Zealanders want to know that our electoral system cannot be bought by those with deep pockets from abroad. But it does more than that; it’s not just a ban on the donations. It now places on party general-secretaries a due diligence requirement—a requirement to take reasonable steps in relation to donations—to ensure that they comply with the law. Now, obviously, that will apply in relation to foreign donations, but actually the way it applies, it will end up applying to all donations. So party general-secretaries need to make sure that the donations received comply with the law, and, for that matter, candidates in the electorate contests must ensure that the donations that they are receiving comply with the law.

Now, I am sure, as the debate unfolds, there’ll be members on all sides who will have examples of things that they think are wrong about the way the law has been applied or the way parties have applied the law in their respective eras. I’m not sure how helpful that is to the debate. I’ve already acknowledged there are gaps in our law—there are improvements we can make in our law—but, given the fact we don’t have the benefit of the collective wisdom of the Justice Committee and the evidence they’ve gathered in relation to the 2017 election, we are not embarking on wholesale reform. That will have to wait for another time or for another Parliament—I expect, the next Parliament—but, in the meantime, we have to deal with the very real risk that we’re facing at the moment.

So a combination of the foreign donations ban, the added requirement on party general-secretaries to exercise due diligence, and candidates to exercise due diligence in relation to the donations they receive—all of those things will help. What will also help is a requirement in this bill that party general-secretaries must be resident in New Zealand, and a further requirement to deal with this issue is that advertisements taken out online, taken out on social media platforms, must have the sorts of attribution provisions that apply to any other paid advertising for a general election.

So all of those things go some way to filling the gap that is there in our law at the moment. It won’t be perfect. It won’t meet every gap that is there, but it will go a lot longer than what is there at the moment to providing and ensuring greater integrity of our electoral system and of our democratic systems and processes.

So I’ve covered that off. I’ve covered off the provisions of the bill, what the limits are, the fact that there is a $50 tolerance for that, and by enacting that legislation now, it means we go into the general election next year, we go into 2020, very sure from the outset that we have a clear, unequivocal regime around foreign donations, and people can enter the election process next year with considerable certainty. Parties can organise themselves around the law and be very certain about what it means and know what their obligations are. I am advised that the Electoral Commission will give appropriate guidance and advice on how they intend to police and oversee the due diligence requirements on party general-secretaries. I’ve made it clear in my discussions with officials that I expect there to be a bit of a sliding scale, a bit of proportionality to apply, so the smaller the donation, the less rigorous you can tolerate the due diligence requirements being. But if it’s $150,000 from a company whose name is “New Zealand Mongolian Thoroughbred Racing Ltd”, then I expect much more rigorous and intensive due diligence requirements to be fulfilled. So that’s the stuff about which the Justice Committee received advice is threatening the integrity of our electoral and our democratic system.

So all of those things will make a difference. This bill sends a very strong signal that our electoral system is not for buying by wealthy overseas donors, and it sends a very strong signal from the parties, at least on this side—and, I hope, parties on the other side, because some have said to me that they support a ban on foreign donations—that this House will send a strong signal to the voters of New Zealand that they take seriously the threats to our electoral system and that this House is prepared to do something meaningful about it. That’s what this bill does. It sets us up well for a fair, proper, well-run election for next year, an election that will be conducted with integrity, about which voters can have confidence in the result. On that basis, I commend the bill to the House.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): This is an extraordinary situation where we have our Parliament in urgency being asked to rush through changes to our electoral law, where the Opposition party only received a copy of the bill at 11 a.m. this morning, after our caucus had even started, and where the bill is proposed to go through its first reading, its committee stage, its second reading, and become law by today. The question the Parliament has to ask is: why on earth is the Minister of Justice panicked into this sort of shoddy parliamentary process? The honest answer is this: firstly, the Government’s just had a bad poll, so they want to be looking like they’re doing something, and the second thing is they are behaving like a wounded bull in response to the very serious disclosures of the New Zealand First Foundation and what is going on within the Government.

Can I firstly deal with the issue of foreign donations. I gave a speech that I give every year to my rotary clubs, and that speech talked about electoral law and National’s views. In that speech, I said that the issue of foreign donations was one of concern to National. It was an area in which we felt there needed to be a tightening, and that is why we actually support a tightening of the law in that area. But we want it being done in a thoughtful, in a careful, and in a robust way, not in the way of a bill being rushed through the Parliament in a 24-hour period that is more about window dressing than getting to the heart of the issues. The Minister has proclaimed this bill as a ban on foreign donations. I’m sorry, that’s a bit of political spin. The current law bans donations over $1,500. What this bill does is reduce that level from $1,500 to $50. But I ask the Parliament to reflect: do we really think the current law, with a $1,500 limit, is really having the big threat to democracy from foreign powers that the Minister speaks of? Fifteen hundred dollars—really?

National supports a reduction in that limit, but we should not pretend that, somehow, this is a magic solution to the inappropriate use of foreign donations. Everybody knows, and the Minister accepts, that all a foreigner needs to do is set up a New Zealand registered trust with a lawyer friend or set up a company in New Zealand, and that company could quite legitimately make donations under this bill. That is why this bill is all about politics and not really contributing to the improvements in the fairness of our democracy and ensuring that it is protected from some of the growing influences of foreign individuals.

I do want to talk seriously about the process issues of this bill. The very strong precedent—and I sat in the Cabinet room when Prime Minister John Key said that after the fiasco of the electoral finance laws, any electoral bill that a National Government promoted would need to have proper consultation with the Opposition and would need to enjoy wide support across the Parliament. The reason John Key is a person of integrity who wants to see New Zealand’s democracy being strong and its constitutional conventions being respected, is that we are an unusual country. We don’t have a constitution. You could pass all number of electoral amendments to try and screw the scrum to the advantage of the governing parties, and that is an anathema to those that believe in fair contest. It’s like the one sports team in the contest being able to write the rules to suit themselves. While that may occur in the America’s Cup sometimes, we do not support it as the way for dealing with serious issues of democracy.

So every single bill of an electoral nature under the nine years of the previous Key Government, introduced by justice Minister Amy Adams, Judith Collins, or Simon Power, involved extensive consultation with the Opposition and involved more than a majority, and that involved compromise. I contrast that with respect to the record of Mr Little. This is the fourth electoral amendment bill that he’s brought to this Parliament without any consultation with Opposition parties at all. We had it with the waka-hopping law, we had it with the law on referendums that’s just gone through its third reading, we had it with the Electoral Amendment Bill, and now we have it with the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2). Andrew Little is on the public record saying that electoral bills should be consulted on with the Opposition.

Contrast that with this bill, where the first I heard of it was a phone call at quarter past 11 today, after the National caucus had already started, a day on which a large number of MPs were delayed, with weather, being able to get to Parliament. It just exposes how shoddy the process is. So no consultation. I have said to Andrew Little on three occasions: my door is open. Just make the phone call, and I’m happy to have the discussion on behalf of National to make sure that we robustly improve our electoral laws. No consultation, no select committee process, and urgency in Parliament.

The Minister made mention of the Justice Committee process, and it’s proper that we put on the record what has occurred in that respect. The Justice Committee only opened submissions on the issue of foreign interference in the elections in April this year. For the Minister to be critical of that process, he needs to have a talk with his own colleagues. That is a select committee of which we’ve had six different chairs, for goodness’ sake! The current Labour members of the committee were not even there when we heard the submissions from those interested in the issues of foreign interference. If there is any responsibility for that process being delayed, it rests with Labour members, and it is disingenuous of the Minister to use that as an excuse for riding over this bill.

I ask the Minister: he introduced an Electoral Amendment Bill in October; what’s different between October and December? That bill is going to a select committee, and we are currently hearing submissions on it. Why is it not possible, and why did he not include in that bill those issues that have been around for more than two years rather than introducing them under urgency in this process? We are being asked to pass 20 clauses of law, very detailed provisions in an area that everybody knows is incredibly complex to get right, around limits on donations and the importance of integrity over electoral law. It is just a disgrace that the Minister is wanting the Parliament to rubber-stamp his particular changes in this area when it is bleedingly obvious that this bill does not go nearly far enough to deal with the risks that the Minister has identified.

For instance, we’ve just had a big mayoral campaign in Auckland. Why does this ban on foreign donations not include local government? I have to say that there were accusations during the Auckland mayoral campaign between Mayor Goff and a former Labour MP, John Tamihere. If you’re serious about containing foreign influence in elections, why is it OK for foreigners to be able to make massive donations in respect of local elections? Why are New Zealand registered trusts and companies—why is it possible to just set up a shelf company and get round the provisions that are here, and why is the Government rushing through the significant changes that are being made around the social media provisions? All of these issues have been at the heart of nine months of work of the Justice Committee. There is no case for a rush. This is law that needs to be done with care, with due attention, where the Electoral Commission is able to appear before a select committee.

We’ll be moving motions. We would be happy to provide for a fast-track process to make sure that improvements in this law are in place for the next general election, but there should be a select committee process—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member’s time has expired—[Interruption] The member’s time has expired.

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is an extremely important bill. The Government is moving to close a critical gap which is a threat to our democracy. I want to read to you a definition of foreign interference provided by the NZSIS and the GCSB, which defined it as “an act by a foreign state, or its proxy, that is intended to influence, disrupt or subvert a New Zealand national interest by covert, deceptive or threatening means.” This definition recognises the importance of democratically protected rights of political expression or the ability of States or entities to negotiate with each other and accepted norms such as open lobbying or diplomatic activities.

The risk of foreign interference in elections is a growing international phenomenon. The Minister of Justice has told us that in his first reading speech today. New Zealand is not immune to that. We’ve heard credible reports of interference campaigns in the elections of other countries with increasing sophistication. Interference in New Zealand’s electoral system is plausible. Considering that, moving to deal with this is critical. That’s why I say this is an extremely important bill.

What is extraordinary is the game-playing, disingenuous statements by the Opposition member Nick Smith around how we don’t need to do it right now and that we should wait.

The Justice Committee, which has been referenced several times today in the House, started hearing an inquiry into the general election and local government elections in July 2018—nearly 18 months ago—and expanded that out to foreign interference in elections at the end of last year. There has been time to get that right and report that back to the House. That has not happened. The Minister has, several times over the last few months, signalled very strongly that he wanted to see a report, he wanted to take action, and what we’re seeing today is that he has said that enough’s enough and it’s time to take action, because we cannot wait. We cannot wait for more weeks and more months to go by where there has not been a report-back, and Nick Smith needs to take a look in the mirror on that, instead of getting up in the House and spouting forward his usual speech about constitutional outrages.

This Minister is taking action for New Zealand’s precious democracy to ensure that we are acting on foreign donations, and I am very proud to be standing here in the House today to support that, because it’s vital that we’ve got reform in place before the next election to provide safeguards against the risks of foreign interference. This legislation isn’t perfect and it doesn’t do the whole job, but it’s a really important step in that process, with reforms to send a clear signal that this is an issue that warrants immediate attention. So changing the law now gives parties, it gives candidates, and it gives the Electoral Commission enough time and certainty to make the necessary changes in time for the 2020 election, and I challenge the Opposition over there to get up and tell this House and the public of New Zealand that we should wait on this. We absolutely should not wait.

This bill does three things—well, it does more than three things, but three main things: it counters the risk of foreign interference through the banning of donations to political parties and candidates above that $50 threshold, and that means that small-scale fund-raising activities aren’t unduly affected; it introduces a due diligence requirement for party secretaries and candidates to take reasonable steps—and the Minister mentioned proportionality with regard to that—to ensure that a donation isn’t from an overseas person, or hasn’t been made on behalf of an overseas person; and it counters the risk of foreign interference by requiring authorisation statements on all online advertising, the same as it is with offline advertising. We will talk about this in the further stages of the bill.

This is another really critical stage. It’s the first real move that you’ve seen in the New Zealand Parliament by a Government that’s prepared to move against disinformation—really critical—and, in the meantime, we’re progressing legislation to make it easier for New Zealanders to vote at the 2020 election as well as allowing people to enrol to vote on election day. This is closing a gap. It doesn’t deal with all of the issues. There are still loopholes. The Minister has signalled that there is further work required. The further work that’s required needs to look further at transmission, at social media, at hacking, and, further, at disinformation. This is a really important step. I commend this bill to the House.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Mr Speaker. “Electoral Amendment Bill” it says, and in brackets after that, it says “(No 2)”. I presume that’s because it’s the second such-named bill that we have on the Order Paper, and not because that would be a description of the process around introducing this legislation, but No. 2, none the less, it is.

I think it’s worthwhile distinguishing between the process and the substance of this bill. There will be much said about this today, no doubt, and I say “today” in inverted commas—if the Hansard people would indulge me in that way—because today will be not only the calendar day that is today but also tomorrow will be today, and that’s because urgency as set by this House means that the legal fiction of Parliament is that, actually, tomorrow will be a continuation of today’s business. We’ll be rushing through today, in Parliament terms, this entire bill from start to finish, from go to whoa, and that is an extraordinary thing. It’s an extraordinary thing to see acknowledged so bluntly that this place does not represent the real world when we think about the fact that we’re going to be considering this bill in urgency in the parliamentary sense of that word, but there is clearly no urgency about it in any real-world meaning of that phrase.

Just in relation to that, I’d just note that the legislation isn’t going to become effective until next year, so if there were any argument about needing to rush through something to avoid a flood of foreign donations in the time that it takes Parliament to consider a short process—perhaps, instead of a week or two, it may be a very truncated select committee process—well, that, in fact, is not needed. So we can discard that possible objection very readily.

Staying on the process, before I move to the substance—so the shonky process before we get to the reasonable substance—it’s extraordinary to me that Green and Labour members have supported the urgency motion and, indeed have proposed it, in the case of Labour members, via the Leader of the House, because I haven’t been around very long, but I do remember before the time that I came into this place, those parties’ members would routinely be outraged as the use of urgency for some relatively meritorious situations, I’d have to say. Certainly, in the case of a piece of legislation, the ink of which is still drying in my hand, it having been introduced only as recently as 11 o’clock this morning, or so, it seems absolutely extraordinary that we should be in this position of having to consider and give consideration to it at first, second, and third reading, with a committee stage thrown in for good measure.

The process and the substance of the bill, in a way, are two different matters, as I’ve alluded to, but they do actually connect at the point where we have to observe, if we’re a responsible legislature, that the likelihood of cock-ups in the substance increases with the poor process, essentially. So the likelihood of shortfalls, anomalies, and unintended consequences in the legislation increases in inverse proportion to the amount of time that we spend on it. Obviously, within reason, it’s helpful to spend more time, not less, on a matter that is significant, and if the other side of the House is correct in saying that this is a very significant bill—and to some extent, they’re right; the issues are significant—then, surely, it behoves them to acknowledge the importance of having a reasonable process where we give members of the public as well as members of this House the opportunity to have their say on its various provisions.

It’s also not clear why we’re doing one aspect of electoral law with such a rush—literally, so urgently—when other aspects are not only not raised in the legislation but, presumably, will be considered at a more measured and reasonable pace. So the anomaly there in terms of having a piecemeal approach where the various different moving parts are moving at different speeds takes some getting one’s head around.

Let’s turn, though, from the process to the substance, and it’s worth acknowledging—as my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith has done so—that there are some worthwhile aspects to this. National is not averse to tightening the law around foreign donations. Indeed, as he mentioned, it was something that he was on the public record regarding earlier in this year, and, in fact, that’s something that we support as a matter of principle. Without breaching the privilege of the select committee proceedings in the Justice Committee, I can say that that’s a matter which we’ve been carefully considering the way ahead, along with Government members, and we’ll have some positive and constructive things to say about that in due course. I suppose it’s worth adding the caveat, again, as to process that we’ll do our best as part of that process, to the extent that we’re not undermined by the unilateral dropping of legislation, as we’ve seen today.

Let’s think, then, about what the bill actually does. By its own statement, under the general policy statement, “The Bill makes several changes to the Electoral Act 1993 to send a clear signal that only those who are part of New Zealand’s democracy, [etc.] should participate in our electoral system.” Well, that’s fine, as far as it goes, and it’s good, as far as is goes, actually, but we should examine that reasonably clearly in the context of a clear signal that the bill says it’s going to send.

We need to do more in this place than merely send clear signals. We need to have hard and fast rules that actually have the intended effect. I’ll get on to some of the detail of that as best I can within the current allotted time, but if not, then I’ll have other opportunities later today—multiple opportunities, in fact, considering we are rushing this thing with such indecent haste.

But for now, I will echo the words of my colleague Dr Smith in relation to what’s being advertised as a ban on donations. Well, if what we have is a ban on donations under this bill, then we already have a ban of donations, because all that is actually happening is that the threshold is simply being shifted from the current $1,500 down to $50. It’s a significant shift, to be fair, but the nature of the thing is the same in either case. So either they are already banned and we’re re-banning at a different level, or it’s not a ban at all; it’s just simply allowance being moved. So either way, it sort of seems a bit disingenuous for the bill to be sort of characterising its own operation in that way.

Another matter of substance is in relation to the fact that the bill doesn’t apply to local elections, only to parliamentary elections. So again, without getting ahead of the select committee process, it does seem slightly anomalous. In fact, I could observe anyway, without having any sort of knowledge or involvement in that select committee process, that it seems rather strange not to take the opportunity to amend local government legislation as well in the same way. And I don’t know—I genuinely don’t know. It’s hard to make a guess, really, what the Minister’s going to come up with next. It might be that there is the equivalent of this about to drop. Maybe we’ll get that at 11 o’clock next Tuesday—a surprise in amongst the Christmas cards. But in any case, it’s not something that’s being done or even attempted here. Again, it’s a piecemeal approach that we’re seeing from the Minister and the Government in this regard.

The wording of the bill is just really interesting, and no doubt we’ll get into the substance of that—the real detail of that—in the committee stage later this evening and tomorrow morning, which will still be today, as I’ve explained, in the strange kind of parliamentary way. One of the key phrases that jumped out to me in the short time that I’ve had to consider the bill is the phrase “all reasonable steps”. That’s the test of action that must be taken by a party secretary or a candidate in determining whether a donation is legitimate, essentially. The Minister of Justice has done an extraordinary thing in outlining what he considers to be the case when it comes to considering what is a reasonable step. He said, “Well, that relates to the amount of money, and, you know, you could make an argument along the lines of proportionality.” Fine. But he actually went so far as to name a specific donor to another party—my party, in fact—and actually said that he would be directing his officials, or rather the Electoral Commission, I suppose, to consider more carefully than other cases whether or not it had breached the law. That’s an extraordinary thing for a Minister of the Crown to do, at least one who is serious about maintaining separation of powers and not treading on the toes of those who have a quasi-judicial function. So that was very disappointing to hear said aloud in this place.

The final comment that I’ll make within my allotted time is just around the onus about how certain one has to be about whether a donation is permissible or not. It’s a pretty weak threshold, but nevertheless, there’s enough in here that we can indicate we’ll support throughout the day’s proceedings, albeit that we’re pretty outraged as to process. It’s utterly inexplicable—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member’s time has expired.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First, who support this Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) in dealing with this most serious of issues, the potential for foreign influence in funding New Zealand election campaigns. This is our democracy. New Zealanders should decide New Zealand elections, and there should be no room at all for outside interference, for it is us, and only us, that have skin in the game.

The only outrage that I have with this process so far is the fact that there is any pushback at all, in the sense that foreign influence in our democracy has any place at all—

Chris Penk: How’s your foundation looking?

MARK PATTERSON: Well, I would remind you, Mr Penk, that there is only one party in this Parliament in front of the Serious Fraud Office for—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order!

MARK PATTERSON: —election irregularities and it is the National Party.

So this is an evolving issue. We are seeing this all around the world. In Australia at the moment, there are some serious allegations. We know that in the last United States elections, there were some very serious implications there, and Russian interference, potentially, in that election campaign. We are seeing this evolving around the world, and it is of great concern. We have heard some very serious allegations in our own democracy, from Professor Anne-Marie Brady of Canterbury University, who has come up, anecdotally, over some standover tactics, because she has stood up to try to expose some of the underlying influences that are potentially within our democracy. I commend her for everything that she is doing to expose some of those influences, because they have no place in New Zealand’s democracy.

In terms of the urgency, it is important that we get this through in good time. There is an election coming up. We have had a Justice Committee process that started in July of 2018. The wheels, the gears of that have ground very, very slowly. I’m not on that committee to comment on why that is, but it does seem to be taking an extraordinary amount of time. So we need to get this lowest of the low-hanging fruit, this absolute no-brainer of taking foreign funding out of our electoral process, and get that under way as soon as possible.

Minister Little outlined why that was. He has implored the Justice Committee to bring that report back so we can go through this process in another way, but that has not happened, and he has taken action, and New Zealand First will support that. Of course, this bill does provide some certainty in that. You know, the election candidates are being announced now; they’ll be out fundraising. They will now know that there will be a $50 limit. That’s a de minimis amount that allows for things like raffle tickets or small gifts or donations. That is below any threshold that could imply any sort of influence, so we do support that. It does put the onus on party secretaries or general secretaries to be more accountable to the Electoral Commission, and it squarely outlines that line of command and responsibility.

Of course, the process that the Justice Committee is going through is very, very important. It will look at wider reform. It will look at the local government situation that has been raised over the aisle. It will look at things like hacking. It will look at social media and influencing and disinformation that is becoming so prevalent through that forum. That is exacerbated by the breakdown of our traditional media as it struggles to compete for funding within this new paradigm.

So we note that the Electoral Act 1993, that this bill amends, actually goes back to the 1956 Act. The MMP was, essentially, bolted on to that 1993 Act, so it’s well out of its time in terms of how the modern world works. It is well past time that we had a root-and-branch overhaul, and this, as I say, is the lowest of the low-hanging fruit, this foreign donations part of that reform process. New Zealand First has absolutely no reservations at all in bringing in measures that protect New Zealand democracy for New Zealanders and New Zealanders only. So New Zealand First will be supporting this bill.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): National supports the small, incredibly incremental, change that this bill proposes. Let’s be clear for those who may have tuned into Parliament, having read headlines today that Andrew Little is banning foreign donations. Let’s be clear what this bill actually does when you look past the overblown PR, because, actually, in New Zealand right now, there is already a limit on foreign actors making donations to New Zealand political parties or campaigns. The threshold is currently $1,500, and this bill reduces that threshold to $50 dollars.

So National has no issue in supporting that, because we think that anyone making a contribution of $70, $80, $100, who’s foreign-backed should not be able to do that. We’re happy to support that. But let us be clear that this bill does not address the significant issues that have been raised by many in New Zealand relating to the potential for foreign States to influence our democratic process. To claim otherwise is disingenuous and, frankly, accepts that the New Zealand public are not going to see through this. It actually proposes to pull the wool over the eyes of New Zealanders, and I think that it is a sham in that respect.

We then come to the question: why is this bill being passed in urgency? While National supports the small measures contained in this bill, we absolutely do not accept that passing it in urgency is going to create good results for our democracy or, indeed, is good lawmaking.

I want to give you a sense of the way in which this bill was introduced. We sat in caucus today and watched at about 11 o’clock as people started coming and going from the room. And we thought, “Well, what is this? What major event has happened in New Zealand?” And then we’re told, “Oh, look, the Government’s introducing a bill under urgency to address electoral law matters.” I will admit that when I heard that, I thought, “Gosh, this must be significant. Maybe this relates to the New Zealand First Foundation. Maybe this actually relates to some corrupt practices that could have been occurring somewhere. Maybe this relates to the Prime Minister deciding to be strong and doing something about Winston Peters and the way that that party has been conducting itself with respect to political donations.”

But no, what we heard was, in fact, the reason why a bill was being introduced with no consultation, no prior briefing—it was going to be passed through all stages under urgency, with no opportunity for public submission, no opportunity for expert analysis, no opportunity for select committee scrutiny, not even the opportunity for electoral law experts to give it a pass—was because we needed to lower the threshold from $1,500 to $50. That is poor lawmaking, and it is an embarrassment that members opposite are trying to claim that it is justified because it’s somehow some big, new ban.

Let’s address the questions that this bill leaves unanswered—we’ve had some of these raised already. First of all, you’ve got this idea that it leaves out local government altogether. Well, why is that? Second of all, it leaves open the very real risk that foreign States could circumvent these measures by providing donations through a New Zealand - based resident or company. There is nothing to stop, in this bill, a foreign State making a significant contribution to the New Zealand First Foundation. There is nothing in this bill to stop that. I think New Zealanders would be interested to know that the Minister of Justice is happy to stand up and say he’s banning foreign donations, but does nothing in this bill to address that very real risk. There is nothing in this bill to deal with foreign donations to groups that are campaigning for one side or another in a referendum. So we could, potentially, in next year’s election, have the situation where foreign actors are donating to campaigns about the cannabis referendum or about the end of life choice referendum, and this bill won’t touch them—it won’t touch them in any way.

This bill doesn’t deal with the fact that a foreign actor could still make an anonymous donation of up to $1,500. No, that’s not contained either. This bill leaves open more questions than it answers, and yet the opportunity for Parliament to suggest to the Minister areas where it could be improved, areas where it could be tightened, additional clauses that could be added, is being completely run roughshod over because of the urgency that is being given to this legislation. It is being put through in an accelerated, shoddy way, and unnecessarily so.

You’d ask yourself, “Well, maybe this does need to be done urgently because we need to act to stop these donations happening tomorrow.” But you’d be wrong, because, actually, this bill doesn’t come into effect until 1 January. In fact, some of the clauses in this bill don’t come into effect until April next year. So there is absolutely nothing to stop Minister Andrew Little giving a select committee an opportunity for a week or two weeks to get submissions from the public and to ensure that this is good lawmaking, but he is choosing not to do that. Mark my words, there will continue to be questions raised about foreign actors influencing our democracy and being able to do it within the law for so long as this bill exists in this form.

This bill will not prevent the question of whether or not foreign actors are influencing our democracy. Minister Little had an opportunity to engage with National in good faith on this issue. We have stated clearly our interest in ensuring that foreign actors do not unduly influence our democracy. This is an interest that members on all sides of this House should hold, because, actually, we hold dear the idea that New Zealanders decide how our Governments are run, New Zealanders decide who is voted for, and New Zealanders decide how an election should be influenced. But no, Minister Little has foregone the opportunity to reach a consensus on this issue, and, instead, has put forward a shoddy, tiny, little bill that goes nowhere near to resolving the genuine issues at stake here.

I would go so far as to say that this bill is window dressing that takes the New Zealand public for fools. What it is is a bill that’s designed to get the headline but isn’t designed to address the real problem. And isn’t that Labour summed up—that it’s more important to be seen to be doing something than it is to actually address the root cause of an issue? Members opposite should be asking themselves, “If I really care about foreign influence in an election, should I maybe be asking Andrew Little whether we just taihoa here and we open this bill up for just a few submissions?” Right now, I know that there are academics just up the hill at Victoria University. If they were asked to put in a submission tomorrow, they’d get it done. There are academics at Otago University, Auckland University, and there are people acting within our legal profession who would happily submit to this in a quick, and efficient, and professional manner. And you know what? I trust that they would come up with ideas that could be worthy of passing through this Parliament. But no, they have been denied. They have been denied because the Government has chosen to put through this window dressing bill under urgency.

It’s this idea of being clever at politics; clever it somehow making it seem as if National is for foreign donations. Well, no, that is not the case. We accept that lowering the threshold is a good idea. We don’t want to keep the threshold as it is, but we think that this bill could be a lot better.

Labour’s starting to get a track record when it comes to this sort of legislation. We had the waka jumping bill, we’ve had the Referendums Framework Bill, we’ve had the Electoral Amendment Bill. In all of those cases, what happens is the Minister arrogantly becomes impatient and decides it’s more important to be politically expedient than it is to make durable law based on a bipartisan consensus. I am worried about that, because when I came into this House, I came with a very clear view that everyone here in Parliament comes with a genuine desire to do what’s right for our country and to be involved in good lawmaking, and this is not good lawmaking. This is lawmaking that we should all be embarrassed about, because, actually, it denies New Zealanders the opportunity to make good suggestions. It denies opponents the opportunity to be heard, and, frankly, it doesn’t go to the nub of the issues.

This is a small bill. The PR about it is completely overblown. There is no rationale for urgency. It leaves many, many unanswered questions. The Minister has refused to engage. This is window dressing at its worst, and members opposite should be ashamed. But National, because we are cooperative and because we believe in ensuring there isn’t foreign influence on our democracy, will support these changes while continuing to oppose the urgency through which this is being passed.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. The Green Party are very clear that we need to fight strong and long for a democracy and a public decision-making process that people with a connection to New Zealand can absolutely trust, that people can feel confident is here for the will of the people of our country. So the Green Party welcomes and supports the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2); the changes that we are making to ban overseas donations in our electoral processes. I note that this proposal is to pertain to our general elections and not our local government elections.

So, firstly, just to put on the record from the Green Party perspective, what this bill actually is—and the main focus that I think we are debating here today is the amendment to the Electoral Act 1993, which will restrict donations from overseas persons to both political parties and individual candidates, to reduce the risk of any overseas money, any overseas influence in our domestic election processes. So in this bill, it is proposed that candidates and party secretaries—those responsible for keeping good records and good authority processes around all of our political donations—are required to take all reasonable steps to satisfy themselves that a donation over $50 is not from an overseas person. I do actually acknowledge that the Minister himself, in introducing this bill into the House today, was clear that this is only the start, and that further work needs to be done. I am very clear, and pleased, that the Minister himself relayed that to be able to make sure that this is a strong process, there will be further work that needs to be identified across our electoral system—including in the process for identifying overseas donations. So he has put that understanding on the floor, and I wanted to make sure that we acknowledged that once again.

For some time now around the world, and certainly here in our own country, public confidence and trust in our democratic processes has been waning. We need to have the public interest of the people who are connected to this country at the heart of every decision that we are making, rather than any overseas interests or influence or advocacy, and so, again, that’s really leaning into why the Greens are strong in our support of this bill. Now, we’ve still got a ways to go in terms of having a system that all people can trust, having governance in this House of Representatives that all people can trust in terms of elections. We do still have political disengagement here and around the world when it comes to that confidence in our democracy, and that political disengagement serves elite power and serves elite influence in our decision-making processes. So, again, this is a really strong message from the Green Party on why we are clear in our support for this bill.

This does need to be only the start of a raft of changes—for example, further measures to ensure equal access and to ensure that every individual, every person, who is able to vote, to engage in democratic processes, feels that they have got as much chance, as much influence, as every other person in this country, and, certainly, more influence than any overseas interests. So we have put this on record for the whole of this term, and we have worked closely with the Minister around making sure that we are also implementing the rest of the 2012 MMP review recommendations. We would also like to see a reduction in the current anonymity threshold for all donations. We have actually put on the floor, on the Table, that we would like to see a cap on all donations as well. I merely add those to this first reading debate to emphasise, again, our enthusiasm, our determination for ensuring that we have a system we can trust.

I wanted to pick up on the time restraints that were identified by officials, that we need to start getting these changes put into place before the 2020 election, and that it is essential that we are giving parties, the electoral systems, the authorities involved, and our own political system enough time to be able to make sure that we have got these changes—that we’ve got the system set up to be able to take on board a ban on overseas donations and, again, a raft of other measures that need to be put into place as well. So I understand and accept and hear the justification that has been given to make sure that we get these changes through, to get us towards a better engagement, a better public confidence in our system.

The impact summary: I did want to pick up on—and other members have raised—the fact that there may still be a risk that foreign States could circumvent any new rules that ban overseas donations by going through a third party or by going through a New Zealand - based person instead. And so I acknowledge that that needs to be addressed, that we need to not create unintended consequences through laws like these, that we need to close up those loopholes. I acknowledge, in the time constraints that have been identified in the impact summary, that we haven’t yet been able to address those. But it is clear that, again, the Minister himself is aware, and we need to mitigate those. There was that risk, and there was another one which, I think, was around someone donating wholly to just any third party or New Zealand - based person—that was the other thing that I wanted to raise. I do actually acknowledge that there are what I would say are valid concerns, and the Green Party is interested in making sure that we are quite tight in the loopholes and the electoral systems that we want to set up.

There was one further point that I wanted to make. The candidate and party secretaries are being required to take all reasonable steps—and I think the Minister, again, put a case example on the floor today. I’m open to looking further into what the actual definition of “reasonable steps” is, and satisfying a process that a donation of over $50 has not come from an overseas person. I do want to listen to the rest of the debate and take on board the rest of this urgency debate today around strengthening—thoughts as to how we can make sure that we’ve got a strong enough system in place for taking reasonable steps, and satisfying ourselves that those donations are not from an overseas person.

So, once again, to close, it is of the utmost importance for us to be working together to address the big crises that are facing the future of our world, and the big issues that we are going to have to work together on. It is in the utmost interests for all of us to have a strong, transparent, and equal-access democratic system. This is absolutely vital—to ban overseas donations. This is a start, and I look forward to continuing to work on a raft of other measures that should also be considered. Thank you.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. I won’t take a large amount of time in the debate this evening, but it is something that I have become aware of and that I think we are becoming increasingly aware of. Information and evidence has come to light that there has been political international interference, foreign interference, in elections and things that we have been seeing happening around the world. I was fortunate, actually, to sit on the Justice Committee a couple of times during their inquiry into the general election and also the local body elections, and it was a point that was raised in that process. I’m not a permanent member of that committee, but for me it was very alarming, and so I’m really pleased to see that this measure is being taken by the Minister of Justice—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It exempts local government.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: I’m not saying that it relates to local government. What I am saying is that I am pleased that the Minister is taking action, in time for the election next year, to try and put in place measures that are going to limit the potential for that international foreign political interference in our election next year, and I think it is commendable.

Like we have heard in the House already tonight, the Minister has indicated that this is a first step that we are taking—that there are other areas that we want to look at. I am particularly concerned around social media and around hacks. But in terms of this, there’s been focus on the amount of money, and particularly the financial interference, but there are actually other measures in here in terms of the promotion of material around election time, and a new requirement to disclose who has sponsored that and where they come from. I have seen in processes already that have come before Parliament that there has been international financial backing of advertisements in our subcommittee processes. So I think that we are able to take some steps immediately that will be able to come into effect and allow the Electoral Commission to put the procedures and the necessary mechanisms in place prior to our election next year, and that is commendable and absolutely something that we should be doing right here and now.

I also believe that the bill introduces a stronger positive duty on candidates and on secretaries, requiring them to take steps to satisfy themselves that donations over $50 are not from an overseas person—a positive obligation on candidates and on party secretaries to make sure that we are doing due diligence, taking all reasonable steps to identify that. I think that it’s important that we have that obligation within the legislation.

Now, the Minister indicated in his speech in opening up the debate on this bill that he looks forward to the Justice Committee’s report back on foreign interference into our electoral system, and with great interest. It says there that it’s likely to cover a whole range of issues, like hacking, social media influence, and disinformation. If we look to Australia and to the United States and also around Brexit, there is evidence that this has been an issue, so if there are any measures that we can take now to ensure that we have the best possible and fairest election next year, then we should be. I hope that that report from the Justice Committee, completing that inquiry, is forthcoming and we are able to take further steps.

The other thing that I am heartened by is the Minister’s indication that we need to do a comprehensive review of the Electoral Act—that it is overdue and that that is something that could happen after the 2020 election.

With that, I actually took longer than I thought, but I am quite passionate about this, and so I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): OK, we’re on a split call. This is call No. 9—or do the whips have some information for me? OK, well, obviously not. I’ll make the call. This is a split call—five minutes.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Well, I’ll try and make it a good five minutes, Mr Speaker. Look, I think Henry Cooke’s article this afternoon sums up this bill: “good politics, terrible lawmaking”—good politics, terrible lawmaking. The spin this morning—in fact, the press release from Andrew Little says, “Government moves to ban foreign donations”. Oh, man, that’s pretty big. I sat there in caucus and the news came through, and I thought “Oh, that’s pretty big.” Except it doesn’t ban foreign donations; it lowers the threshold from $1,500—which is actually small to start with—to $50. So right from the start, the Government has just been enveloped in spin, as my colleague Dr Nick Smith says.

Actually, it’s a lot like other press releases the Government puts out: “$400 million for State schools”—side note: not if you’re State-integrated; you don’t get anything. “Government bans semi-automatic weapons”—except only over a certain calibre and only over a certain size and only a certain number and we’ll buy back the rest. So there’s a lot of spin—a lot of spin. These guys are masters at it. So the bill doesn’t actually do what it says on the tin. We are supporting it.

I want to talk about the urgency. There is no justification for this urgency—none whatsoever. We’re in a three-week sitting period. As Graeme Edgeler has pointed out, he could turn up tomorrow morning at the Finance and Expenditure Committee, if they don’t want to send it to the Justice Committee. They could turn up tomorrow at the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and Graeme Edgeler would be there, noted scholar that he is, and he’d point out the flaws and he’d point out the amendments that need to be made. Their heads are down over there because they know that there is no justification for this. Even with the gun laws post-Christchurch, when people wanted to act in haste and send a message to the world that we were going to get these guns out of the hands of New Zealanders, that went to the Finance and Expenditure Committee for a week. I sat on that committee. You can do a lot in a week. There is no justification for not sending this bill to a select committee.

Now, there is a case for urgency. Parliament sat after the 2008 election and we repealed the obligation on fuel companies to offer biofuels in petrol. Why did we do that? Well, because the obligation came into effect three weeks later and Parliament was about to rise for the year. The Government had campaigned on repealing that and we did. We acted under urgency. There is no justification for urgency for this bill.

Members opposite have been keen to complain about the select committee process. Let’s be honest with what’s happened here. A select committee, the Justice Committee, has been considering the local government election inquiry from 2016—that’s a hang-over from the last Parliament. They’ve been considering the 2017 election inquiry, and the remit of the committee got widened a few months in—some months in, actually—to consider foreign interference. Now, there is a lot of stuff within those three different elements, and, yes, the committee has taken a long time. I sat on the committee for quite a long time.

This is complicated stuff, and, frankly, let’s be honest with what’s happened here: Andrew Little has had a tantrum, OK? The Minister has had a tantrum—

Hon Member: Another one.

CHRIS BISHOP: —another one—and decided, “Oh, forget the committee, forget the consultation with the Opposition; I’m just going to ram something through. I can turn up, announce the bill in the middle of caucus meetings and see if we can take them by surprise and get the New Zealand First Foundation stuff off the front pages and off the headlines, and we can talk about banning foreign donations. I can make all these thinly veiled attempts at implying the National Party gets all this foreign money, and things will be great.” That’s what’s happened. We all know that’s exactly why we’re here. We all know that’s why we’re sitting here in urgency. We’re going to ram it through under urgency.

Frankly, for the Green Party, who voted for urgency—I note Marama Davidson spent her entire speech talking about everything other than urgency. The Green Party spent nine years, when National was in Government, hectoring the Government, calling them dictators and fascists and all the rest of it for using urgency—which, actually, most of the time was highly justified. Now we find the Green Party is willing to collaborate with a Government that is desperate to talk about anything else.

This is yet another bill where the Government has not consulted with the Opposition. Firstly, we had waka-jumping. Then we’ve had the next electoral bill, which introduced the same-day voting. We’ve had the referendum bill. We’ve got another one coming on prisoner voting, apparently, and now we’ve got this one. The Minister is all over the show—five amendment bills to the Electoral Act or to various elements of our constitution and he hasn’t bothered to consult with the Opposition. It is a disgrace. He is massively out of his depth.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have a situation where, unfortunately, we didn’t take the previous call. But as you are aware, regardless, the proportionality determines that we get a set number of calls. Now, in this instance, you have ruled that it is a split call. I propose what we do is follow the ruling, Speaker’s ruling 48/3, which states “Actually, when it is a split call, it is an unusual arrangement. That is, the member can speak for as long as he wants … for up to 10 minutes, and then the next speaker gets the balance of the time.” So Mr Bishop’s time, whilst you put five minutes on the clock, has not actually expired. That was a ruling by Speaker Mallard, actually. So he could continue for the full 10 minutes, which is what I propose he does in this instance, and then we make the next call a split call, which returns to the proportionality we should have had.

Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to the point of order—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No, I don’t need any help, thank you. I made a ruling at the beginning of the call, and I’m going to stick to that. As far as I’m concerned we’re on call No. 10.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The previous call is not finished, because, as a Speaker’s ruling clearly states, that speaker on the first part of the split can talk for as long as he likes up to 10 minutes. Mr Bishop has not finished talking—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): And as I’ve already said, I made that determination at the beginning of the previous call.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: I accept that you determined it was a split call, but he has not finished his portion of the split.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Yes, he has.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: Well, are you overruling the previous Speaker’s ruling, because it’s very clear: Speaker’s ruling 48/3 states that he can speak for up to 10 minutes if he wishes, at which time he sits down. The second part of the split call may—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): We are on call No. 10 and if Mr David Seymour would like to have that call he can have it.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the spirit of trying to assist, what you are saying and what Mr van de Molen is saying are completely consistent. Yes, indeed, you did rule that it was a split call. However, what Mr van de Molen is pointing out—a very arcane part of the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings—is that actually the first member who has a split call technically is allowed to speak for as long as they like, leaving the balance. So there’s nothing inconsistent with you now allowing Mr Bishop to continue speaking even though that doesn’t really help me.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): My ruling is that call No. 8 was missed. Willow-Jean Prime had the first—[Interruption] Yes, I’ll stand up then. Willow-Jean Prime had the first part of call No. 9; Chris Bishop had the second part. We are now on what would have been call No. 10. We have one 10-minute speech in balance. I asked at the beginning of that if the whips had any information for me. Neither of them did and neither has come to see me to ask or to inform me what your decision is. So after that, there is a 10-minute speech. I suggest you sort out who’s giving it.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Does your ruling now mean that the Speaker has to be informed every time someone is taking a speech when there has been a decision that split speeches can be taken? The rules up to this point have been, as my colleague Mr van de Molen has pointed out, that a split speech means that the first speaker can speak for as long as they like within the allocated 10 minutes, up to 10 minutes; and that the second part of the speech is the balance of any of the 10 minutes that might be remaining. Are you also ruling that a split speech now is strictly five minutes?—because these are new rules and we need to know exactly how we’re operating.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No, I’m ruling that I asked for advice from both whips at the beginning, neither of which gave them to me, so I made the decision.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Respectfully, I did suggest that this was a 10-minute call for Mr Bishop—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): You did not.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: —and you did not at any time of Ms Prime’s call suggest that that was a split call. So you indicated at the start of Mr Bishop’s call, after you didn’t feel there was a clear consensus between the Labour whip and myself, that that was to be a split call—not that that was the second half of the previous call. It was very clear, actually, that the previous call had been a 10-minute call and it was only the start of this one that commenced the split call, which enabled him to then continue for 10 minutes. Now, I don’t want to see the convention we have, where we each take a five-minute split call, change, but in this instance, due to the order of not taking that previous call, Ms Prime stood up and took it. We’re still entitled—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I don’t think you’ve—

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: —based on proportionality to our full allocation of calls. Now, there are numerous ways we could do it. What I was proposing is to split that and, to keep it in line with what we should have, was to merely allow Mr Bishop to continue for 10 minutes.

David Seymour: Mr Speaker—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No, no—look, the Standing Order says that there are 12 10-minute calls, OK? And as I’ve indicated before, there was one missed call. That call’s still there. I’m saying to both sides, please sort out—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Sorry, what was that?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): There’s one that was not taken. That was call No. 8. That call is still there and still available because we have not yet taken it. So what I’m asking you—[Interruption]—I’m asking you to sort out what you want to do between both sides of the House to determine who is taking that call.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Speaking to the whole point of order, that is one issue, but it doesn’t solve the issue that we’re trying to work through at the moment, which appears to be an overruling of Speaker’s ruling 48/3: Assistant Speaker Mallard at the time saying, “Actually when it is a split call, it’s an unusual arrangement. That is, the member can speak for as long as he wants”—and presumably “she”—“for up to 10 minutes, and then the next speaker gets the balance of the time.” that is unused inside that 10 minutes.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): And the problem is—

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: And all we’re saying is that, as the first speaker, Mr Bishop could use up to 10 minutes.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Well, as far as I’m concerned, he was the—

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That would still leave—if you don’t mind, sir, that would still leave one 10-minute block unused, and that should be allocated proportionately, which would mean, in fact, the National Party gets another five-minute speech.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): In my opinion, he was the second speaker. The first five-minute speech was from Willow-Jean Prime; he was the second.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That is a completely unreasonable position to take, because speech time in this House is allocated proportionately to parties. And to suggest that somehow we are splitting a speech with the Labour Party is completely unreasonable. It is totally new, and it is something that simply cannot endure either in Speakers’ rulings or, for that matter, in the Standing Orders. The only way through this is to accept the standard convention, which was articulated by Assistant Speaker Mallard in 2017: allow Mr Bishop to finish his 10-minute contribution, and if there is any remaining space, then that would be openly apportioned between the parties in the House on a proportional basis. We do everything on a proportional basis. Questions are allocated on a proportional basis, places on select committees are allocated on a proportional basis, and speaking times in this House are allocated on a proportional basis. We cannot have a ruling that upsets that.

David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No, I’m going to deal with this one.

David Seymour: Well, Mr Speaker, I may be able to help.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No, I’ll deal with one point of order at a time.

David Seymour: They’re related, honestly.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No, I’m going to deal with one point of order at a time. Thank you. There are four 10-minute speeches. We’ve had—yeah, we’ve got four 10-minute speeches left, OK? Now, we can deal with the proportionality for those speeches. All members have to—

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): No one’s arguing that—right? We’re arguing, firstly, if that is conceded that is a great thing, so let’s deal with that. We’re not upsetting proportionality if that is from this point on. The problem is that you’ve asked us to accept that Mr Bishop’s contribution has to be split with a Labour member. We don’t accept that; the 10-minute block belonged to the National Party. If we choose to have Mr Bishop speak for nine minutes and 30 seconds and one other member from this side of the House stand up for 30 seconds, so be it. That’s what the rules allow. That’s what we started the debate with. Changing the rules part way through—and permanently, it would seem, as a ruling for the whole House—is completely unreasonable.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I agree with the first part of your statement, Mr Brownlee. That’s not the issue in this case. It’s the fact that a member was supposed to be on call No. 8. It was not taken so I went to call No. 9. That’s the issue. Proportionality isn’t going to change. We’ve got four 10-minute calls left and it’s up to the members to decide how that’s going to work out. It’s not my fault that, for whatever reason, members didn’t stand to take the call.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Melissa Lee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

David Seymour: I was first.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): It is now 6 p.m. It has actually come time for me to leave the Chair. You’re going to have to raise those issues after the dinner break.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House has resumed. Colleagues, before the dinner break we were debating the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2), first reading. I understand that peace and goodwill has broken out across the House during the dinner break, and we now have call No. 10, which is a split call. I call David Seymour. It’s a five-minute call.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) could be better named the “Whisky Tango Foxtrot Bill”. It is an indulgence in the politics of pantomime. It is pantomime politics; huge amounts of drama and theatrics for very little purpose.

The Government is putting the House into urgency tonight in order to pass a bill that it has claimed bans foreign donations. Well, that’s the first big problem with this bill. It does nothing of the sort. It doesn’t change the definition of an overseas person. It doesn’t change the definition of an overseas donation, except for one little thing. It says the threshold for declaring an overseas donation and giving up all the money above that threshold is going from $1,500 down to $50. That’s the only change being made in this bill tonight. It is a meaningless change, and the reason for that is that it is totally impractical to enforce.

Let me give you the example of the ACT Party. Now, I asked our party secretary and she said today the ACT Party has received 11 donations of over $50, just a standard day on the website. People come along, they give us money because they like what we stand for. The bill requires that they take all reasonable steps to work out where those people live, those people who have made online donations. What does all reasonable steps actually mean? Do we need to hire a forensic accountant to find out where those people really live? Or is it enough just to put a notification on our website saying that they shouldn’t lie? And if we are suspecting that maybe people are hiding their identity, what’s the remedy and what’s the punishment? The truth is that it is completely meaningless, because such a large volume of donations are such that it will be impossible for anybody to truly enforce this change from $1,500 down to $50.

And another mystery is: why would the Government do this? The fact of the matter is that it is simply a matter of politics. This Government has run out of ideas and they thought that doing something dramatic, putting Parliament into urgency and going after something that nobody likes, such as electoral donations from foreigners, would get them a good cycle in the headlines, better than the 24 hours they had beforehand, where they’re behind in the polls and where they’re losing data all over the show. The fact of the matter is that they did this because they thought it would give them a sugar hit in the press.

But the great irony is, not only is it ineffective, not only will it never be practical to be enforced but, ironically, a bill to try and defend the democratic rights of New Zealanders is being passed under urgency, with no need whatsoever, and this is excluding New Zealanders from being able to make a contribution through the select committee process, which is what normally happens when New Zealanders engage in the democratic process. So you have a bill that’s supposed to be defending democracy being rammed through for no reason, for no immediate cause of urgency, and excluding New Zealanders from participating in democracy in the name of defending New Zealand democracy. How crazy is that? That’s what this Government is doing.

I hear from all around the House the plaintive cries from the Green Party, those great upholders of due process “It was so terrible when the previous Government used urgency.” Today they’re going along with this, and what do we hear? Not a peep. No principles in the Green Party.

I’m sorry to hear from my friends in the National Party, because I heard some very fine speeches made by the likes of Chris Bishop, and I thought he was going to vote against it. Well, I’d say to my friends in the National Party, if it’s such a bad bill and you don’t agree with it, vote against it. Honestly, I’m doing it. It’s not that hard. If the National Party had the courage of their convictions they might be even further ahead of the Labour Party in the poll—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order!

DAVID SEYMOUR: —but instead the ACT Party stands alone for our democracy and due process in this Parliament, proudly opposing this political pantomime bill.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I’m not going to take up too much time. I mean, this is a very, very simple bill; a bill that will be welcomed by New Zealanders because they have serious and justified and legitimate concerns around foreign intervention or the potential for foreign intervention in our democracy. And this bill is a very good first step in that.

I say it’s a first step for very good reason—because the Minister, in introducing this bill, made it very clear that after the 2020 election he intends to direct justice officials to review and modernise the entire Electoral Act. Now, we don’t have time to do that between now and the next election. What would they say, I wonder, if we, today, proposed that we would do a full review knowing that there would not be any changes put in force before the next election. The message we would send to the people of this country is that we are happy with the current situation and the potential for foreign interference.

What this bill does is very simple; it reduces the prospect of it occurring. It allows for small donations so that people don’t inadvertently get caught up if they put money into a bucket at a conference or something like that. But on the whole, it reduces the threshold so that people can have confidence in our regime going forward, knowing that there will be a review ahead.

It never fails to amaze me the position that the National Party team seems to take, and David Seymour is exactly right. They stand up and they speak against the bill, and yet they say they’re not going to oppose it, because they don’t want to look like that they are on the side of foreign donations. But there is a very fine line to tread. The fact is that they can stand up and accuse this of being a rushed process, and then the next speaker stands up and says that it doesn’t go far enough, etc., etc., etc.

Angie Warren-Clark: They’re not sure what they’re doing.

KIERAN McANULTY: They are not sure what they are doing.

But this Government is very sure what it’s doing. There are some serious questions that need to be asked around foreign donations and how the whole Electoral Act stands moving forward. This Government will address that in due course. But, in the meantime, in order to get things in place and give parties enough time to have measures in place before the next election—and I suppose, you could also argue, in order to stop a late-minute flurry of overseas donations while this goes through a long and drawn out process—we are entirely justified in putting this through under urgency. I commend this bill to the House.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Before the dinner break we had a little kerfuffle in terms of who was supposed to take a call. There was a little confusion, because I was meant to have taken a very short call, but it seems I now have 10 minutes. I intend taking the full 10 minutes to lay down the reasons why I am in support of this legislation, in terms of the concept as to why there are some things that need working through. The concerns that many members in this House have raised in relation to foreign influence in our electoral process is something that I think all members have legitimate concerns about.

Having said that, and before I actually get into that, I found it rather interesting that the member Mr McAnulty, who just took his seat, said that he was only taking a short call because it was a very good bill, but actually contradicted himself by saying that there are serious questions to be asked. If he believes that there are serious questions to be asked why did he not speak against the Minister when the Minister was actually proposing the rushed process of urgency in this House?

That’s what this party, on this side of the House, is opposed to: the ramming down our throats of this legislation, which should have gone through due process in this House: a first reading, going to the public for their submissions, and a second reading. What is the Minister so concerned about with having the Electoral Commission come to this House to actually lay down some of the concerns that they may potentially have on this process? Well, apparently he’s not very keen to listen to them.

I also listened to Marama Davidson when she spoke and said that public trust is waning in this country—that is something that we should be concerned about as legislators. She also said that we have political distancing from the public because of the way that we run. I thought maybe that member Marama Davidson should be concerned about the rushed process as well. Earlier, another member—I think it was David Seymour—said it was the Green Party who constantly and continuously spoke against any urgency motion that the previous National Government had. They spoke up against it, and yet now when they are in bed with the Labour-led Government, they don’t speak up. I have to say “Shame on you!”, because, obviously, for them, principle does not mean that they actually keep to the principles—

Hon Member: Unprincipled.

MELISSA LEE: —that they believe in. They are absolutely unprincipled. I have to say, Marama Davidson, I am actually very ashamed of the way that the Green Party have gone through this process—and I say “Shame on you!”

One of the reasons why, I guess, many members are concerned is that all of us have actually seen different influences around the world, where the electoral process has been jaded, coloured, influenced by powers that be who wanted to influence a particular political party or the outcome of a legislative process. I think none of us as legislators wants that; we live in a democracy. I think we are very proud of New Zealand as one of the most transparent democracies in the world, but it was rather ironic to listen to a lecture in transparency by Clare Curran earlier, I have to say. It was rather ironic to listen to her talk about transparency, considering what transpired last year was not so transparent behaviour from that former Minister.

National is supporting this legislation because it is the right thing to do, like most pieces of legislation that actually go through this House. But I want to know what damage—what wrong—is this Minister trying to do by rushing it through in an urgency motion where all of the processes of this House are being done in a rush. I don’t know how long this is going to take, but I’m guessing today and tomorrow, and there is no select committee process. You know, we support the idea of not having the wrong influences and limiting the donations of overseas people—I mean, foreigners who perhaps want to influence different parties in this House. I think that’s a good thing—limit their influence, because we want to make laws for New Zealand. That’s a good thing. But when we think that we’re limiting that donation to $50—why not just get rid of it? Why is there an arbitrary amount of just $50? This legislation does not actually prevent a foreign power from setting up a company, for example, being in this country—not being a citizen or a resident—and being able to donate to a political party. However, it actually prevents them from donating from overseas, for example.

I haven’t really given this much thought, but it could be my brother—now living in the United States—who might have wanted to donate to my campaign, but he can only donate $50 to me, because he’s no longer a registered voter in New Zealand; he’s been overseas for such a long time. He does now have dual citizenship. So, I guess, for all intents and purposes, he’s actually an American citizen now unable to give me any money, apart from $50. I think there are so many New Zealanders who actually live overseas, who might want to legitimately participate in this process but are not able to.

So in order to prevent foreign influence, they have limited the amount of money that foreign—nobody wants a foreign Government to be influencing New Zealand’s election; come on, we all agree on that. But what does limiting $1,500 to $50 actually achieve, and what does it achieve to do it in an urgency motion where we can’t even get the public’s view on this, or the Electoral Commission’s view on this, or the view of anybody else who might have a decent thing to argue and give us a different perspective? Often that’s what the select committee process is actually about. People come in and give us the reason why they might like the piece of legislation or they disagree with it, so that all the members of Parliament who are sitting in the select committee can listen to their reasoning. Sometimes some of those select committee submissions have been very helpful to me when I’m making a decision in the process when we’re actually making law in this House.

One of the things, when we looked at the transparency—and I quite like the idea that candidates and party secretaries are required to take all responsible steps to satisfy themselves that a donation over $50 is not from an overseas person. I don’t know why that actually needs to be specified, because I think all of us as candidates, all of us as members of Parliament, are very careful as to who actually donates. I think we try very, very hard to make sure of that. Candidates and party secretaries will not be guilty of an illegal practice if they take reasonable steps, and I think that is a good thing. I think that’s all that we can expect of candidates and party secretaries—to do their very best to make sure—you know, reasonable—that there is transparency and that they’re not taking donations from overseas entities that might want to perhaps influence, but I don’t know how much $50 is going to make in terms of an influence there.

One of the things that I want to talk about is the transparency issue. You know, I think that all of us, when we get donations during an election campaign, when we have people who want to donate—I have elderly ladies who actually want to support my campaign and write me a cheque for $100 or $50. There are so many people who give varied amounts of donations because they believe in the campaign that you are running.

But I just don’t know what this process—the urgency motion in this House—is actually achieving. Why is there a need to rush through the process when there is really no urgent threat from an overseas entity? If the Minister knows there is an urgent threat happening, then maybe he should tell us what that urgent threat is and the reason why this legislation is being rushed through—because, obviously, he knows something that we don’t. Obviously, he’s saying that there is an imminent threat. If there is an imminent threat, say it. Tell us what the imminent threat is, and we will support the process, as well as this legislation. But there is no imminent threat. This Minister hasn’t given a reason why this piece to legislation has to be rushed through.

Our party is supporting this legislation because we believe in transparency; we believe that there should not be foreign—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m delighted to follow my very dear friend Melissa Lee MP. Could I say that if her brother is watching at the moment, now that he has found out that he can, sadly, no longer contribute to her election campaign because he’s an American citizen, she is most deserving of a very generous Christmas present—whether it’s another lovely jacket, such as the one she’s wearing tonight, or a delightful pair of shoes. I know that she’d be very appreciative.

I do want to just—[Interruption] Goodness! It’s very noisy. Clearly, the Labour Party enjoyed some refreshments over the dinner adjournment. I do want to draw attention to some of the contributions that we’ve had. Before that excellent contribution from Melissa Lee, which brought to us some clarity and a clear definition of what this bill is about, we had a rather confusing contribution from Mr McAnulty. Trying to discern everything that he was saying has proven a little bit difficult.

He did make the claim that the National Party seems to be at sixes and sevens because we’re supporting the bill but we appear to be opposed to it. Well, I want to make it very clear, not only to Mr McAnulty but to everybody who may be listening. The National Party is supportive of this bill because we support its objectives. What we object to, however, is the process, and I’ll come back to that in a moment.

Prior to that, I enjoyed the entertaining if somewhat loud contribution of the member for Epsom, the leader of the ACT Party, who called on the National Party to have the “courage of their convictions” and vote against the bill. The thing that struck me as a bit odd about that is that, if you’re going to have the courage of your convictions, it presumably means voting as you perceive an issue to direct that you should vote. Well, in this case I say to Mr Seymour that, unlike him, the National Party is supportive of the bill; therefore we will vote in favour of the bill.

But now let me get back to the more serious matter at hand, because I hope that it isn’t just National and the sole ACT MP in the House tonight who object to the process. This is an important point because, frankly, the processes of the House are being abused tonight as we go through this process.

Hon Andrew Little: That’s correct—that’s correct. Start with the Justice Committee—talk about that.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: And I am delighted to hear that the Minister of Justice, who has introduced this bill under urgency, agrees that he is abusing the process. I’m delighted that the Minister of Justice pleads guilty to abusing the Parliament of New Zealand.

When Mr Bishop spoke today he quoted Henry Cooke, the journalist, who said that this is good politics but terrible lawmaking, and that is absolutely on the point. He’s summed it up to a T. In introducing the bill some hours ago now—

Hon Andrew Little: You want to read the rest of the article—it’s not flattering about National.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: —the Minister, who seems incapable of sitting quietly and listening respectfully even though we listened to him respectfully when he was speaking, said—I think I quote him correctly—that this Government isn’t prepared to dilly-dally and play games with this bill.

Hon Andrew Little: That’s right.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: That is what he said? The Minister has just confirmed that that’s what he said. Well, what a disingenuous joke that is from a Minister who knows that this bill enjoys cross-party support. So it’s the Minister who’s playing games and who, instead, should be ensuring that this bill goes through proper parliamentary process—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s right. What’s he afraid of? What’s he scared of?

Hon TIM MACINDOE: —in particular, as my very good friend the learned member for Nelson is making the point, as this is an electoral measure, and electoral measures have, almost without exception—the exceptions being usually when the Labour Party are in power—enjoyed proper process, decent scrutiny, because they are very significant. Why is that? Well, it’s because no Government, no parties in Government, should be looking to screw the scrum to their own advantage, and, unfortunately, we have here another example—

Hon Tracey Martin: How is that screwing the scrum?

Hon TIM MACINDOE: —of the Labour Party, supported by the Minister for Children, who’s interjecting shrilly at the moment—

Hon Tracey Martin: How is that screwing the scrum?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Tell us about your foundation.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Goodness me! The Minister for Children is even louder than the Minister of Justice. And I echo the request from the member for Nelson for the Minister for Children to tell us about the New Zealand First Foundation, because I suspect that the only party that has anything to fear from the passage of this bill would be New Zealand First. And, in recent days, they have failed to front up to the electorate and explain what is going on. It’s a very murky picture that is emerging about the way the New Zealand First is funded.

Hon Tracey Martin: What has that got to do with the bill?

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Goodness me! Minister Martin does seem to want to draw attention to—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Come on; that’s a barrage.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: It is. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was feeling that way but I didn’t want to complain in any way, but it has been a barrage.

I want to make the point, and it’s a serious point, to the Minister of Justice, that he has not consulted with the Opposition, which would be one of the first things that any reasonable Minister would do in these circumstances. The second thing is—and Dr Smith, I think, noted this in his speech prior to the dinner adjournment—that this is the fourth time that Minister Little has done this. So it really is becoming a thorough abuse of democracy. And we saw a similar abuse of this Government’s power, and of the Parliament by extension, in the middle of last year when they rammed through their deeply unpopular Auckland regional fuel tax under urgency. And who supported them at that time to do that? The Greens and New Zealand First, and the fascinating thing about that is that most of us with long memories can remember the honourable Green Party of 2000, under the leadership of Jeannette Fitzsimons and Rod Donald, who objected to the measure of the then Helen Clark - led Labour Government when they were ramming through their tariff bill under urgency.

We can also remember the honourable Green Party of December 1999, who objected to an earlier version of the current waka-jumping bill. I think, at that time—Dr Smith will probably correct me—it was known as an “anti-defection” bill, and that was also rammed through under urgency. So what we have is a Green Party who are prepared to take a very pious stance against urgency whenever they’re in Opposition, but the moment they get into Government they just kowtow to the Labour Party—

Marama Davidson: Go on, use up your speech.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: —and Marama Davidson is confirming at the moment that they’re happy to do that. In other words, they rail against urgency if ever it’s contemplated under a National Government. They say it’s unprincipled, they thunder that it’s unjustified, they piously proclaim that it’s totally unprincipled. Well, that was then, and now, of course, it’s all different. So let me remind Ms Davidson and her colleagues in the Green Party of a lovely little prayer that she might—

Marama Davidson: Two minutes and 30 seconds.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: I’m glad that she’s looking forward to the remaining two minutes and 30 seconds. There’s a little prayer that she might like to utter, and it goes: “Lord, make my words sweet and tasty, for tomorrow I may have to eat them.” And that seems to sum up the Green Party very, very well. Well, let me just remind her that the National Party is supporting this legislation because it’s the right thing to do, but what we’re saying is it should go through the proper process.

We already have limits on campaign donations. That’s quite right; I don’t think I’ve heard any member of the House say that we shouldn’t. And we have, in the National Party, signalled previously that we’re prepared to strengthen them, and that’s why we’re supporting this bill. We’ve indicated through the select committee process—and I do want to acknowledge the leadership of Dr Nick Smith on the National Party side in the Justice Committee, as we’ve had a very thorough examination of a whole range of issues arising through the Justice Committee’s inquiry into the last general election. We have indicated that we are more than willing to deal with the issues of foreign interference, because they have become more and more—

Hon Andrew Little: No, you’re not. No, you’re not.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Now, here is the Minister of Justice saying no we haven’t. Remind me, Minister, of when you sat on the select committee. Remind me of when you were in the room witnessing what was taking place, because I can tell you, despite the fact that you sit there pontificating and making accusations, you weren’t there. The National Party has approached these issues in good faith, and we have been willing to work with the Government to achieve the right outcomes all the way along the line. And he can sit there and he can snort and he can shake his head; he wasn’t there, he doesn’t know, he’s talking nonsense, he’s being arrogant. We’re saying we’ll support this measure. He’s saying, “No, no, I don’t want your support. I’m going to ram it through under urgency anyway.” Well, that, Minister, is arrogant. That is obnoxious. That is an abuse of parliamentary process. Yes, I’ve been in reasonably good spirits for most of the speech, but now you’ve actually touched a nerve, because it’s about time that this Minister realised that he can’t just do everything his own way. There’s a process to be followed, there’s a constitution to be respected. This Minister should respect it. There is no need for urgency on this matter. He would have had the cooperation of all parties in the House, but instead he’s saying, “Oh no, to hell. Do it my way.” Well, Minister, that’s not good enough.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe.

Stuart Smith: Under pressure, Andrew?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Proper names, please—even in interjections.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Madam Speaker, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to contribute to the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) first reading. Can I please remind the House that in December 2018 the Minister of Justice, the Hon Andrew Little, wrote to the Justice Committee asking them to examine foreign interference in our electoral system. That’s almost 12 months—actually, we are in the month of December 2019. My point is that the Minister has actively raised an issue in the Justice Committee—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Hon Tracey Martin: Oh, here we go!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I beg your pardon.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Madam Speaker, we’re actually in quite a difficult position in that the Justice Committee has had extensive evidence, correspondence, and advice to which the member is referring that is actually privileged to the committee. I actually think it would be helpful for the debate for all of the evidence associated with this very issue to be able to be debated with a bill that’s under urgency. The member’s comments are out of order in that they breach confidential correspondence of the committee. I don’t want to hold her up, because I’d much rather that we’re quite open. I seek the leave of the House for all advice, reports, and minutes on the issue of foreign interference before the Justice Committee to be able to be referred to in the debate on this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I put the leave, I will seek some advice. I’m sorry to hold you up. I’m just checking. The House is the master of itself, but whether it can overrule a select committee is a point that I am getting checked by the Clerk. So I just ask for a little bit of patience while we just check that.

Hon David Parker: Speaking to the point of order, could I also ask—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If it’s going to be helpful.

Hon David Parker: Madam Speaker, I would also encourage you to check whether, within that proposed remit from the Hon Dr Nick Smith, he is proposing that evidence that may have been heard in secret be disclosed to the House.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: That is actually a very fair point of order. There was some evidence that was heard by the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service that should remain confidential. My point is that all the evidence that in the normal course of events would become public could be able to be referred to, which would be the minutes. It would be the submissions from officials. It would be the correspondence from the Minister of Justice to the select committee, which the member who spoke had referenced too. That would normally be privileged to the committee and not released until the select committee reports.

Hon Andrew Little: Madam Speaker, can I assist the House too. Given that this issue arose from a claim by the speaker on her feet, Meka Whaitiri, that there was correspondence from me, it is a matter of public record, and there have been many articles that I wrote to that committee asking them to inquire specifically into the issue of foreign donations, foreign interference, and foreign influence. The question of all the other evidence is not a matter of public record, but the fact that I wrote is.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can I speak further to the point of order, because it is relevant?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don’t really want to get into a debate. I was going to ask the member if the correspondence from the Minister was in the public arena, because it would be on the website, but we’re sort of past that now with the member—[Interruption] sit down, sit down—seeking leave to publish all the documents, and I’m just not sure that the House can overrule a select committee in that circumstance. I’m just trying to get that now.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: There’s a classic example of the Minister’s comments that have just been made that create a difficulty for the debate, because it was actually the Electoral Commission itself, in its advice to the committee, that sought we inquire into the issues of foreign interference prior to receiving the Minister’s letter, and all that information is relevant to the debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You’re now arguing for your leave. I am just waiting on some advice about the procedure.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this going to be—I don’t want to hear any arguments for or against.

David Seymour: Well, it might be helpful to consider—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You all have this strange idea of what’s going to be helpful to me. Go on, then—go on, then.

David Seymour: —that one of the implications of the leave that Dr Smith is seeking is that, in effect, the private deliberations of that select committee would be brought forward. I think it’s bad enough that we’re sitting under urgency on this; it would be worse to undermine the genuine, considered process that’s going on at the committee at the same time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Which is exactly why I was taking the time to get some advice, because the implications are quite serious. So the House can make the decision, but it has to be very clear about what it is deciding. So the Hon Dr Nick Smith has sought leave for all the—do you want to be exact?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I think it might be helpful to the House to be very clear: that all correspondence, and particularly the advice from the Electoral Commission and the justice ministry, on the issues of foreign interference be publicly released and be able to be referred to in the debate. So, for instance, we’ve received advice in the committee about the very issues in the bill, by the Electoral Commission and the justice ministry. It seems an unreasonable constraint that in debating this bill that deals with those very issues, we cannot refer to that. So that’s the specifics of the leave that I’m seeking, to enable this debate to be more meaningful.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: So the House is clear on the leave that’s being sought; I’ll put that. Is there any objection?

Hon Members: Yes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now, let’s be clear, then, that the request that the member is referring to is publicly available, it’s on the website, it’s given in public—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: No, that’s not correct. It’s correspondence to the committee.

Hon Andrew Little: Well, it’s been referred to publicly.

Hon David Parker: It’s been in question time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is a difference between referring to the fact that there is a letter and then speaking about the letter in the debate. All right? The contents of the letter—OK.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Can I apologise to the Speaker and the House if I’ve taken time up on this really considered bill. The point is foreign interference is an important issue. It is an absolutely important issue, and I want to acknowledge the work of the Justice Committee but also just acknowledge the significance of why we are here under urgency to address foreign interference in the New Zealand general election come 2020.

I’m proud of the Minister of Justice and thankful to the Minister that he’s taken foreign interference in our elections seriously. I actually think that he has got the balance right in terms of acknowledging the areas that we have to address through this bill and giving the electors and the Electoral Commission time to focus on banning foreign donations. That’s essentially what this bill’s intent is. I want to thank those members on most sides of the House that support the intent of the bill.

The front end of the bill clearly outlines that we are making amendments to the Electoral Act 1993 that only apply to parliamentary elections, not local body elections, and that donations over $50 from overseas persons in any form will be banned. Just to be absolutely clear, in the bill we talk about the “overseas person” definition as per the Electoral Act 1993, and to be crystal clear for members in the House, that is “an individual who—(i) resides outside New Zealand; and (ii) is [neither] a New Zealand citizen [nor] registered as an elector; … (b) a body corporate incorporated outside New Zealand; or (c) an unincorporated body that has its head office or principal place of business outside New Zealand”. So it’s very clearly spelt out in this bill that not only are we banning foreign donations over $50 from natural, ordinary people but the definition of an overseas person is clearly spelt out.

The bill then goes into the role of party secretaries to take all reasonable steps, and there have been previous speakers that have asked the question: “What’s reasonable?” Clearly, the tools which party secretaries will be provided will be worked in conjunction with the Electoral Commission around what are reasonable steps. I’m thankful for the member from Epsom, who talked about only having 11 donations so far for his political party online. So that’s 11.

David Seymour: Today.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Today—well, maybe it’ll go to 12 by the time we get to election, for that particular member. But let’s be really clear around the importance of this bill and what it’s attempting to do, because I think it’s really important that we do go into next year’s election clearly spelling out that foreign donations are not wanted in any parliamentary election in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Now, I too want to address the issue that members, particularly on the Opposition side, have raised around the process. So we’ve all got agreement, apart from the member from Epsom, that this bill will be supported, but there have been some comments around process, and I just want to address the fact that, yes, there is still the inquiry being considered by the Justice Committee. I want to acknowledge the hard work of the Justice Committee. I want to acknowledge all the submitters that have appeared before the select committee and the work that the committee is doing to bring, finally, a report to this House. I think there’s been ample time in that process for all members of the select committee to make a contribution on this particularly important matter of foreign donations in our electoral system. I want to welcome members on that side, when we get to the committee stage of this bill, to speak up on what particular parts of the bill they have issues with—the members over that side have talked about process and about rush and about urgency. We do have the process in this Parliament, as a committee of the whole House, to scrutinise that bill when we get to the committee stage. So I want to look forward to members on that side, other than the Hon Dr Smith. I want to welcome the members that sit on the Justice Committee to take a call around how we can improve the bill.

The bill, as the Minister’s outlined, clearly sends a message to foreign donors that we don’t want them in our general election next year. It talks about the role of the party secretary, it talks about ensuring what we are saying about overseas person, but it must be seen inside of a wider electoral reform programme that the Minister also outlined in his first speech. That’s why this bill is being addressed under urgency, because it’s important to the public, it’s important to this side of the House particularly, that we send a clear message that foreign donations over $50 are completely banned. We look forward to an honest election come 2020. I commend this bill to the House.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I hope it’s helpful, just for the sake of clarity, that I do point out that the letter in question is indeed publicly available. I found it on the Beehive website and am looking at a copy of it now. So just for the sake of clarity, there we go.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: All members are honourable, and I believed the members.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time.

Ayes 119

New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; Ross.

Noes 1

ACT New Zealand 1.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) is set down for second reading immediately.

Debate interrupted.

Bills

Crimes (Definition of Female Genital Mutilation) Amendment Bill

Introduction

JO HAYES (National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Jo Hayes.

Hon Andrew Little: Madam Speaker, you were looking over there and you were not casting your eyes across the Chamber.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no, it was a point of order.

Hon Andrew Little: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was on my feet and you had turned your head away from my direction.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, yes, I’m sorry, but the member called a point of order. It is a point of order that the member is calling. My apologies.

JO HAYES (National): I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate regarding a member’s bill in my name.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.

JO HAYES: I move, That the Crimes (Definition of Female Genital Mutilation) Amendment Bill be introduced and set down for first reading as members’ order of the day No. 2 following the Election Access Fund Bill on 4 December 2019, despite Standing Orders 278 to 281 and 285(2).

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2)

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time.

I’m thankful for the overwhelming support of the House. I’ve never felt so popular amongst the National Party, actually, until tonight, and I appreciate that support.

I acknowledge the contributions in the first reading of David Seymour, the member for Epsom, and I want to address some of those. I mean, it’s very clear what the bill does. It introduces a ban—a real ban—on foreign donations, because it is very clear that that issue has been canvassed in the public hearings of the Justice Committee in their inquiry into the general election. They’ve had evidence in secret as well, we know, from the security and intelligence agencies. They’ve had other evidence too. Other submitters have expressed concerns about the risks now posed not just for New Zealand but worldwide about foreign interference and foreign influence. So introducing a ban with a de minimis threshold of $50 is as good as we can get. In fact, compared to other countries in the world, Canada, I think, has a threshold of $50, Australia about $200, and I think the UK has an even higher threshold than that. But it is very clear what the bill is saying: that donations from a foreign source, in accordance with the definition of what that foreign source is or foreign citizen is, are banned in New Zealand.

It does more than that, of course. It now imposes on party general-secretaries an obligation to conduct due diligence, and as I have made clear in my first reading speech, my expectation is that the level of diligence required is proportionate to the size of the donation. I understand that once the legislation is passed, the Electoral Commission will issue guidance about their expectations about how party general-secretaries must fulfil that duty, and they will also indicate that there is a level of proportionality required—that is to say, a small donation can enjoy a lower level of examination and scrutiny than a much larger donation. That is the right thing to do.

I simply come back to the point that I think the member David Seymour was making about “Is it really a ban?” I think we do have to be very clear: either we ban foreign donations or we don’t. I know in some of the talks that I’ve had with colleagues on all sides of the House—do you set a threshold of high? Do you set a threshold, for example, of $1,000? We came down very clearly on the view that if we’re going to ban foreign donations, it must be real and it must be thorough. The $50 de minimis threshold allows for the possibility, as we all do in our party conferences. For example, we invite people from overseas and they often get drawn in—at least in the Labour Party—to buying raffle tickets, putting money in a bucket. So we don’t want to cover that sort of thing, but we do want to make sure that the level is set at a level where the ban is meaningful.

Now, I know Mr Seymour raised very proudly the fact that he’s had 11 donations in a single day, and good on him for that. He asked the question “How much effort should go into examining those donations?”, and I simply say the effort required ought to be proportionate to the size of the donation. But, at the very least, there will be donations that ought to attract a higher degree of scrutiny. Donations of tens of thousands and, in some cases, more than $100,000 or $200,000, ought to have a higher degree of scrutiny. That’s what New Zealanders would expect in their election system with parties that rely very heavily on private contributions to fund themselves.

There’s been a lot of criticism about the process—the fact that we’re considering this under urgency—and I simply draw the House’s attention to the fact that the issues arising out of the 2017 general election, now more than two years ago, have been the subject of an inquiry by the Justice Committee now for nearly 18 months. The advice I’ve received is it’s 525 days since the Justice Committee started their inquiry. They’ve had a specific focus on foreign interference and foreign influence. They’ve had information from the Electoral Commission, they’ve had it from the security and intelligence agencies, they’ve had it from other parties and other submitters, and they’ve had guidance from me as well, and yet that committee still has not produced a report.

I’ve asked for advice on when was the last time that it took the relevant select committee conducting an inquiry into a general election more than two years after the election before they reported back—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We’re in a difficult position because the Minister speaking, for the last couple of minutes, has been extensively referring to the select committee inquiry. Now, I’d love to be able to respond to the issues in the select committee inquiry, but I’d be held in breach of privilege because those proceedings are confidential, and some of the statements the Minister has made are incorrect, but I don’t have the opportunity. So I don’t think it is right or proper for the Minister to be able to refer to the proceedings of a select committee when he’s not been a member, and members of the committee are bound by parliamentary process and are unable to do so.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, I’m listening very carefully to the Minister, and, at the moment, I’m satisfied that he’s been talking only about the process and not the proceedings. I do understand the frustration that the members of the select committee might feel, but, you know, the House has rejected the opportunity to reverse that. So as long as the Minister sticks to the facts about the proceedings, then I think he is within the Standing Orders.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m obliged, Madam Speaker, and the point I’m simply making is that it has been a long time that we’ve been waiting for the conclusions of that report, and more so than we know—and it’s been a matter of public record—about the sorts of issues that the committee has been called upon to consider.

I publicly said two or three months ago that I was very keen to see their conclusions, that the issue of foreign donations was one that particularly concerned me and the Government, and that we were ready to move, but we would benefit from the insights that the committee might have gained. We don’t have the benefit of those insights and the election year is upon us, and for the sake of the integrity of that election and making sure that we all go into election year knowing what the rules are, then this bill has become necessary, and, sadly, because of the time of the year and the fact that we’ve been waiting and I’ve been waiting, we now have to do that under urgency. So I take no criticisms whatsoever about the fact that this is the approach we have had to take.

This is an important issue, this is a serious issue, and, ordinarily, on matters of electoral law and electoral integrity, there would be a level of cooperation and a meeting of the minds. Now, I know the largest party in Opposition has agreed to support the legislation, and I’m thankful for that and I have listened very carefully to their criticisms. But it is important that on these sorts of issues, in this day and age—and the 2020 general election will conducted in circumstances that are different to the 2017 election, very different to the 2014 election, and a whole heap different to the 2011 election—influence can be conducted and commanded at the push of a button anywhere in the world, and we have to be across that.

Now, like members opposite, as I hear their criticisms, it would be nice if we could have a much deeper, thoroughgoing review of our electoral laws. It didn’t happen under the last Government. We’ve started some changes. We’ve done changes in time for next year—and there are some still to come through the House—that I think will help enormously. I mean, some of those are about actually making it easier for people to vote, and I know members opposite seem to be opposed to that. But the truth is—and the advice is very clear—that our electoral laws are not really the laws of 1993. They are the laws of 1956, and they need an upgrade and change. I have committed and I know the parties in Government are committed to a thoroughgoing review following the next election. In the meantime, we have to deal with what we’ve got, and what we have right now is a real threat and a real risk around foreign influence and foreign interference, and one of the key ways that happens is through the financing of political parties.

Now, I know members—we can criticise each other and we can all look at each other’s record and wonder what’s gone on. But the reality is that the risk that we face of foreign interference through financial donations is a very real one, and we have an opportunity through this bill—through this modest bill, through its measures—to actually seriously address the risk associated with that.

In addition to dealing with foreign donations, it also requires party general secretaries to be resident in New Zealand, and it also adds a further requirement in relation to election advertising—that is to say, election advertising conducted online—that the promoter statements or attributory statements need to be on those advertisements. That’s what the bill does. They are reasonably small measures, but they are measures dealing with a serious and genuine problem, and they will have a serious and genuine impact.

I’ve seen one commentator already saying that it doesn’t go to the heart of the issue of routing donations through party headquarters, and that sort of stuff. I disagree with that.

Hon Phil Twyford: Let me guess. Bryce Edwards—was it?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I disagree with that—no, it was somebody else, whose name I won’t mention, but I’m almost certain he likes to come up in commentary. But I make this point: the due diligence requirement on party general secretaries is a new requirement. We haven’t had that before. We haven’t confined it to just a defence in the event that somebody gets caught, but, actually, it now must run through their daily practice in the way that they conduct themselves running parties. That will make a huge difference and, of course, conducting due diligence in the interests of ensuring that foreign donations are accurate and lawful actually means you have to cover off all donations received by a party, because you need to be sure that any donation that ostensibly even looks like it’s coming from a New Zealand source, and certainly around which there is suitable suspicion, actually does fall under the due diligence requirement.

So I think a lot of the issues that have caused public anxiety more recently are well covered-off in these provisions. On that basis, however, I’m thankful for the debate so far. I look forward to the remaining sections of the debate, and I commend the bill to the House.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): One of the most precious and important parts of New Zealand that makes us such a successful nation is the strength of our democracy, and we should be so proud that we are one of the oldest parliaments in the world, and the very names of the battles on the walls of this Parliament respect the loss of life for the values of a liberal democracy. I’m equally proud that when National left Government in 2017, New Zealand was ranked as the least-corrupt nation in the world—No. 1 in the world in 2017—and that is something that we should jealously guard.

Now, when we come to this bill of electoral law, it is highly exceptional for this Parliament to pass bills under urgency, but it is even more extraordinarily exceptional that we would pass an electoral amendment bill under urgency and through all stages.

Dr Duncan Webb: What did you do? You stood there and did nothing, Nick Smith.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I’ve been back and checked the record, and I see the new member for Christchurch Central—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Actually, I haven’t done anything.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —might be able to answer—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —this question for me.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! I haven’t done anything. Thank you.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I challenge the member for Christchurch Central and ask him this: when was the last time that Parliament under urgency passed an electoral amendment bill? Well, actually, I have checked. The last time it occurred was in 1947—1947. Can I say something else about the Act we’re amending? The new 1993 Electoral Act—it’s a massive electoral Act of 800 clauses. The select committee was chaired by Murray McCully, and the Government of the day took the view, cross-party, that electoral law was so important—some of my colleagues are chatting. It is to the huge credit of the chair of that select committee, Murray McCully, that Parliament, on a cross-party basis, was able to pass 600 pages of the current Electoral Act on a consensual basis. That reinforces the strong traditions that this Parliament has had that electoral law needs to be expressed and needs to be considered with real care and, secondly, that urgency is something that should not be accorded to electoral law.

Now, I understand that when we had the Canterbury earthquakes, you could have had urgent issues that required an immediate response. I know the Government opposite, during the global financial crisis, under the Clark Government, passed legislation under urgency. My question for some member of the Government is: where is the urgent crisis that requires these 20 pages of law to be passed under urgency through all stages within a single day? What is the crisis? What is the issue that requires it? Why can it not go to a select committee and give the public the opportunity to have a say?

I’ve got to commend the speech I heard from David Seymour that really did reinforce the irony of this bill, that somehow this bill has the intent of strengthening our democracy at the same time as it kneecaps one of our most important democratic institutions—our Parliament—that has a process for bills and changes in law. They go to a select committee and the public have an opportunity to have a say on them. Why is it that members opposite want to refuse New Zealand electoral law experts, members of the public, the Ministry of Justice, the Electoral Commission, and the Law Commission the opportunity to be able to scrutinise this legislation?

Dr Duncan Webb: National did it—2009. You know it.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, the member opposite says National did it. I say, on which electoral bill?

Dr Duncan Webb: Do you yield, Mr Smith?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I simply ask the question: which electoral bill?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do you yield for a question?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You don’t yield?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I’m simply asking, if he wishes to interject with an answer, what bill he is referring to. The member cannot answer it, and he needs to answer. I challenge the member to answer this question: why is this bill not going to a select committee? Why is this bill not giving the opportunity for the public to have a say? Can any member of the Labour Government answer the question? Simply answer the question—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! A yield is for people to ask a question, and the member has refused to yield.

Dr Duncan Webb: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. He says he refuses to yield, and then invites me to answer the question. I would suggest—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. No, well that’s—

Dr Duncan Webb: —that, in fact, he is yielding by asking me to answer.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, that’s my point. The yielding would be done by him to answer a question that you asked, not for you to answer a question that he is asking.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would be delighted for the next member from Labour’s side to answer the question as to why, for the first time since 1947, we are passing an electoral amendment bill under urgency through all stages. How does it help the democratic institution of our Parliament that we are denying the public a say on an area of law that is as important as electoral law, that determines the rules under which our next general election is to be conducted?

We only need look at the media commentary, whether it be Stuff, whether it be TVNZ, whether it be TV3. All of the media have been highly critical of this awful process for passing electoral amendment law. They are saying, rightly, that there is no justification for the urgency and cutting out the public from a proper process.

I see Tracey Martin is in the House. I suspect she is standing by her statements that she made on a previous electoral bill, and that is that the Government doesn’t trust the Parliament. They just think they can sit in Cabinet, make the decisions, and whack the legislation in in 24 hours. Well, I’ve got a challenge for Tracey Martin, in her interjection earlier. She says this bill has got nothing to do with the scandal of the New Zealand First Foundation. I say to that member that this bill has got everything to do with the scandal of the New Zealand First Foundation, because the New Zealand First Party is the only party in the 2017 election that did not declare any donations. The New Zealand First Party had 10 times more anonymous donations than any other party in the Parliament. The New Zealand First Party pretends that it has got nothing to do with the New Zealand First Foundation, that has been publicly revealed to be receiving large sums of corporate donations that have been hidden from the public.

This bill is part of the Government’s political management of that huge scandal. One political commentator after another has said that that scandal that is enveloping the New Zealand First Party has the capacity to bring down this Labour Government in exactly the same way that the scandal over Owen Glenn brought down the Helen Clark Government. So as part of the sort of reaction and protection from Labour, they think they can get away with it by bringing this bill into the House, a bill that does not address the issues robustly and a bill that follows bad process, but is nothing more than window dressing to try and hide the scandal that will bring down Tracey Martin, New Zealand First, and her colleagues. This is an appalling bill.

Stuart Smith: Bit quiet now. Bit quiet now, Tracey.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: They’re very quiet, Stuart Smith, because they know that I’m bang on the pulse—bang on the pulse of what’s going on within this Government, bang on the issue and the scandal that is enveloping them, which is behind the drop in the polls and the reason that this Government is on the ropes.

There is a very serious issue around the issue of foreign interference, and members opposite have said, “Well, where is National’s policy?” At the beginning of this year, I gave a speech as National’s electoral law spokesperson, and I proposed five areas of law that required improvement. The first of those was that, actually, we should require the entire Electoral Act to be entrenched, so that it requires a super-majority. That was an approach that John Key adopted in the last National Government. That would stop the sorts of electoral amendment bills that we are continuously seeing from this Government that breach good process. Equally, I said in that speech that we needed to tighten up on foreign donations.

That is why National is supporting this bill, because we do believe it is an area that needs to be tightened up. The problem with this bill is that it does not address any of the greatest risks. When we get to the committee stage, we will be able to get into that detail. This bill is about window dressing. This bill is about trying to provide political cover for the Government over the New Zealand First Foundation scandal, rather than a genuine attempt to improve our electoral laws and ensure that New Zealand retains the reputation as the very, very best democracy in this world.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): This is an excellent bill that the Minister has brought to this House, the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2). I’m pleased to take a short call on the second reading. Before I address the specific questions that the member before me raised on this side, there were two points I forgot in my first contribution. One was around the party secretary needing to reside in New Zealand. It’s not currently in the Electoral Act, so in this bill we are making sure that the party secretaries reside here, and that is going to help with the process going forward. Also the online advertising must have the name and address put on it, like we do, normally, now.

Now, that member that just resumed his seat, Nick Smith, asked this side which electoral bill we have put under urgency since 1946. I’ve got a response to him. The response is this one: on 17 February 2009, the Electoral Amendment Bill repealed Labour’s Electoral Finance Act and reinstated the old Electoral Act as an interim measure, done by the then National Government. So there’s one. That bill was passed under urgency. He asked if we had a response; there’s one for that speaker. It has been done—it was done in 2008.

This is a really important bill. Before I end, I also want to correct that previous speaker, where he made reference to the bill being 20 pages. It’s actually eight, so it might pay that member to read the bill before we get to the committee stage. I commend this bill to the House.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2)—normally, of course, at the second reading we are reflecting on what we’ve heard by way of submissions at the select committee process. We find ourselves in the unfortunate position of not having had the benefit of any such submissions, so I’m going to do my very best tonight, in my second reading contribution, to make an educated guess of the kind of things that we might have heard. I don’t suppose my imagination or knowledge of the relevant areas will be as good as having heard from the members of the public themselves on this. Of course, the reason we are in this position is that the Government, including all parties thereof, have put forward this urgency motion, such that we are considering this in one fell swoop.

The closest that we’ve got to an explanation from the other side is that with the bill due to come into force—if it passes as an Act—on 1 January, or to be effective, at least in some provisions, then we need to pass it now. Well, of course, the obvious answer there is that it doesn’t need to come into force on 1 January; that’s just something that’s written in the bill itself. That too could be changed, and we could align all of the provisions to come into effect on 1 April in the way that’s already been allowed, I think, in clauses 15 and 16, from memory. So the rush is entirely unnecessary, even from that rather silly sort of procedural basis.

So, not having had the opportunity to hear from submitters at the select committee process, I suspect that the kinds of things that they would sensibly raise would be points such as were at least raised on Twitter today by several characters well-known to the #nzpol community, with particular interest in electoral law matters. Sadly, I am not one of them at the moment. No doubt the honourable—excuse me, you know what? I’ll move on from there. In any case, Graeme Edgeler had made a very good point—and I’m going to paraphrase it by use of the phrase “shell companies”. So his point was—and I’m making this, I remind the House, in lieu of him being able to do so in the select committee—“Foreign-owned New Zealand - based companies are still allowed to make unlimited donations.” Well, that’s a bit unfortunate in relation to the stated aim of the bill, as we’ve heard repeatedly from the Minister and other members opposite, and the aim is worthy in itself.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Put forward an SOP, Penk.

CHRIS PENK: I hear a suggestion from Chlöe Swarbrick to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), and she knows very well that I will do exactly that in relation, at least, to some of the aspects. I’ll do what I can, Ms Swarbrick, having only received a copy of the bill for the first time at 11 o’clock today. So that’s something for you to look forward to, no doubt.

So it is that in relation to shell companies, which is my phrase, not his, I would note that it’s entirely possible to have ownership of a company—let’s start with a company—that’s 100 percent foreign and yet can still be incorporated in New Zealand—yes, with a New Zealand - resident director—and that would not actually be caught by this bill that purports to limit foreign donations. So that’s absolutely extraordinary to me. We’re sort of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut procedurally, and you’re actually missing the nut entirely with this very obvious loophole that you can have a foreign-owned company and, therefore, a foreign-controlled company. Any company worth its salt—and, in fact, any company complying with the law of the land—has to do what’s in the best interests of the shareholders thereof. So while it’s attractive in one sense to have a pretty brightline test that something, according to the New Zealand Companies Register, is either incorporated in New Zealand or not, the fact of the matter is that the intent of the bill is entirely able to be circumvented in this way, and that’s something that we should actually be very concerned about.

So too an incorporated society. I actually don’t know, so I’m on risky territory, but no doubt I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong, but I think that it may be possible for all members of an incorporated society to be foreigners—excuse the shorthand. But as far I’m aware there are not any requirements in New Zealand law that the members of an incorporated society need to be New Zealand - based in any way, and yet the incorporated society could be incorporated in New Zealand. That being so, such an entity would not be caught by the definition of overseas person—

Dr Duncan Webb: Read the Incorporated Societies Act 1908—older than you are. Read the Act.

CHRIS PENK: Read the Act?

Dr Duncan Webb: Yes. The Incorporated Societies Act—where do members have to come from.

CHRIS PENK: Well, I think this is a really interesting point, because Dr Duncan Webb may well be right on this, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he is, but these are the kinds of questions that the select committee process should actually thrash out. This is exactly the kind of thing that should be thrashed out. As I say, in relation to companies, it’s 100 percent ownership. If I don’t know it, then I don’t know what hope—a lot of New Zealanders who would be standing for election or who otherwise concern themselves in relation to electoral law will not have the opportunity.

That’s before we even start looking at trusts, which might be somehow considered to be—what’s the test? Here we go: have a “principal place of business outside New Zealand”—a head office. Well, that’s not necessarily something that a trust would have, let alone a foundation. I’m sort of in two minds about whether I go there, so to speak, in terms of foundations. Certainly, I won’t talk about one particular foundation, because I think, you know, we probably don’t need to refer to that.

Hon Clare Curran: What about the National Party foundation?

CHRIS PENK: Oh, here we go. Well, I’m now going to respond, because the Hon Clare Curran is asking about the New Zealand National Party Foundation. The good news about the New Zealand National Party Foundation, Ms Curran, is that it records and receives donations in a transparent way in accordance with the current law, and then—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: They’re all declared.

CHRIS PENK: —they’re all declared; exactly—they are made, as appropriate. But the distinction with the New Zealand First Foundation, as I understand it—but I would welcome being corrected by the Hon Tracey Martin in a call—is that it does not record the donations that come in to the foundation. That is exactly the point on which it is so relevant that the legislation is deficient, and on which Ms Swarbrick will be very pleased to know there may well be an SOP in the pipeline for that. I’m sure that I will enjoy her support and that of her Green colleagues, if not New Zealand First, in relation to that.

Another thing that the select committee may well have looked at if it had been afforded the opportunity and, again, been the subject of fair submissions is the notion of a ban. Well, we’ve heard already from the Minister that this is a ban, which is totally different in nature from what the current electoral law says, and yet we’ve already explained on this side of the House that we’re merely shifting the threshold—admittedly, from $1,500 to $50—but it’s either a ban now and then a ban later, or it’s not a ban at all. So that’s the kind of thing, again, that I’d expect submitters to be raising and to be interested to know.

As for reasonable steps, well, this is the key phrase really in terms of what party secretaries or candidates are expected to be able to take. We don’t have any sense of what that is, based on other than, obviously, the meaning of those words themselves, as we might expect. So, again, it would be helpful to have a select committee process to thrash that out by way of submissions and so forth.

Another thing that select committee submitters, again, if they’d been given the opportunity to have a say, might reasonably have questioned is the proportionality doctrine that Minister Andrew Little has put forward tonight. I actually think that the idea’s got a certain amount of merit. I think it’s probably reasonable, at least as a starting point of discussion, to say the smaller a donation the less attention needs to be paid, and maybe the less rigour and the less scrutiny, but it’s not something that the law actually says. So it’s something that’s in the Minister’s mind and if he thinks it’s reasonable and a matter of good lawmaking then, for goodness’ sake, let’s see it in the actual law.

I’d certainly welcome the opinions of New Zealanders who would be subject to the law to actually be able to say whether they think it’s a good idea or not, and if they do, and if the select committee were to agree and so forth, then we could put that law in the law, so to speak. We could put the rule in the law, which is exactly where it belongs, and not merely to be referred to if stumbled upon in Hansard in future years, perhaps when we’ve got the difficult position that the Electoral Commission might be placed in to simply have to second-guess what the legislative intent was in discharging something of a judicial function. That’s constitutionally inappropriate in a way that should be obvious to everyone in this House.

The other thing I think that, within my remaining minute, Madam Speaker—I could go on, and I will at the committee stage, which is something for you to look forward to. My final point for now is to understand what the law is actually looking to do. So that is to understand the nature of the threat or the problem that has to be solved. It’s all very well to say that the current select committee process which is engaged in an election inquiry says one thing here, and this bill, which has been introduced under urgency, does another thing here, and that somehow the two should be connected. But we should actually be looking very carefully to try and understand and check that what the bill is actually doing is a reasonable and proportionate and direct response to the problem that is out there.

So looking at the document—which I hasten to add is publicly available—Impact Summary: Mitigating foreign interference through party and candidate donations, this is advice to the Minister available today. So it says “concern about foreign interference is growing”, and it mentions a few international examples. I can’t go into them now for reasons of time, and I won’t breach the privilege of the process, but suffice to say, there’s a lot of good stuff in there that deserves an airing and should be heard.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Thank you, Madam Speaker. First of all, I’d just like to make sure that the public become aware that at some stage Dr Nick Smith will start shouting—just so you know. At that moment, it is because there is something that has been said that he finds personally offensive or touches a nerve so closely to his own reality that he feels the need to abuse others. So just to be sure, at some stage—to the members of the public—you will hear Dr Nick Smith shouting across the House.

I wanted to start this contribution by acknowledging those people who step up to be party secretaries. I want to acknowledge those individuals, most of whom do it on a voluntary basis, and who put themselves at risk, actually, to be the party secretaries of political parties because they have a belief in that party and what it stands for, and they have a belief in that party and the fact that that party needs to be part of the New Zealand political environment. Those people are put at risk by candidates and by political parties who do not follow the electoral rules. The members of the public may not know that it is not the leaders of political parties—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s a bit rich.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: You can hear Dr Smith laughing now. I don’t know who the party secretary is of the National Party, but I want you to understand that Dr Smith is laughing about the commitment that you have made and how the actions of candidates, when they do not follow electoral law, put you at risk.

The public may not know that it is the party secretary that signs all declarations around donations. It is the party secretary whose authorisation must be on every billboard and on every advert that must have been run through the party. It is the party secretary, when it comes to the candidate returns and the party returns, who, if they do not follow the law, will find themselves in front of the police, in front of the Serious Fraud Office and in front of the Electoral Commission. Now, Dr Smith is still laughing. I do not understand why Dr Smith dismisses the party secretaries and the responsibility that they take in this way.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Because your leader wants to sue them. He’s threatened to sue them.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: See, now you can hear Dr Smith shouting. So what I wanted to do was to acknowledge those people—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why is Winston’s lawyer threatening to sue your ex - party president?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: And now Dr Smith is concerned for his own self. He is now talking about the fact that he will not walk outside of this House and make the statements that he made earlier under the protection of this Parliament. He will not do it, because he will not put his money where his mouth is. He will not walk outside this House, away from the protection of this House, and make those statements. I ask the New Zealand public to then decide—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: You’re a bully.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Dr Smith, that’s not appropriate.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: —what you think about a person who will not walk outside the House and make the same statements that they will make under parliamentary privilege.

I have to say, I’m incredibly disappointed with Mr Penk’s contribution. When I came into this House, there were certain people in this House that said “This is the way that you behave. This is the way that you must debate. This is the way you must personalise and attack others.” Now, I said “No. To the best of my ability, I will not do that. I will try my best to stick to the topic.” Dr Smith got up and spoke to Mr Penk just before Mr Penk’s contribution, and I am very saddened that Mr Penk did what Dr Smith asked him to do, and that was to stray from the notes. Mr Penk normally gives a very factual and useful contribution to debates. Mr Penk strayed from his notes, under the instruction of Dr Smith to attack. That is beneath Mr Penk. He has shown himself to be a better politician than that, and I think it’s deeply saddening that he has not stood by his own standards, has but allowed that senior member of that party to actually digress him from his contribution.

I also want to talk about the—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Tell us about openness in donations.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: You can hear Dr Smith shouting again. Just so the New Zealand public knows, that is Dr Nick Smith shouting around a contribution because he feels strongly that, actually, he’s going to be seen for exactly what he is when the New Zealand public have a look at his contribution.

I found it very interesting with Dr, with Tim Macindoe—sorry. I just about made you a doctor. I apologise, Mr Macindoe, and it’s the Hon Tim Macindoe, I believe. I found that very interesting in Mr Macindoe’s contribution that he used the words “Using urgency in this instance to screw the scrum”. I don’t understand, if the National Party agrees that there should not be non - New Zealanders making contributions to political parties, why this, under urgency, is screwing the scrum, and yet the Minister has attempted to explain to this House on a number of occasions. We have an election in 2020. This House, all bar one member, is agreed that we do not wish to see non - New Zealanders—I dislike the colonial phrase of “foreigner”. We do not wish to see non - New Zealanders have a financial influence on our democracy, and so I do not understand what the issue is with regard to screwing the scrum that Mr Macindoe talked about.

There were a couple of other technical points inside of this bill, which are that a party secretary, or any person acting in the position of the secretary, must live in New Zealand, and that will not be a hardship for any political party. I don’t believe it will be a hardship for any political party because our party secretaries are such committed individuals to New Zealand democracy to—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: The New Zealand First president resigned.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Again, you can hear Dr Smith shouting out with regard to that. Now, again, I’m talking about party secretaries. He seems to get incredibly upset when I talk about these very dedicated people to the democracy of New Zealand, but he continues to shout when I talk about party secretaries. If I was the party secretary of the National Party, I would really be careful if my future or my responsibilities lay in the hands of that particular individual.

The other thing that the bill does is that the offence of promoting anonymous advertisements relating to an election is extended so that it applies to all advertising mediums, including online advertising, in order to deter misleading, anonymous online advertisements. Now, I don’t think that any New Zealander, having looked at some of the elections overseas, will concern themselves or will believe that that is not necessary. We are moving into an environment where election campaigns are being run in the digital space—completely being run in the digital space—therefore, our electoral laws must be updated to manage that space. They must be updated to make sure that the integrity of our democracy is maintained. Again, I say every member bar one agrees with this piece of legislation. Every member bar one has said that, yes, this needs to happen.

The reality is there is an inquiry that, for whatever reason—and I don’t know what reason it is—is still inside a select committee. I have no knowledge of why it’s still inside a select committee, 500-and-something days later, but we have an election coming. We have seen in elections held recently in other Western nations that there has been interference—I’m going to have to say “foreign” now, because they are not non - New Zealanders—by foreign powers. We have seen that there have been ways that digital media and digital promotion have been used to manipulate democracy.

I note that Dr Smith is now giving instructions to the Hon Tim Macindoe, so I have no doubt that the Hon Tim Macindoe will now also get up and decide to personalise this debate. I think it’s a sad day when a senior member of a major political party in New Zealand is able to manipulate the calibre of his colleagues to participate in a way that I know they would not normally do. I have no idea why Mr Macindoe and Mr Penk would lower themselves to such a level, and I think it’s a very sad day for those two gentlemen that they have lost their way and that they follow the instructions of Dr Nick Smith rather than participating. I just want to point out to the New Zealand public that Mr Penk just pretended to cry.

So we can see the incredible seriousness with which the National Party has decided to take our democracy. They have every right to debate and object. They’re not objecting; they’re voting for the bill. They are now deciding to use the time they have to minimise our democracy, to minimise the importance of non - New Zealand interference, and to minimise the importance of making sure that anonymous adverts cannot be put into place so that we know who is trying to act against us. They’re going to take this time to minimise. What a deep shame it is for that party to have fallen so low.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, that was a disappointing and deeply unimpressive contribution from the Hon Tracey Martin, and I often enjoy following the Hon Tracey Martin. I’d like to think we get on quite well, but I need to tell the House three reasons why that was such an unimpressive speech. The first is that she began with what I thought was really a sort of school girlish tactic of saying “Well, the Opposition are going to interject regularly throughout my speech, and you need to know it’ll be this person and that person.”

Let me just remind Mrs Martin that when I spoke during the first reading, she, more than any other person on the other side of the House, interjected constantly while I spoke, and lots of them interjected, but it was Mrs Martin more than any other whose voice rose above all the rest interjecting. So that was number one, and she was almost goading people in this House to interject. Well, this is a very spirited debate, and so, naturally, there are interjections from both sides. That’s appropriate in a debate. It means that people are animated, they’re engaged, and they’re focused on the issues, and a good speaker ought to be able to cope with the interjection, and not just say “Well, this is nasty. Aren’t they a horrible group of people?”

The second reason I think it was a particularly unimpressive speech was that Mrs Martin failed to deal with the issues at hand and, in particular, failed to explain why her party is willing to support urgency on this measure, which, as she has just noted, is being supported by all parties except the sole member from the ACT Party. So it isn’t the issues that underpin the debate that are at stake; it’s the abuse of process. Her party is condoning the abuse of process when it isn’t necessary, and she completely failed to explain to the House why she and her party are willing to do that.

Perhaps the third and most significant reason was her failure to take up the challenge to explain the murky dealings of the New Zealand First Foundation. That is deeply relevant to this debate. I ask Mrs Martin: is it true that in recent weeks, her party president and her party treasurer have both resigned?

Hon Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Sorry, Madam Speaker. I’m trying to create the relevance between Mr Macindoe’s comments or questions at this moment with the topic of the debate, which is about foreign donations and anonymous advertising in election campaigns.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’m sure he’s just getting to that very point now.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Absolutely, Madam Speaker. I was making that point if the member hadn’t interrupted me. We have at this stage a very unclear and, frankly, deeply unsatisfactory picture emerging about the funding of the New Zealand First Foundation, and the point I’m making is that both their party president and the party treasurer have resigned because of their refusal—

Hon Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Oh, she doesn’t like this, does she? She doesn’t like this.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The member has been in the House long enough to know that that is not an appropriate comment to make.

Hon Tracey Martin: I’m wondering whether the member could actually draw any correlation between what is in the bill itself and the contribution that he is making, at any stage, apart from supposition.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Speaking to the point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I don’t need any assistance, thank you. The general tradition in the House has been that when a bill is not being referred to a select committee, a little more leeway is given on the scope of the speech, but after 2½ minutes, I think it would be appropriate for the Hon Tim Macindoe to speak directly to the bill.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: I believe I have been speaking to the bill for the whole time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Well, you may not—

Hon TIM MACINDOE: —and, in particular, I am rebutting—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Well, you may reflect on direct challenges to what I’ve just asked the member to do. The member knows that is not appropriate. I would really encourage him to speak directly to the bill.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it your ruling that I am not allowed to rebut the points made by the previous speaker?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): No, that’s not what I said at all. I invited the member, for the second time, to speak to the bill.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: I am referring to points that were made by the previous speaker on this debate.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): And, after 2½ minutes, the member could refer now directly to the bill.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Madam Speaker, everything I’m saying relates to this particular bill under discussion, and I think it is very valid for all members of this House to ask the New Zealand First Party to explain the funding behind the New Zealand First Foundation when we consider a bill on electoral donations. I fail to see why any member of the Parliament would not see the direct relevance between those two particular points, and it was disappointing in the extreme that Mrs Martin failed to explain that. I’ve asked her to explain why her party president and her treasurer have resigned rather than sign off their party’s accounts. If that isn’t a serious matter that we can discuss in this House under freedom of speech, then we are having our rights as members of Parliament curtailed in a way that I think is an outrage.

The Hon Dr Nick Smith, in his contribution, repeatedly asked the question of members of the Government parties why this measure is being debated under urgency. We’ve got one day to ram this bill through, despite the fact that it enjoys the support of all members of the House except the ACT Party, and I have to say that while I often listen to David Seymour with particular interest, I’m still trying to figure out exactly what reason his party has for opposing the bill as well. We are still awaiting the answer, and it’s important because there is a very longstanding principle—and other members have drawn attention to this—underpinned by the most significant constitutional practice that electoral measures are, or at least should be, debated fully, put out for public consultation, subjected to a wide range of submissions, and, ideally, passed unanimously, as they often are.

Well, as my very fine colleague the member for Helensville noted when he began his contribution a short time ago, we’re in the unusual position now of having commenced a second reading where we can’t refer to the submissions because there weren’t any. There was no time allowed for it. We only did the first reading before and immediately after the dinner adjournment. Officials have not had a chance to advise the committee on this particular bill that the Minister has put forward today. The Minister didn’t have the courtesy to alert the Opposition to the fact that he was going to do that. We only heard it during our caucus meeting this morning. So this is a constitutional outrage on a measure of very significant importance, and it is particularly disappointing when we agree with the principles that underpin the bill that this abuse of process is, frankly, making a debate so contentious when, really, it could’ve been done by consensus probably quite quickly, if only the Government had observed—

Hon Clare Curran: What a joke.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: —the constitutional principles. Sorry, Ms Curran?

Hon Clare Curran: Tell the truth, Tim Macindoe.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): You’re interrupting your own speech with a point of order?

Hon TIM MACINDOE: I am. No, Madam Speaker, I’m not interrupting my speech. Ms Curran has just interrupted my speech with an unparliamentary interjection, and I’m asking you if that’s satisfactory.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The member can sit down. I didn’t hear the interjection. The Hon Clare Curran will stand, withdraw, and apologise if she made an unparliamentary remark.

Hon Clare Curran: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): No, we’re on a point of order. I’ve asked you to withdraw and apologise if you made an unparliamentary—

Hon Clare Curran: “Tell the truth,” was the comment. Is that an unparliamentary comment?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The member will withdraw and apologise.

Hon Clare Curran: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Intriguing that Ms Curran would make the comment—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The member will not refer to a point of order that’s been dealt with. He may resume his speech and speak to the bill.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Well, the absurd thing about this process is that all parties apart from ACT are in support of it, and yet we have not yet had one member opposite explain the need for urgency. Frankly, the explanation for that is proving more elusive than the Scarlet Pimpernel. Perhaps it’s the scandal of the still murky but emerging shady details of the New Zealand First Party Foundation that underpins the reason for the Government parties wanting to get this through quickly. I hoped that Tracey Martin would explain it; instead, she chose to avoid that. She chose not to distance herself from that indefensible entity. She chose to abuse Dr Smith instead and avoid the issue. Well, that, frankly, is very unimpressive, and I’m sure the members of the public who are listening will see that for what it is.

What we are doing tonight is passing a measure that I’m sure enjoys widespread support in the public as well. So, as I say, I don’t think it would’ve needed to have taken a long time, but it should’ve been done properly, and that’s why we’re having this debate—because we’ve got a Government that claimed when they were in Opposition to want to hear what the public had to say and to be the champions of parliamentary democracy and all the rest of it, and then the minute they get into Government, they turn all of that on their head, aided and abetted by the Green Party, which I find inexplicable, because they were most pious of all in Opposition. Now, all three of those parties in Government are behaving disgracefully.

As I say, it’s a bill that enjoys near-unanimous support, but the Minister’s reason for pushing this through under urgency is utterly disingenuous. Frankly, it’s blatantly dishonest in the extreme.

Hon Stuart Nash: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That member called Clare Curran out for calling on him—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The member won’t refer to a point of order that’s been dealt with.

Hon Stuart Nash: I find calling a Minister of the Crown dishonest offensive, and I would like the member to stand up and apologise.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The Hon Tim Macindoe—you’ve got one minute and 50 seconds remaining.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The point I’m making is that the Minister claimed that he was justifying this on the grounds that the select committee had or hadn’t been doing this, that, or the other, and the point I was making is the Minister in all the roughly six months I’ve been a member of the Justice Committee has never attended a meeting of the Justice Committee. So he does not know and his claims are completely false, because how could he know what’s been going on in the select committee? He had the gall to blame the National Party—

Michael Wood: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The assertion that the claim by the Minister was false is very clearly a breach of the Standing Orders.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The member Tim Macindoe will stand, withdraw and apologise, and then finish his speech.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: I’m sorry, Madam Speaker, what am I withdrawing and apologising for?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I trust that the member is able to recall the last sentence that he spoke in the House. Michael Wood actually repeated it. I’d ask the member to withdraw and apologise, and then conclude his speech.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Well, I’ll withdraw and apologise.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Thank you. You’ve got one minute and 17 seconds to go.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: The Minister has never attended the select committee in all the time that I’ve been a member of it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): You’ve got one minute and 14 seconds to go.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: That’s a statement of fact, and he is blaming the National Party for the fact that the Justice Committee has still not reported to the House on its 2017 general election inquiry, when the very clear reason for that rests with the Government, who failed to initiate the inquiry for the best part of a year after they took office. That’s why no terms of reference were consulted by caucuses. That’s why no submissions were invited. That’s why none of those matters that are important—

Michael Wood: Those members blocked it last week—one week ago, they voted against it, and blocked it.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: —began to be looked into, and for the Government senior whip to be finding a disingenuous reason to interject in the third point of order in quick succession, when all of what I have said is absolutely true and factual—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise to my colleague Tim Macindoe. Is it appropriate for the Government whip Michael Wood to be making reference to private proceedings of the Justice Committee?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’m sorry, I didn’t hear his comment. The Hon Tim Macindoe’s got 20 seconds remaining. [Interruption]

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Well—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): 19.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: It’s kind of you to count the seconds down. I don’t think I’ve ever known there to be so many points of order during a speech. I hope that those who are listening can see what has been happening for what it is—and that is, a Government that doesn’t like hearing the truth, hearing the facts. I have been giving them quite clearly and nothing’s changed.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in support of this bill, a bill that brings out one of the key provisions of my strengthening democracy member’s bill. It’s something that sits close to the heart of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, which is securing New Zealand’s democracy, making it equal, making it transparent, and making it available equally to all voters, not just those with deep pockets.

We live right now at a moment in global history where democracy is under attack in various ways from big money interference, including from foreign interference. We live at a global moment and issues like the climate crisis, issues like tobacco regulation, and the sugar tax, and things like gun law reform have been slowed to the point of rendering Houses of Representatives like this ineffective and superfluous because democracy has been undermined. It has been bought and sold on the open market and we don’t want that here, and we realise that New Zealand’s democracy has thus far been vulnerable. We’ve been relying too long on our culture of openness and of fairness, but we know that there are dark forces out there who don’t abide by those same democratic principles. We know that we’re vulnerable.

This is exactly why the Justice Committee began its inquiry into foreign interference. We know that that select committee valiantly sat through months and months and heard submissions from experts, from our own security agencies, from members of the public, and from human rights organisations from across this nation that highlighted all of the risks, and outlined all of the changes that we need, and do you know what? They were slowed down, nearly to a stop. Who—who—would want to slow down the Justice Committee in looking into electoral reform to make New Zealand stronger, New Zealand’s democracy fairer, and New Zealand’s democracy protected against foreign interference? Why would a political party or members of this House of Representatives want to slow that process down?

We know the advice is that if we don’t pass law this year, because of the complexity of the implementation of this law, it won’t be applicable to the next election. Who would want to stop the risk of foreign interference from affecting the next election—who would want that for New Zealand? That’s what they’ve done, and we won’t let it happen.

We’ve seen other examples where the National Party has slowed down the political process, the democratic process, and then turned around and said, “Well, you can’t do this because the process hasn’t happened.” Well, the process has happened and the Green Party supports this bill because we know consultation did happen. We know they tried to stop it. Who would want to do that? Who would have something to gain from stopping the law passing that would protect New Zealand’s democracy from foreign interference?

Well, not us, and we’ve done it before when we’ve seen that the tactic has been utilised to slow down the legal progress. We supported urgency for paid parental leave in the beginning of this Parliament because we knew that that bill, in substance, had already been to select committee. We knew that they wanted to slow it down to stop New Zealanders from accessing their rights and their welfare and we wouldn’t let them do it, and we won’t let them do it now.

This falls squarely within Green Party kaupapa, because we do stand for democracy and we know that the political process is about substantive consultation, not just tick-boxing. We know that substantive consultation has happened—we’re satisfied. We also know that we don’t have much time to lose. We’ve seen democracy undermined. We’ve seen that happen in Australia. We’ve seen it happen in Britain. We’ve seen it happen in the United States. We don’t want to see it happen here.

So this bill makes it unlawful for foreign donations that are over $50 to be made to any political party or political candidate. The limit is there. My bill proposed a complete ban, but the advice was that it’s actually quite difficult in circumstances where fund-raising is happening at a town hall meeting or over raffle ticket sales and people can’t check somebody’s immigration status. So there does need to be a small buffer in order to allow for that administration to happen. But for all intents and purposes, foreign political donations are banned by this bill.

Something else is happening that’s exciting to me and it should be exciting to everyone in this House, and, you know, it does have support from across the House, so I suspect we all agree that we do need to be protected from misinformation and from a lack of transparency in terms of who is, in fact, sponsoring political advertising. We’ve seen that go wrong. We’ve seen it go wrong online in social media platforms. We’ve seen it go wrong in all manner of political advertising. New Zealanders need to know who is taking a stake in the messaging around politics, and this bill makes it necessary for advertisers to tell us who they are—to tell us their names. We need to know: are you a tobacco company, are you a gun lobbyist, or are you an oil company who is advertising against the politics of change for the environment, for our healthcare system, or for keeping New Zealanders safe from military-style guns? So we are making that happen in this bill. Who would want to slow that down, after we’ve heard hundreds of submissions over months and months?

The other thing that the Opposition takes issue with—which I was quite surprised to hear a lawyer bring up—is the issue of shell companies. Well, you know what? Anyone who sets up a shell company—and a shell company is a fake company that is set up to bypass the law—is committing fraud. First, you have to ban the activity. Then you can charge them, investigate them, and actually apply the law.

We have all manner of laws that people can bypass by committing fraud. For example, we have a limit on the amount of electorate donations that someone can receive. If they wanted to chop that up, for example, to bypass the law, we would refer them to the police, and then maybe the Serious Fraud Office would investigate them. That would be breaking the law. We don’t know if that’s happened, of course, in relation to the National Party, but we are able to investigate that allegation.

Hon Clare Curran: We know that the SFO is investigating.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: We do get to investigate that allegation because the law exists, and that’s what we’re doing today: we’re creating a law that bans that kind of activity. So if somebody sets up a shell company—a fake company—or tries to bypass the foreign donation ban in any way, we can now investigate them and charge them. Thank God we are regulating that activity.

This is an important first step. It’s only a first step. The Green Party has a suite of changes that we’d like to introduce, and submitters supported that. Actually, even the head of the SIS said “We need more transparency regulation in terms of our political donations regime so that we can, in fact, further investigate”—be better at applying the law like the ban on foreign donations. So we would like to lower the anonymity threshold. We know that a lot of donations go to all major political parties in our system anonymously. We want to be able to have our institutions apply the law in an easier way, and we want New Zealanders to know who, in fact, is taking a stake in our democracy.

We want to put limits on political donations. We think $35,000 should be enough. We don’t need hundreds of thousands of donations coming from corporates, and, you know, Simon Bridges has said “You can’t limit political donations, because that’s free speech.” Free speech and democracy on sale—no. Our vote is our ability to make a choice, to have our political voices heard. It shouldn’t be open to that kind of interference. It shouldn’t be for sale to the highest bidder.

So we’ve got a lot more work to do, but this is an important first step. It’s sending a signal to the world and to New Zealand that this House cares about democracy, and we have heard their voices through the months-long select committee process.

So I commend this bill to the House. It’s a good day for democracy.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): Well, I have to admit to sensing a rich vein of irony in the House tonight, because we just had a speech from the Green Party member in which she talked about dark forces, she talked about the terrible influence of big money in politics and of interference in elections, and yet here I’ve been looking at the returns for overseas donations since 2011, and what do those returns tell us? Well, what they tell us is that the Green Party has had more overseas donations since 2011—more donations—than any other party in the Parliament. In fact, I’ve gone through the numbers and the numbers are astounding, because here we have, in 2018—how many overseas donations did the National Party file in its return? That’s right—zero. How many from the Greens? Fifty-seven. Then, what happened in 2017? Sixty overseas donations to the Green Party. But, you know, 2015 was a ripper of a year for the Green Party on the overseas donations front: 300 overseas donations that year.

So if the member Golriz Ghahraman wants to be concerned about overseas donations and the influence they can have, she should perhaps start by looking at her own party. Once she’s done that, the next thing she should consider is the party that is in coalition with the party that her party supports, because here we have a member that is very happy to talk about free speech for sale and to talk about her concern about the fact that money could be influencing politics, and yet where was she in the past two weeks, when we had it on the front pages of New Zealand’s newspapers, when in every cafe around the country people were talking about New Zealand First and the donations it is hiding through the New Zealand First Foundation? What did the Green Party have to say about that?

Hon Member: Nothing.

NICOLA WILLIS: That is right—the sound of silence. So what you need to understand is that your principles matter when it suits you, but you leave them to one side when it doesn’t, and that’s the way that the Green Party wants to conduct politics.

Then we look at this bill, because here we are, we’re at the second reading. Now, normally at the second reading, normally at this stage in the debate, we would reflect—wouldn’t we—on the select committee process. We would reflect on the submissions we’d heard and on the members of the public who’d come and shared their views about whether this bill had the right wording and whether it was going to be implementable, about any gaps it might have, and questions it leaves unanswered. We would have had a select committee process where electoral law experts—that Golriz Ghahraman would otherwise probably be quite happy to quote in this House—would have made their submissions and would have put in their considered thoughts. But, tonight, we don’t have the opportunity to reflect on whether this bill really does what it says it wants to do, because the Green Party, voting alongside Labour and the New Zealand First Party, have denied New Zealanders the opportunity to have their say.

That’s the Green Party’s idea of democracy tonight. Their idea is “Actually, we know best. We’ll just say yes to this bill. We all know all this bill does is reduce the limit for the number of donations. It doesn’t actually get to any of the bigger issues, but we’ll support it going through under urgency. We will deny the rights of New Zealanders to have their say because it suits us on this occasion.”

Normally, tonight, we would also have had the opportunity to think about whether or not this bill was doing what it set out to do. I am left with many, many unanswered questions. My unanswered questions start with what I think is actually the fundamental issue, which is: does there remain the ability for foreign States to circumvent New Zealand’s electoral donations laws in a way that allows them to influence elections? I don’t think that question is answered by this bill at all, because I am still very wary of the fact that a foreign State could potentially provide money to a New Zealand - based company or resident, who could then lawfully donate to a political party or candidate.

Now, this is my question. It may be answerable, but we have not had the opportunity to examine that question because the Government is set on rushing this through. That’s why I’m cynical, because I think that, actually, we deserve an answer to that question. I think it is fundamental. If we are, in this House, joined in a desire to protect our democracy from undue foreign influence, then we owe it to both ourselves and our democratic principles and to New Zealanders to properly answer that question. Why is Minister Little afraid to answer that question? It stinks to high heaven that he will rush this bill through to get a dirty headline saying that he’s banning something when, actually, there is absolutely no proof in this legislation before us that the ban is enforceable in any way. So that’s one question I have.

The next question I have is exactly how Mr Little wants to define this idea that people will be banned from making donations “on behalf of” others. I’d really like to know how the Green Party secretary is going to look into that one. The Green Party secretary in this legislation is charged with being the arbiter of whether or not someone has received the money they are donating to a party from a foreign actor. So what will the Green Party do? Will they question people and ask whether, in fact, the money was from Greenpeace, the foreign entity, or whether it was from Greenpeace, the domestic entity? I’m not sure how they’ll go about it.

I want to know what “on behalf of” means. I’d quite like to hear some legal experts give me their views on that. I’d like an opportunity for some of our scholars in New Zealand, some of the people who are experienced in examining these things from a neutral perspective, from a non-partisan perspective—I would like them to have the opportunity to look hard at this bill and answer that question of whether or not “on behalf of” will be enforceable in our courts. Mark my words, I guarantee for you over the next six months, over the next 12 months, or so long as this legislation remains in this form, there will continue to be questions asked in New Zealand about the outsized influence foreign actors could be having in our democracy. For so long as those questions are being asked, then the Government has failed in its intent in the purpose of this bill.

You see, the problem is—and I think Labour should’ve worked this out by now—window dressing works for a day or two. You can promise 100,000 KiwiBuild houses, but when you don’t deliver and there’s only 400, then the proof is in the pudding. In this bill, we have a grand promise—we have a promise that foreign donations have been banned. Well, the members opposite hang their heads because they know that it does nothing of the sort, and if they did think it did something of the sort, they would’ve been quite happy to put it through a select committee process. Actually, we could’ve had a shortened process, and that would’ve been absolutely fine. I’m sure that we would’ve preferred a longer one, but some sort of a process, some sort of scrutiny—no, they have shied away from that.

Then, I’m left with this question of why does this regime apply to the general election but not to local government elections? What’s the reason for that? Why do foreign donations matter when it comes to elections for the Parliament, but not elections for city councils? Again, no opportunity to have that question addressed.

Then we, finally, come to this question of anonymous donations, because, under this bill, anonymous donations are still permitted. So how are we to expect that it will be checked whether an anonymous donation comes from a foreign actor or not? This bill is unable to give us an answer to that, and there has been no select committee process to answer that.

In this bill, we have a classic case of it being more important to be seen to be doing something—more important for Golriz Ghahraman to get up in the House and talk about dirty money and talk about influence and talk about the joys of free speech—than it is to actually put those principles into the hard, practical work of detailed legislation. Sitting here, we have members who have said that, yes, we share the Government’s concern about the potential influence of foreign actors in our democracy and that we are prepared to have a conversation and work in a bipartisan manner to protect that principle—to protect the principle that we will be free from foreign interference. We had an opportunity for the Minister to work with us to come up with a workable, practical regime. The Minister got impatient, he got angry, we didn’t have that conversation, and New Zealand is the worse for it.

I did not expect to be in the House tonight speaking on the second reading of an urgent electoral amendment bill. What I would expect is that when it comes to electoral amendments, we would always have the opportunity to consider them in full, to scrutinise them, and to ensure that they do what they say they will do. I do not have that confidence in this bill, but I am confident that it is a step that is in the right direction and that it lowers the threshold for donations from foreign actors, and I absolutely support that. But what a lost opportunity we have tonight—a lost opportunity to do this properly. I lament the atrocious process, I lament the lack of scrutiny, and members opposite should hang their heads in shame.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): What a negative contribution we just heard then from Opposition members who are voting for the legislation—

Kieran McAnulty: You wouldn’t think so, would you?

JAMIE STRANGE: You wouldn’t think so, Mr McAnulty. What a negative contribution. In fact, the previous member, Nicola Willis, spent most of her speech talking about the Green Party, and that’s because there are no new ideas on the other side.

However, on this side of the House, we have a Government who are taking action. The risk of foreign interference in our democracy is a real concern, and this bill counters this risk by limiting overseas donations to $50. I’d like to acknowledge the Minister for Justice, Andrew Little, for the excellent work that he’s done on this.

Now, look, most of the parties in this House are supporting this bill. We’ve had lots of discussion, and I encourage the parties to get on and pass this bill, rather than give 10-minute speeches constantly being negative about the bill and then voting for it. Let’s get on and pass this legislation. New Zealanders want this legislation. Let’s pass it. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’m sorry, I omitted to say this was a split call—so, Melissa Lee.

MELISSA LEE (National): That’s OK. Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I understood that was the case, because I was actually lined up to speak for five minutes, so I knew exactly where I was.

It’s a pleasure to rise in the second reading. Earlier, one of my colleagues had actually said that what happens in a second reading process is that we come back from a select committee process to speak about the submissions that have happened, and we listen to the submitters and reflect on their commentary in terms of the legislation that is before us. But, unfortunately, because of the process today—I mean, when I came to Parliament this week, I had no idea that we were to have an urgency motion and debate this particular bill, so I had no idea. So here we are, doing the second reading on the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) and all its stages.

I know that my colleague earlier mentioned Golriz Ghahraman. I was listening to Ms Ghahraman’s speech, and one thing she mentioned, which I completely agree with, in a sense. She said, “We do not want”—and I hope I’m getting the quote right—“democracy bought on the open market.” I don’t think anyone in this House wants that. We do not want foreign interests or Governments influencing New Zealand’s political process or democracy.

However, having said that, when you put the boot on the other foot and you think about what she actually says, I sort of wonder did the Green Party sell out in this process. I’m not talking about legislation; I’m talking about the process. Now that they’re in bed with the Labour-led Government and they are part of this Government, they are OK about the truncated process of an urgency motion where we’re talking about the democratic process, especially the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2). They would have never ever agreed to this process earlier, but now they’re part of the Government, so now they’re OK with it. So does that mean that they’ve actually sold out, and does that mean that perhaps Ms Golriz Ghahraman should put a mirror in front of her face when she says, “We don’t want democracy bought on the open market.”? They’ve sold out because they have decided, the champions of process in this House—I mean, this is my fourth term, and in all the time that I’ve been here I’ve never known the Green Party to ever agree to an urgency motion, expect now they’re in Government and they have actually sold out.

This piece of legislation—as I have actually alluded to in the first reading process—our party is in agreement on. I mean, obviously, there will be certain things that we’ll be discussing during the committee of the whole House stage. We do not want the foreign influence—I know, earlier, some people said they didn’t want to use the word “foreign”. Well, it is exactly what it is—it’s foreign. We don’t want foreign influence. We don’t want foreign Governments to try and influence the process of New Zealand’s democracy. We do not want foreign States to perhaps influence the process that we have in this Government by donating money. Restricting their donations is a good thing. As I said, why limit it to just under $50? Why not get rid of it completely? Ban it. We don’t have a problem with that.

Earlier, one of my colleagues said it is actually the Green Party who have the majority of the overseas donations. Perhaps they should be the ones who should actually seriously think about why they are supporting this bill.

In terms of the tangible impact this bill will have in terms of the foreign donations, how much of an influence would they actually have on the political parties? I would say very minimal, because, as my colleagues have said—and it has actually been admitted in this House—not a lot of members or parties receive donations from overseas entities. The actual principle of wanting to ban foreign Governments from influencing New Zealand’s political process, our democracy, and the democratic process is a good idea. What we object to is the process in which this whole thing is being rammed down our throats and rushed through this Parliament without the public’s commentary, without a submissions process, and I think they should be ashamed.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Split call—Jami-Lee Ross.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany): Madam Speaker, thank you very much. I noticed in Minister Little’s commentary earlier today that he said there is going to be further policy work on foreign influence in elections and other policy options being put forward. So, in that context, I wish to say to the Government: congratulations on making a step towards amending our rules around foreign interference. I say “a step” because it’s actually only a small step—and one that I hope is built on in the future—but it is fair to say that this foreign donation ban isn’t really a ban on foreign donations. It’s simply a moving of the threshold, where it was previously set at a $1,500 restriction on foreign persons making donations, and moving that down to $50. That is a good move in the right direction, but it does not effectively ban foreign influence in our elections. I hope that the Minister’s policy work is very thorough, and I hope that the Minister’s policy work comes up with a wide range of options to effectively ban foreign donations.

I’ve heard a lot of commentary from other speakers in this House when they’ve talked about foreign influence in elections and foreign donations and asked why hasn’t the Government put up a ban on corporations being able to make donations and why is that loophole still there. Most of those comments I’ve heard have come from my old friends in the National Party. I also found it interesting when my old friends in the National Party said the Green Party had the majority of foreign donations—“We didn’t have any foreign donations.” I have to say that the best example of a foreign donation that influenced a political party and a Minister of the Crown at the last election was the $150,000 that came from Inner Mongolia. Members on that side will say, “No, that wasn’t a foreign donation. It was done within the law.” Yes, but our law is wrong.

Our law is wrong because our law currently—and will still do so after this bill is passed—allows for a Minister of the Crown to fly to China to meet an individual who then comes to New Zealand. That individual then says to the person—who’s, apparently, in their capacity as a member of Parliament, not as a Minister—who happens to also be the trade Minister, “I want to make a big donation to a political party.” That person then comes and sees another MP, who is not Official Information Act request - able, and asks that MP to contact the donor’s agent. That MP—it happened to be me—contacted that donor’s agent. That donor then decided that they would make a $150,000 donation. That donation, legally, came from a New Zealand - registered company. That company is 100 percent - owned by a Chinese foreign national in Inner Mongolia. If that is not a foreign donation in the eyes of right-thinking people in “Public Land”, then I don’t know what is.

Yes, political parties, you might be able to say, “We haven’t received foreign donations that are unlawful above the $1,500.”, because a company making a donation is seen as a New Zealand person. But if we have companies in this country that are owned entirely offshore that are putting $150,000 into the bank account of a New Zealand political party after meeting the Minister who’s in charge of the policy area that the owner of that company is interested in, that is foreign influence in our democracy, and that is something that the policy that has been put forward in this bill does nothing to achieve.

Chris Penk: You did it.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: I did it, says Mr Penk—I did it, says Mr Penk. Yes, I contacted the donor’s New Zealand agent and translated for them the New Zealand donation laws. I have emails on that. I’ll show it to you if you want, Mr Penk. I’ll show it to you at the next select committee, when you guys are slowing things down.

The fact of the matter is it is lawful for a Chinese national to own a company in New Zealand and make a $150,000 donation. It is wrong. It needs to be changed. The only effective way to ban foreign influence in our elections is to restrict who can make a donation to New Zealanders who are entitled to vote. I say quite clearly—and I don’t think it’s controversial—if you’re not entitled to influence an election by voting, you should not be entitled to influence an election by donating. If a New Zealand company owned by a Chinese national cannot vote in an election, they should not be able to make $150,000 donations.

This purity that we hear from other side about “The Government hasn’t put up a ban on companies.”—I suggest they put up a Supplementary Order Paper, but they won’t, because drinking from the tap of foreign money is so beneficial when it comes to New Zealand - registered companies. It is an effective way for New Zealand parties to receive foreign money legally, but it is wrong and it needs to be outlawed, and I really hope this Government does something about it.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have just a few points I’d like to make. First of all, this bill is about one very simple thing, and that is that democracy in New Zealand is for New Zealanders; it’s not for people offshore to meddle with.

To pick up on the point the last speaker, Jami-Lee Ross, made, the fact of the matter is that the law makes it very clear that donations from overseas can’t be made by overseas people or on behalf of overseas people. So to use some shadow company—some Mongolian horse trader—is using it as a mere conduit, and that is prohibited under this legislation. I would caution any member before they go down that track in future.

Thirdly, it is absolutely wrong of the other side to say that this should not be passed under urgency. That was the Government some years ago who ripped the guts out of democracy in Christchurch when they appointed commissioners to Environment Canterbury under urgency, in the dark of night. So it does not lie in their mouths now to say that we shouldn’t be improving our electoral law under urgency, because this is a Government that wants a better democracy, and it wants it now. I commend this bill to the House.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Madam Speaker, it’s a pleasure to rise and contribute to what is the second reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2). I want to just take a moment to reflect on the contribution from Golriz Ghahraman. Golriz said that this is a good day for democracy, and I want to reflect on this statement in particular and ask the House some questions here today. Is it a good day for democracy when the very processes that have been put in place to guard our democracy are curtailed? Is that a good day for democracy? I genuinely ask that to the House. Is it a good day for democracy when we do not hear from the public on matters of importance such as this? The answer to that is clearly no. It was just amazing for me to watch Golriz Ghahraman speak in that tone when, clearly, this is not a good day for democracy.

To what my colleague the Hon Nick Smith said, we have a fantastic reputation in New Zealand and around the world for being a free, uncorrupt society. I’ve lived right across the world. I’ve had a chance to work in some pretty corrupt countries myself—countries like Kazakhstan, countries like Ukraine—and I can say that it is a sad day for democracy that we do not have the opportunity to discuss bills like this through the democratic means and that we do not have an opportunity to hear from the public about a simple law with respect to banning foreign donations. We in New Zealand have to guard our reputation very seriously, and I don’t think it’s in the interests of New Zealand’s democracy to have such a short process for this bill that we are discussing tonight.

I ask the other side of the House: why is it that we cannot have at least a week of select committee? A week would do it. I honestly haven’t received an answer in the whole time that I’ve been in the House today.

So we’ve heard loud and clear today about how shoddy this process has been, that we’ve been put into urgency and that the business of the House and of all select committees, by way of urgency, have been pushed aside so that the very processes that have been the foundation of our democracy are curtailed to pass this law. I still haven’t heard on the other side of the House—and I would encourage members to take a call and simply answer that question—why are we in this process of urgency right now when we could have even a week or two to consider this important bill? We also want to look at ways to improve our foreign donations. We also have an interest in guarding New Zealand’s reputation as our uncorrupt society throughout the world, but we also want to make sure that the rules of democracy are protected and that we hear from those that these laws are going to affect.

We have today heard some very valid points, right here from my colleague Nicola Willis. We’ve had some great questions from here around: does this bill actually address the problems that we’re trying to solve? I think it’s a bad day for democracy when we have a bill that is designed to solve a problem that is non-existent or that doesn’t solve the correct problem that we wish to solve.

There are questions that we’ve raised today around why this law is not applicable to local body elections. We’ve heard from the likes of Duncan Webb that it is to protect democracy for New Zealanders, but having read the bill, it is not clear to me that non-residents who are based in New Zealand cannot give to a political party. For example, if you are a non-citizen resident here on a working visa, can you donate to a political party? Anybody from the other side of the House, can you answer me that simple question? This is crickets—the silence is deafening. We can’t even answer the basic question of whether a foreign citizen who is based here on a New Zealand visa can donate to a political party.

Now, these are the questions that the select committee would’ve been able to delve into. We would’ve been able to actually have experts come in and give us advice on how to structure the law in such a way as to protect New Zealand’s democracy from foreign interference. But we have already heard of a number of instances where we are possibly leaving ourselves short on the purposes of this bill.

The principles of this bill—of course we support greater tightening of rules to protect New Zealand’s democracy. Of course we support greater transparency. That is why we’re still asking questions from the New Zealand First Party. How does this law apply to the trusts that they have? We still don’t have any answer from New Zealand First about their foundation.

Hon Clare Curran: What about the Inner Mongolian donations?

DAN BIDOIS: Take a call—take a call, Clare Curran, because we would love to know why the Labour Party are supporting a law, yet you’ve said nothing about the New Zealand First Foundation that has been uncovered so far.

So it is a bad day for democracy. It is a bad day for good policy-making in this House, and it’s a bad day for a whole host of other reasons, not to mention that the select committees are not meeting tomorrow. It’s because we are an urgency that they are not meeting, and I’m glad to see the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, Rino Tirikatene, here, because we were scheduled to discuss some very important aspects tomorrow and, unfortunately, we’re not going to get to that because we are here under urgency for no apparent reason. All we can deduce is that we are here because the Labour Party received a bad poll and they want a feel-good factor—something to go out there with and say, “Look at what we’ve done. This is what we call the year of delivery. We have banned foreign donations from New Zealand.” Well, that is a shoddy way to make policy in New Zealand.

It is a shocking day for democracy, and all we can say is that we have the committee of the whole House later on tonight, or tomorrow, and I would appreciate answers to our questions from the other side of the House today. Who does this apply to and not apply to? How are there—that’s right. I’m getting arms up in the air from David Seymour, so he’s in the same position as well. We’ve got an electoral amendment bill—we do think it is a bad day for democracy. This has nothing to do with donations of trusts, which the last few weeks have uncovered is a serious issue for the House and a serious issue for political parties in New Zealand, yet this bill doesn’t even touch on that. It doesn’t touch on the fact that if you are a foreigner living in New Zealand under a work permit or a visa, there are still avenues for you to donate. We’ll be opposed to those things, even though we support the bill in its stage. Thank you.

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The issue raised by Jami-Lee Ross with regard to the “Inner Mongolian Horse Co.”, or whatever it was called, which is currently under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office, relates to the transmission rules for donations. I just want to point out to the House and for those who haven’t done their homework, and I advise that they do, that it is currently unlawful—in six provisions, actually—under the Electoral Act for overseas entities to give money to a New Zealander who then donates to a candidate or party. Should I repeat that? Anyway, it is currently unlawful in six provisions.

The problem is—and this is where the issue arises—around adequate enforcement and around the definitions of eligible business and unincorporated bodies. Now, what this bill does is two things in relation to this which provide useful measures to move towards addressing these things. It lowers the bar for foreign donations to $50, and it raises the bar for due diligence of scrutiny of those donations. Now, it may not deal with all of the issues, but it’s moving in the right direction, and I would recommend that those members read the Electoral Act before they get up to speak again.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time.

Ayes 119

New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; Ross.

Noes 1

ACT New Zealand 1.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Given the House is at three minutes to 10 and we’ve been in urgency for the afternoon, by the time the Chair of the committee establishes the committee of the whole House, you’ll have to report progress. I seek leave for the House to be adjourned until 9 o’clock tomorrow morning.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Actually, we don’t adjourn the House. We will continue in committee tomorrow morning, and if we go into committee, the Chair can then suspend the House until 9 o’clock tomorrow. So you withdraw your request?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I’m happy to do so.

Part 1 Amendments relating to overseas donations

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I look forward to this very important stage of the House and the extensive time we’ll have available for the remainder of this session. This bill is very important. It does a very important thing. It’s meaningful, it’s real, it deals with a serious risk, and it will make a serious difference for the conduct by parties and their general secretaries to make sure that our electoral system has integrity. It’s not called the electoral integrity bill; it is called the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2), but it is about integrity. What is similar between this bill and that bill of the other name is the catastrophising that goes on by members opposite, and they do it every time there’s a very minor but important technical change to our law, as it is in this case. But this bill and this part of the bill—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’m sorry to advise the Minister, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)

TUESDAY, 3 DECEMBER 2019

(continued on Wednesday, 4 December 2019)

Bills

Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2)

In Committee

Debate resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Mōrena mai rā tātou katoa. The House in committee on the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2). When we were considering the bill last night, we were debating Part 1. The Hon Andrew Little had the call, and he has four minutes and 28 seconds remaining.

Part 1 Amendments relating to overseas donations (continued)

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chairman. It’s very nice to be back to resume the debate. So we’re in Part 1. Clause 5 is very much the operative part when it comes to the actual ban on foreign donations. Clause 5 amends various parts of section 207 of the Electoral Act, and it makes it clear that a donation, or at least even an offer of value in kind, over $50 to a political party or a candidate from a foreign source—and the definition of “overseas person” remains unchanged in the legislation—constitutes a foreign donation. If it’s over $50, that is banned.

I draw the committee’s attention to clause 8 and 10 of the bill. Clause 8 inserts a new section 207JA, which is the duty to ascertain whether a donation is from an overseas person. It’s a duty that is reposed in the party general secretary of any party, or a candidate, and says, “A candidate or party secretary who receives a donation (not being an anonymous donation)”—that is defined—“that exceeds $50 must take all reasonable steps in the circumstances to ascertain whether [that donation came from an overseas person]”. Again, “overseas person” is defined.

That is supported by as well clause 10, which amends section 207L and adds in a defence to a charge of a candidate or a party having received a foreign donation in excess of the $50 threshold. I think it’s instructive to look at the words of that defence provision, because it says, “It is a defence to a charge under subsection (2) if the candidate or party secretary proves that he or she took all reasonable steps in the circumstances to ascertain that”. I want to go to the operative provision, which is paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of the amended section 207L—“there were no reasonable grounds to suspect that a donation exceeding $50 … was made by or on behalf of an overseas person.” So a combination of the positive duty on the party general secretary or candidate in the new section 207JA, plus, if that is followed by a charge for having breached that or failed to exercise that duty, the defence which makes it very clear that there were no reasonable grounds to suspect that the donation came from an overseas source, covers off the situation, for example, of a $150,000 donation coming from the New Zealand Mongolian Thoroughbred Racing—whatever—Ltd.

Now, it’s interesting that an amendment tabled this morning in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith seeks to make an amendment and refers, in relation to the candidate donation or party donation, to change the definition in the current Act to say, instead of “to any person on the candidate’s behalf”, “to any person on the candidate’s behalf or to any incorporated or unincorporated foundation or trust that is associated with or supports the candidate.” And the same applies, mutatis mutandis, to a party donation, according to this amendment.

So the real question is: why would the National Party not want to provide for the situation where a suspicious donation comes from a registered company in New Zealand that references an overseas country? Why would they do that? There is something they are trying to hide, and there is something they are trying to conceal, and that says that they come to this House on this particular issue saying that they support the bill but, actually, there’s something they don’t want this House to know. That’s why I so eagerly await the Justice Committee’s report on these issues. It hasn’t come out. I don’t know why. Surely, the Justice Committee must have got hold of the information—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I know that the Minister has a degree of frustration about the proper deliberations of the select committee, but it is totally unparliamentary to come into this Chamber and attack the committee’s proceedings in a committee debate, or any debate on the floor of the Parliament, while there is still consideration going on by a committee over any particular matter, before it is reported to the House.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I want to thank the member. Yes, I think the Minister is about to step over a line that he should not. He needs to bring his kōrero back to the content of the bill.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Thank you, Mr Chairman. So the point is that we now have, in this bill, provisions that cover off the sorts of things that New Zealanders are concerned about when it comes to donations to political parties, not reflected in the amendment from the National Party member, and this House might have questions about why that might be the case. But the operative parts of this bill, which makes an amendment to address the serious and growing risk that democracies around the world face of foreign influence and foreign interference, are covered off very neatly by the bill.

Now, I think members have said around the House—and indeed some of the commentary has been—“Wouldn’t it be great if this was more comprehensive?” I totally understand that proposition, but that is not the circumstance we’re in. It’s not possible to do a thoroughgoing overhaul of our electoral laws in time for the 2020 general election, because of the delay in getting a report back and the customary inquiry into the most recent general election. So we’re stuck with what we’ve got. That is to make sure that an obvious and palpable risk to the integrity of our democracy—we have a moral duty to address. We have a moral duty to the citizens of New Zealand, knowing that that risk is there, knowing the publicly delivered evidence of a number of submitters to the Justice Committee about that risk. We have to do something about it.

But it is equally clear, and I’ve said to the House and I’ve confirmed publicly the advice that I’ve received, that our Electoral Act has a number of gaps and loopholes in it, and it could do with a thoroughgoing review from the ground up. That has to happen, but that is a very thorough process; it is a process that will take some time. It needs to happen, but it won’t happen in the remaining life of this Parliament. That should not stop us doing what we need to do to create an effective bar or inhibitor to a risk that we know is very real. That’s what these provisions in Part 1 of the bill seek to do, and no amount of finger pointing or putting up amendments that leave even bigger gaps is going to change that particular proposition. So we can draw upon all sorts of fantasised constitutional principles; the reality is that this part of our constitution, the Electoral Act, which creates the rules that govern the exercise of democracy by New Zealand citizens in their country, in this great country—we must make sure those rules deal with the threats and the risks that are very real and very apparent.

Clause 5, which deals with the actual ban, and clauses 8 and 10, which cover off other attendant risks, achieves that change in time for next year. I’m appreciative of the support given so far by all members of the House but one, because this is an important exercise that we undertake, and this is the process now through the committee stage to get a thoroughgoing examination. But I just invite members who are proposing amendments and proposing alternatives that there has to be integrity in those amendments as well. They’ve got to cover off the real risks. They should not wilfully avoid dealing with what we know are risks from past experience in the conduct of elections in this country before as well.

So that is the approach that this bill takes. It is based on the evidence that we know, evidence put before the Justice Committee so far, a very real risk noted and acknowledged around the country, and it achieves a level of protection that we have not had before. So, on that basis, Mr Chairman, I will conclude my comments. I look forward to the remainder of the day.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): We’re in the extraordinary position of all select committees being deferred, of this bill being rushed through in less than 24 hours and making significant changes to our electoral law, and of a Government that’s been panicked by the incredible mess in New Zealand First with the foundation and so is trying to create a diversion with this bill and the provisions in Part 1. I, firstly, want to question the motive of how you can possibly improve democracy by bypassing democracy, in that if these issues are real—and, actually, I gave a speech on behalf of the National Party at the beginning of the year suggesting tightening in this area of law—why is it necessary to do what has been widely described by the media as terrible lawmaking? Terrible lawmaking, that’s what the Parliament’s doing this morning—terrible lawmaking.

Now, the Minister of Justice has attempted to justify it on the basis that there’s this swarm of foreign donations. Let’s look at what the regulatory impact statement said about the issues that are covered in clauses 4 to 14. It said that over the last seven years, the number of foreign donations to the Labour Party each year has averaged two per year. To the National Party, we’ve had an average of three per year, and the New Zealand First Party has had an average of four foreign donations per year. The Green Party may be interested, because they have championed the issue of the ban of foreign donations, that the regulatory impact statement says that the Green Party has received 60 foreign donations per year—60. And I do have to challenge the Green Party and say: there is something of a double standard in being the champion of banning foreign donations and actually receiving more than 20 times more than any other political party in this Parliament. But before the Parliament gets into the mind of this being a crisis, can I also give some further information. The average value of those foreign donations is $66 per donation. So we’re talking about an issue that involves a total level of contributions to political parties in New Zealand of $5,000 per year. Can anybody in this Parliament, including the Minister, put hand on heart and just say that $5,000 of donations per year justifies the Parliament ramming this through and being part of what is widely described as terrible lawmaking?

I want to come to the specifics of clause 5, because I have a very detailed question, an important question, for the Minister. Clause 5 sets out the issues of who is defined as a foreign person, and I want to take a very serious question on this. In my 29 years in this Parliament, the one proven case of fraud resulting in a member of Parliament going to jail was Labour MP Phillip Field. It was over the issue of taking donations for getting people New Zealand residency. Is there a member in this Parliament that doesn’t know the extreme pressure of people wanting to get residency? We get it every day. Well, here’s the issue. The way that a foreign person is defined in clause 5 means that any person that’s in New Zealand on a temporary permit, such as a work permit, or someone that’s claiming refugee status is defined as not being foreign. Now, let’s be honest as a Parliament. If there is a risk of donations under $1,500 inappropriately influencing a decision—and there’s been, actually, very good debate with the Minister of Immigration about a recent case in which it was unexplainable as to why a person that was convicted of various serious drug offences was given residency. It is my view that there is a risk—a real risk—of corruption in New Zealand, of people that are desperate to get into and to stay in this beautiful country that we share, and that we should be cautious of our political system being used and manipulated to allow those people to make a political donation and then to get New Zealand residency.

So my question for the Minister is: what is intended in clause 5? Because it says that a person who resides in New Zealand—i.e., a person on a work permit or a person who’s claiming refugee status—would be allowed to make a political donation. Well, that’s a bit weird, isn’t it? You can see that while you would want to have a person who maybe is a New Zealand—this is not a person who’d be allowed to enrol; they’re not allowed to vote. Why is the Government saying these people should be allowed to make a political donation but shouldn’t be allowed to vote? Don’t we recognise the scandal of the Phillip Field case and the risk of corruption in that area? And so my question relates to that provision.

Now I want to come to my amendment that I’ve tabled, because here’s the extraordinary part: if we are concerned about money influence in politics, the issue that the country has been focused on are the issues with New Zealand First. They did not declare a single donation at the last election. At the last election, they had 10 times more anonymous donations than any other political party. The president and the treasurer of New Zealand First resigned in the last two months, saying that there were moral issues about their finances. And so everybody up and down New Zealand—in fact, the political commentariat—is saying that the scandal that is engulfing New Zealand First has the capacity to bring down this Government. So when this House is under urgency and it’s dealing with issues of donations, you would expect the issue would be “Well, let’s sort out that issue of foundations.” It’s interesting that not the Minister in the chair, the Hon Andrew Little, not a single Labour member, not a single Green member has said boo about the scandal involving New Zealand First. I’d love to know whether Marama Davidson thinks what’s going on within New Zealand First is acceptable.

Erica Stanford: Tacit consent.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Tacit consent—she’s OK with what’s going on within New Zealand First. Well, I just want to simply do a simple thing with this amendment. If we are going to define a party donation, why not include the foundations? Why not include the obligation on New Zealand First? I think it’s a rort. I think it is a rort that a secret foundation of New Zealand First at the last general election received $500,000 in donations. Here’s the bizarre part: the New Zealand First Foundation can go out next week with this law and get a million-dollar donation from a Russian friend, and that would be quite lawful because the foundation is not a political party. And as so many commentators have said in the last 24 hours on this rushed law, it leaves loopholes untouched all over the place. So why would Government members not support closing the loophole today around foundations?

Hon Member: Because they’re corrupt.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I think I know why. You know why? The only reason they are on the Government benches—

Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member speaking, I’m very hesitant in interrupting his speech, but for the second time this morning I’ve heard an unparliamentary term being called out by way of interjection. I think for this debate to have the integrity that it deserves, we need to make sure that such interjections should remain parliamentary.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order. While it was a most unparliamentary comment that was made, there was no immediate offence taken to the comment from the Hon Damien O’Connor.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I did not hear whatever comment that was, but if any member feels they have broken that rule, then they should stand and withdraw the comment.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: So I take issue with the provisions in Part 2 that leave a gap absolutely wide open around the issue of foundations, when it is on everybody’s lips, from Kaitāia to Bluff, the rort that has gone on within New Zealand First. So I would urge members opposite to get to their feet and say that if we are serious about improving the integrity of our electoral system, why we would not include, within the definition of such a donation, foundations that have been set up by parties like New Zealand First, solely—

Clayton Mitchell: National Party.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —with the reason of getting round the electoral law. We’re more than happy to be open with our foundation. I hear the colleague from New Zealand First—will he be supporting the amendment to include the foundations?

Hon Member: That was your foundation.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: We declare everything.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: We declare everything. So I ask the question of New Zealand First: do you support the inclusion of the foundation in the declaration of donations? Does the Green Party support foundations that are set up by political parties being included?

Marama Davidson: A whole lot of reform there, Mr Smith.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Not prepared to answer a very simple question—I’ll tell you why. The only reason they’re on the Government benches is because of the decision of New Zealand First. We have the unusual situation where the party that got the most votes and won the most seats is not the Government. That is because of New Zealand First’s decision. The public have a right to know who was funding New Zealand First; that has been kept secret. That is immoral and that is wrong in our electoral system.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Mr Chair. In this committee of the whole House stage of the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2), it’s important that we actually take what little opportunity we have to interrogate the detail of this, to give the debate the dignity that it deserves—or, actually, probably quite a lot more given how truncated the process has been.

Let me start by trying to understand a bit of what’s in the Minister of Justice’s head, to which he alluded to in yesterday’s debate, about, basically, the interpretation of what he sees as an appropriate practice for prosecuting potential offences under this. Minister Little talked about a scenario where, basically, the more that a donation exceeds $50 the more scrutiny should be applied to a possible breach. That might be a reasonable sort of point for the Minister to make, but I don’t think it’s reasonable for him to be pontificating on that in a way that suggests that decision-making bodies should take it into account, but not have it included it in the law.

So, looking at clause 5, which, as the Minister rightly says, is the main sort of operative provision, I would like the Minister or the Minister in his stead, Peeni Henare, to answer where in the definition section 207(2) of “candidate donation” or “party donation” do we have reflected this idea of proportionality—that the higher the amount the more scrutiny would be applied. I’m happy that between $0 and $50, there’s none, because that’s not an offence—that’s fine; that’s fair enough as far as it goes. But after that we’ve got on record from the current Minister of Justice, who’s introducing a reform bill—you know, modest as it is—a suggestion from him about the way that the law should be applied, and that is not recorded in the law itself. If the committee of the whole House stage is to have any meaning whatsoever, then it must be that the Minister can actually explain what he means by that, and, more particularly, his appetite for considering a change that we ourselves on this side of the House might put in if he’s not willing or prepared to do it. I’m assuming that the Green Party or other coalition colleagues or support party colleagues haven’t done so. That’s a serious miss if that’s something that’s sort of on the table, generally speaking, in terms of the law reform, but actually doesn’t exist anywhere but in the Minister’s head. So that’s the first thing.

The second question that I’d like to be answered by the Minister relates to the definition of “overseas person”. We’ve got here in clause 5(5)(a) discussion of an individual, probably a natural person—fine—who resides outside of New Zealand, but it doesn’t actually have any more detail about that. Does that mean simply that the person cannot reside outside New Zealand at the time that they make the donation? Does it mean that they must have resided in New Zealand to qualify as a non-overseas person? Maybe just during the election campaign period. Maybe during election year. Maybe during the three-year term for which the donation relates. Maybe since writ day, if we want to get a little bit more refined. There are a number of different answers that could be given to that, all of which might be reasonable.

But the fact of the matter is that all we’ve got is just, in the present tense, an individual who resides outside New Zealand will be disqualified. Well, does that mean that someone who is a New Zealand resident who goes overseas—perhaps on a holiday, for example; just a private individual perfectly entitled to go overseas on a holiday—if they make the donation at that time, that that is a donation by an overseas person? So these are pretty serious questions in terms of the way that the law will be applied and understood, and I’d like to think that this is an answer that the Minister can give for at least a little bit of direction, seeing as he hasn’t troubled to spell it out more clearly in the legislation.

I anticipate that the Minister might say “Well, this meaning of ‘overseas person’ exists elsewhere.”, and it simply would have the same kind of interpretation applied to it. In the first instance, I don’t think that’s satisfactory, if that’s sort of where he intends to go, simply because the whole point of rewriting a law is that you do it in as clear a way as possible. Certainly, loopholes and other shortfalls that can be identified at the committee of the whole House stage should be rectified at this stage, so it would be a relatively easy Supplementary Order Paper—a stroke of a pen, really. Again, I’d offer to potentially do some work on that if he can indicate that he’s amenable to that.

But, at the same time, I also don’t think it’s appropriate for us to leave open this question about what it means to reside outside New Zealand simply by talking about the existence of another definition. If that’s the approach, then surely we should just say that an “overseas person” has the same meaning in some other statute or perhaps another—[Time expired]

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): So here we are taking up quite a bit of Parliament’s extra time where select committees could have been sitting and progressing some of the matters that might have improved the general statistics around the year of delivery for the Government—although, that would be a pretty hard call to make. So we are here trying to solve a $66 problem. That’s the average amount of donation, as pointed out by my colleague Dr Nick Smith, received anonymously by political parties at the last election.

Hon Tim Macindoe: How much?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: $66. That’s why we’re here today, to change the law to make a $16 difference in the average amount of anonymous donation that has to be declared.

You can’t help thinking that this is in the House today because the Government had a very bad week last week. The Government had a particularly bad weekend just before the House resumed on Tuesday. I think the Prime Minister gave her Ministers a bit of a hurry up, and said, “Right, we’ve got to get on the front foot. We’re being buried by this New Zealand First anonymous donation scandal, so we need to put something out there that tells the people of New Zealand that we’re on the case.” Andrew Little would have said “I’ve got something: I can solve the $66 problem.” by coming to the House with this amendment bill that we’re dealing with today.

But the real question is: why is there no reference, as Dr Smith has said, to the foundations or other entities that are set up to support political parties? Why is there no reference to that? Now, we have, in the name of Dr Nick Smith, an amendment to the bill that would put those foundations under the same regime as anybody else. The National Party has a foundation; we declare every donation to that foundation.

The real question is: where did the $840,000 that New Zealand First received in the lead-up to the 2017 election come from? Where did it come from, this $500,000 into this capital-funded foundation and $340,000 into their campaign itself? All anonymous; no declarations at all. But here we have them colluding with the Government to take up Parliament’s time, to solve a problem about a few people from offshore who save up their pennies and send their $66 to the Green Party—because they’re the ones who are the major beneficiaries of anonymous donations.

Just think about the numbers, again, given by Dr Smith this morning: two for Labour; three for National, so we got our, you know, nearly $200; four for New Zealand First, that apparently was only a small fraction, around $250 of the unexplained $840,000; and then 10, about $660 to $700, for the Green Party.

We’re here solving that problem to make sure that in future, all of those donations, coming to around about 15 donations—so, what’s that? About 15—oh, I can’t think how much it is. A very tiny amount. A very tiny amount—a very tiny amount. But this bill does not deal with the issue that New Zealanders are struggling with at the moment, and that is the high and mighty, finger-pointing exercise at everybody else by New Zealand First while there is no explanation for the $840,000 that made its way into their kitty in the 2017 year.

So the amendment that’s been put up by Dr Smith would mean that that sort of arrangement comes under the scrutiny of the Electoral Commission. Mind you, let’s be clear that if the Electoral Commission do use the legislation they’ve got now, then New Zealand First is in some trouble—no question about that—but that is something for them to announce, not for us to announce here in the House today. What I will say is simply this: if we are going to have Parliament’s time taken up on an electoral amendment bill dealing with issues that are pressing, it cannot be the $66 anonymous donations declared by parties; it has to be about the $840,000 undeclared by New Zealand First.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, the committee stage of any debate in the House, of course, is every member’s opportunity to ask questions and to raise important issues on the measure that’s under consideration, and it’s deeply concerning that, yet again, here we have the Government parties—Labour, New Zealand First, and the Greens—with their heads down, making no effort to get involved in the debate. But it’s particularly important when there’s been no select committee process and no opportunity for the public—and, particularly, legal experts, who we rely upon—to ensure that we get important measures right. They’ve had no such opportunity because of this rushed process under urgency, so it’s doubly important for all members of the House to be fully involved in thorough and appropriate scrutiny. I do hope that the Minister who’s in the chair at the moment, Peeni Henare, who I know is an honourable man and who I’m sure will take a close interest in it, will engage respectfully and fully, because I’ve got a number of questions, and my colleagues Dr Nick Smith, Chris Penk, and the Hon Gerry Brownlee have raised a number.

I want to draw his attention to the general policy statement in this electoral amendment bill, in which it makes clear that the Minister’s purpose is for the bill to make several changes to the Electoral Act 1993 to send a clear signal that only those who are part of New Zealand’s democracy and who live in or who have a strong connection to this country should participate in our electoral system. Well, I approve of that, and, as you know, all members on this side of the House, with the exception of the ACT Party, are supporting this bill as well, so there’s no debate over that important principle. But I have a very important question, which I hope the Minister is going to answer, which is: if that is the case, why is it only applying to parliamentary elections?

We have two important triennial election processes, and I would suggest that if, as Minister Little has said, the risks of undue influence and interference are very real—and I agree with his statement—why has he exempted half of those two triennial processes from this bill? Surely, the risk of electoral malpractice at the local level is just as great and should be dealt with in exactly the same way, because if we’re going to have what is being described as substantial reform to our political system in an attempt to prevent foreign interference in our elections, it should apply to all our elections to ensure that there is consistency and to ensure that those who may have ill intent towards us don’t have an opportunity to get around it at the parliamentary level just by going through the door at the local government level.

Local elections have the potential to be just as susceptible to foreign interference as parliamentary elections, and possibly more so. So I hope that the Minister is going to respond to that, because local government decision-making is often less well-scrutinised and doesn’t receive the same media attention that we receive in this House as central government decision-making. So surely it’s important that the measures are consistent.

The next thing, of course, is he’s got to give an answer to the question that we have asked repeatedly now for several hours as we’ve gone through the first two readings and the committee stage, which is why on earth are we having this urgency at all? There’s been no consultation with the Opposition. The changes were announced while we were in the middle of our caucus meeting yesterday, so the opportunity to deal with them was really only during the lunch adjournment before we came into the House in question time. That is insulting. That is totally inappropriate. More importantly, it flies in the face of well-established constitutional convention that electoral reform measures are done with the best of consultation, with the best of agreement and consensus across the House, and with the best of expert involvement, because it is so important that political parties don’t enact electoral measures to their own advantage.

That’s why, last night, I used the term “screw the scrum” to the Government’s advantage, which the Hon Tracey Martin objected to, and I didn’t get a chance to reply to her then. It’s the fact that they have not followed that well-established and very important constitutional convention, and I ask them to explain the urgency and to explain why they’ve flown in the face of very well-established and important constitutional procedure. I hope that the Minister will take a call to explain that.

I want to move on in the time remaining—I hope that I get a second call—to a number of other questions that I’ve got for the Minister, because he’ll be aware of the fact that a number of commentators, last night and this morning, have been decrying what is happening here. Nobody objects to what the intent is, but they believe that this is very poor lawmaking, as is so often the case when measures are introduced under urgency, in a rushed and non-consultative way.

This is a bill that is poorly drafted. It won’t fulfil all of the Government’s clearly stated objectives—that’s not just my opinion; that’s the opinion of constitutional experts who have been watching what’s been going on. Now, some of them might just be dismissed as people who wouldn’t necessarily favour the Government, but I think that would be a very simplistic approach for the Minister and his Government to take. So let me put some of their concerns to the Minister and see if he can respond. From Jordan Williams, we’ve got, in a media release that I saw early this morning: “Justice Minister”—

Hon Peeni Henare: Was that his apology?

Hon TIM MACINDOE: I beg your pardon?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Order! Ministers should not interject from the chair.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Thank you, Mr Chair. I was about to say that Jordan Williams, in a reply this morning, asked “Justice Minister Andrew Little to clarify whether the ban on foreign donations to political parties will also prevent foreign donations made via ‘foundations’ connected to political parties.”, and that was the very important point that both the Hon Dr Nick Smith and the Hon Gerry Brownlee were making.

We must have an answer to that question. It would be totally unacceptable for this debate to conclude without that question being very clearly and appropriately answered, because that is the issue that the commentators, and that’s the issue that the public, want to know about. That’s the thing that is raising most public concern, and we’ve got to get that right.

Mr Williams went on to say that “If a ban on foreign donations results in more political parties setting up ‘independent’ foundations to accept donations on their behalf or for their benefit, then this law could end up having a negative effect on transparency.” How does the Government respond to that really important—

Chris Penk: Good point—unintended consequences.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: —observation, which, as Mr Penk has just said, effectively amounts to not just unintended consequences but deeply adverse chilling consequences.

Mr Williams concluded: “This kind of difficulty in the detail is why important legislation should go through the scrutiny of a select committee process, rather than being rushed through under extraordinary urgency.” Well, it’s not extraordinary urgency, but I know what he means. It is under urgency and it’s totally inappropriate.

The Government needs to respond to all of that, and, as I’ve said, the rushed nature of this particular measure has been the subject of considerable speculation and comment in this morning’s media. I was watching The AM Show earlier and I heard Duncan Garner opining on this at some length. So I want to ask the Minister how does he respond to Duncan Garner’s opinion on this morning’s AM Show when he—Mr Garner—also asked why is the measure being rushed through the House under urgency when the reason for doing so has not been explained. Unless I’ve been asleep—and I don’t think I have been—can anybody tell me if we’ve had an explanation?

Hon Members: No.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: No—not one. No one speaking in this debate at any stage has explained to us why this measure is being rushed through under urgency, when there is so much support for it.

If the process was being conducted in a much more respectful and collegial way, we could all be bringing the best of our minds to it, taking on board the expert opinion we would have heard through the select committee process, and ensuring that we have a law that is fit for purpose and that achieves the objectives we’re all committed to, rather than having another piece of rushed legislation from a Minister who adopts his arrogant “I know best” approach, which we have seen so often and where, quite clearly, we will have flawed, imperfect law with loopholes in it, and—as Mr Williams noted this morning—it has the potential to make things worse by not bringing these murky foundations under its ambit.

That’s why I am strongly in support of my colleague Dr Nick Smith’s amendment. I commend it to the committee. He simply wants to insert the words “or to any incorporated or unincorporated foundation or trust that is associated with or supports the candidate” in clause 5 before subclause (1), which relates to candidate donations. There’s a similar provision in clause 1 after subclause (5) in relation to party donations. Does any member of this committee object to that idea? Can any member of this committee explain why we wouldn’t want to do that? I’m still listening. I haven’t heard a single answer—not one—so I assume that silence is consent. I assume, therefore, that there’ll be unanimous support for Dr Smith’s amendment, and I look forward to the voting on it when that will happen.

If the Minister wasn’t so arrogant—and I’m sorry to have to describe him in that way, but to have behaved in this way, as he has done now on four occasions in relation to electoral law, there’s no other way of describing it. Arrogant, high-handed, taking this “I know best” mentality and firing abuse at the Opposition in his first reading speech last night, even though we were going to support the measure—that seemed to me an extraordinary way of going about trying to retain our support. Why, when we had to listen to all that abuse, if he genuinely wants sound, constructive, effective, fit for purpose legislation, is he taking this high-handed approach when, as has been pointed out many times, we could have had a short select committee process but given people the time to comment, still have dealt with this matter very early in the new year if necessary, and have had everything in place well in time for the election.

MATT KING (National—Northland): Thank you, Mr Chair—a short contribution on this bill. I asked myself, when it came through, why are they doing this? What is the purpose? I just can’t understand why they’ve pushed us into urgency. I had my Māori Affairs Committee cancelled because of this urgency. Two of the members are in this Chamber. We’ve got a heavy workload and we are sitting here arguing about this bill under urgency, and it doesn’t even solve the problem, if there is such a problem.

We’re going to support the legislation. We’re going to support it, but why can it not be done properly in a normal process?

Hon Damien O’Connor: Why are you so sensitive to it?

MATT KING: We’re not sensitive to it—we’re not sensitive to it. We are not running a foundation where the donations are not disclosed. We are not worried one bit. That’s why we are supporting it. But we’d even support a shortened select committee process so that members of the public and experts would come in and we could make a decent law, so we can make a bill that actually is going to solve the problem. But no, this Government says no.

We’re into protecting New Zealand democracy from overseas influence, but I don’t actually see evidence to support that we have a problem. The bill does nothing even if there was. Now, if this Government was serious, they would ban all overseas donations or make it so that only eligible people that can vote can donate, or they would include the incorporated foundation amendment that the Hon Nick Smith had put in. This doesn’t even cover the New Zealand First scandal, and that’s the foundation scandal. That stinks.

To introduce legislation under urgency, it’s not justified, so why are they doing it? So I take a step back and I think, OK, this Government are in full PR spin at the moment. They had a pretty terrible poll result, and the serious allegations surrounding the New Zealand First Foundation were in the media and it was getting some impact. Then they come out with this—they rush this out. To me, this Government is in a massive, colossal diversion PR mode. If it wasn’t so serious, it would be laughable, what they are doing. New Zealanders are watching them.

Now, the Hon Nick Smith made many valuable points which the Government cannot counter—they cannot counter. I watched a bit of body language, and I see a lot of heads down, because this Government knows that what they’re doing is wrong. They’re seeking to find a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist, but, if it did exist, I would suggest New Zealand First members should take a look in the mirror. New Zealanders know this Government are a lot of talk and they’re not delivering, and this bill is a classic case of that. It’s solving a problem. The first thing that the Hon Andrew Little said in his PR was that they were dealing with a problem, and that problem doesn’t exist. They were banning overseas donations. Well, that law’s already evident. All they’re doing is dropping the level. Never has this Parliament seen a Government that has promised so much and delivered so little.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I want to reinforce that in debating Part 1 of this bill, we are dealing with a bill that National members hadn’t even seen 24 hours ago, and the extraordinary situation we have where Parliament is being asked to ram through over 17 detailed changes to electoral law without the experience, without the expertise, of either the Electoral Commission or officials.

I want to highlight particularly the seriousness of the issues that we are dealing with. Professor Andrew Geddis, who I think is widely respected across the Parliament as one of New Zealand’s electoral law experts, said the conduct of the Government has been such that it is putting at risk New Zealand’s ranking as one of the most transparent and least corrupt nations.

Hon Damien O’Connor: This from The Hollow Men—this from The Hollow Men.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That’s exactly—Mr O’Connor—the words of what Andrew Geddis said in reference to the issues of the New Zealand First Foundation.

Here’s the part that is unexplainable. We know from the figures in the regulatory impact statement that the level of foreign donations covered by this bill amount to $5,000 per year across all the political parties. We equally know that New Zealand First, that did not declare a single donation at the last election, received $500,000 in donations to a foundation that was kept secret, and it received 10 times more anonymous donations than any other party, at $340,000. So here’s my question: if we’re concerned about the integrity of our democracy, should we be more worried about the $840,000 anonymously going to New Zealand First, or should we be concerned about the $5,000 of average donations across the board to all political parties covered by this bill? Eight hundred and forty thousand or $5,000: which do you think has had the greater level of influence?

Here’s what New Zealanders know: the outcome of the 2017 election was determined by New Zealand First. New Zealand First was the only political party—

Kieran McAnulty: We’ve heard this before—repetition.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —that did not declare a single donation. New Zealand First was the—well, the Labour member is concerned that I’m repeating it, because it’s important, and I would challenge that Labour member to get to his feet and defend it. I’ll tell you how important it is: it determined who was the Government of New Zealand. Do New Zealanders—

Hon Damien O’Connor: We’re waiting for the Serious Fraud Office report.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: And I challenge Mr O’Connor: does he believe New Zealanders have a right to know who the funders were that determined the outcome of election 2017? Absolute silence. I know what New Zealanders think. New Zealanders heard that they were going to be the most open, transparent Government ever, but on the crucial issue of who funded New Zealand First, who decided the outcome of election 2017, the Green Party and the Labour Party are apologists for the skulduggery that has gone on within New Zealand First, that is absent from this bill.

It is appalling that we are now almost an hour into the debate and not one Government member has been prepared to comment on this crucial part of this bill—not one. Not one Labour member, on a bill that is being rushed through in 24 hours that the Opposition didn’t even know was on the Government programme—not a single Labour member has been prepared to take a call. I just ask them a very simple question: why would we not include in the definition of a political donation that which is made to a foundation or a trust associated with a political party? If we’re really serious about transparency, about openness, and about integrity of our electoral system, why would we not address the issue that’s been on the front page of the Dominion Post for four days out of the last two weeks? Why are we like ostriches, sticking our heads in the sand and saying, “Hear no evil, see no evil.”, around the issue of foundations? Why are we taking an approach of seeing no evil and hearing no evil?

Let’s not talk about New Zealand First and its foundation, but, by the way, we’ve got this big problem because we have an average of 60 donations a year of an average value of $66 each from foreign sources over the last seven years. I’ll say it again: this bill deals with the situation of an average of—I’ll give the exact number—69 donations per year, of an average of $66 each. This bill deals with those by putting a limit of $50 on them. Why would we deal with that and turn a blind eye to the issue of foundations and incorporated societies, deliberately designed—as the papers have revealed—to get around the declaration requirements of our electoral law?

The next question I’d love the Minister in the chair to answer is this: how are political parties to reasonably meet the enforcement requirements of what will become an illegal practice on 1 January 2020? That is, I looked on the web, and every one of the political parties in this Parliament has a website for donations. Everybody knows that the web is internationally accessible. If a person in Aussie or the UK or America jumps on the web on 1 January and says, “Hey, I happen to love this particular political party and I want to make a donation.”, and they donate a hundred bucks, they are committing an illegal practice under this bill.

So my view, and my question to the Minister, is: when we have the requirement in the bill that a party must engage in reasonable steps to prevent it, what is required on 1 January? For the bulk of donations these days, that are made over the net, what level of due diligence is required? If somebody sends a $100 donation in on the internet on 1 January to any one of the registered political parties in New Zealand, what practical requirement do they need to make? This is a serious issue; I don’t want my political party being slurred with a view that it’s involved in an illegal activity.

I’d be particularly worried if I were the Greens. They’ve had 20 times more foreign donations, according to the regulatory impact statement, than any other party, and so—

Marama Davidson: We’re not worried.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, I’m simply saying: what is the Minister and the Government’s expectation of political parties? Isn’t it interesting? I challenge the Green Party on their simple numbers. How is it possible that the Green Party has championed banning foreign donations for the last five years but has got 50 times more foreign donations, according to the regulatory impact statement, than any other party? This sounds like preaching one thing and doing exactly the opposite. Now, I’m not arguing that the average donation was about 60 bucks a pop. I’m not arguing that the Green Party’s policy was necessarily affected by those donations. But what I do say to the Green Party is this: I’m not worried about the person in the UK who provides a donation to the Green Party, or for that matter to the National Party, of 60 bucks. I’ll tell you what I am worried about: I’m worried about the party that determined the outcome of the last election receiving $500,000 in secret donations to a foundation. I’m concerned that they received 10 times more anonymous donations than any other party—a total of $340,000. My view is that $840,000 represents far more mischief than the 20-odd donations of about 60 bucks each on average that are covered by this bill.

That’s why I say to members opposite: if you are serious about improving the integrity of our democracy, why would you not support my amendment to include foundations and incorporated societies associated with candidates or political parties, to make sure that we do actually have sunlight and disclosure in this area? The honest truth is this: it is only a matter of political convenience that Labour and the Greens are turning a blind eye to the scandal enveloping New Zealand First. They are only in the chair as Minister, only the Government, because of New Zealand First’s illegal activity around election donations. They don’t want to close that loophole. They want—[Time expired]

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): So a question for the Minister: if the Government parties are not concerned enough to put Dr Smith’s tabled amendment into the legislation, bringing the scrutiny on foundations and other organisations that offer financial support to parties in New Zealand, does that mean that the Green Party, for example, may now set up their own foundation and receive donations of an anonymous type into that foundation—as we know, they are able to call on this international network of people who are prepared to support their style of politics—and have absolutely no scrutiny over that money whatsoever? Is that what this means?

Is it a fact, then, that the Government accepts the arrangement that New Zealand First has: that a donation into their foundation is not a donation to a political party and therefore does not have to be declared? Is it their position, also, that if a donation is made directly to the political party—in the case of New Zealand First, $340,000, with the other $500,000 going into the foundation—that also does not need to be declared? These might be matters for the Electoral Commission, but we’re here altering the Electoral Act that that commission works on. So it seems to me that when we are right in the thick of the controversy over the missing $840,000 from New Zealand First, there is no mention of how that should be accounted for in the future.

In the National Party, we’ve run a foundation for quite a few years. We make no secret of that, but every donation that’s made to that foundation is declared, because it’s absolutely clear that the donation is being made for political purposes. So if we are now going to have a situation where, if an overseas donor—

Clayton Mitchell: Show us.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —makes an anonymous donation of—

Clayton Mitchell: Open up your books.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There we go—that’s fantastic. The bagman from New Zealand First has just said, “Show us the books.” I’ll tell you what, fella, go down to the Electoral Commission. Look at the return and you will be able to see the books. But, if we want to see New Zealand First’s books, oh no, they’re under Winston’s mattress somewhere, tucked away where no one can see them—a long list of foreign donors from all sorts of Eastern European countries and others, putting into the coffers of New Zealand First, and secretly made available to the party for all sorts of activity. Come on. The pot has got to stop calling the kettle black. That is unbelievable.

So let’s get back to the bill. Does this bill mean that anonymous donations in excess of $50 made on a website, perhaps to some kind of foundation that supports the Green Party, for example, or green politics, some kind of—what are they called in the United States?—political action group gets set up. They’ve got no particular affiliation, but they might make donations for various political activities, and they would be prepared to declare themselves. No question about that—that’s no problem. But their stream of funding could remain anonymous. Their stream of funding could remain totally anonymous, because there would be no requirement in the New Zealand law for that political action group or political foundation or trust or whatever structure you might want to have to declare where their money came from.

So it seems very, very odd that we’re here looking at a problem that could be worth only about $5,000 on an annual basis—anonymous donations to political parties—but, in fact, we are ignoring the fact that there is a massive loophole here available and used so far by New Zealand First and available to others inappropriately to avoid scrutiny of where the money comes from. A simple question to the Minister is: why? Why is it not in there? What’s the problem? Why is it so hard to insist that a political action group set up to receive funds for political purposes does not have to declare their anonymous donations?

NICOLA WILLIS (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. In this contribution I want to ask a number of questions to the Minister, because I think what is really left very clear to anyone reading this bill is the huge gaps in terms of addressing the problem it says that it seeks to address. We’ve had contributions earlier in these debates from the Green Party, in particular, who’ve talked about the influence of big foreign money. We’ve had others talking about the scourge of foreign donations. And yet, when you go and read the regulatory impact statement and you look at these issues as they’ve played out in New Zealand over recent weeks, I am left with big questions about what this bill will actually achieve.

So the first question I want to ask the Minister is why he is blaming National for what is not in the bill, because, certainly, the Minister has done a show of power in introducing this bill and passing it through as quickly as he possibly can. Certainly, it is clear that he could have the things in there that he wants to have there. In particular, I want to know why the Minister hasn’t progressed the issues that are raised directly in this regulatory impact statement—the risk that foreign states could circumvent any new rules that ban overseas donations by providing donations through a New Zealand citizen or resident or New Zealand - registered company?

I ask that question because it’s very relevant given events of recent weeks. As Dr Nick Smith has said, in recent weeks we’ve had the front page of New Zealand newspapers questioning the existence of the New Zealand First Foundation and those who donate to it. So my question to the Minister is simple: is there anything in this bill that we are discussing today that would prevent New Zealand First, say, getting a donation from a Russian actor into the New Zealand First Foundation and the New Zealand First Foundation later using that money to support their political campaigning? Is there anything in this bill to prevent that? Is there anything in this bill to prevent a Russian actor potentially contributing to a New Zealand - based company that then donates to the New Zealand Food Foundation? Are these loopholes that will still exist, and, if they do still exist, is the Minister confident that he is truly doing what is required to limit foreign influence on New Zealand’s democratic process?

These are very important questions. Is it possible that the New Zealand First Foundation could continue to channel money, or could begin to channel money, from foreign actors? I’d like to hear the Minister’s view on that. In particular, I want to draw his attention to new section 207JA(1)(a) in the bill, which uses the phrase “on behalf of”, because I think it’s very important that we consider what the burden of proof is that the Electoral Commission or others would have to reach in order to demonstrate that someone was providing a donation on behalf of a foreign actor. It’s not clear in the bill what “on behalf of” means. This will, I am sure, be a question of legal relevance. Of course, there has been no select committee process. There has been no scrutiny of this phrasing and what it means and how it would be interpreted by legal experts, by academic experts, or by any of the hundreds of New Zealanders who might have something to say about it. So I’d ask the Minister for his view of what “on behalf of” means and what that represents in terms of a threshold.

The second question that I have is a very important one, which is why the Minister rejected the advice from his ministry set out in this regulatory impact statement that said that it was an operationally weaker approach to not align the anonymous donation limit with the foreign donation limit. Specifically, the regulatory impact statement says, “It is likely to be less effective in stopping foreign donors from supporting candidates and parties through anonymous donations”. So my question for the Minister is does he have any concerns that there will be people who will continue to make donations to New Zealand who are, in fact, foreign actors, who will do so in an anonymous way?

I would again point out that New Zealand First is well known for being the largest recipient of anonymous donations. So I would ask the Minister how will he satisfy himself—how should we satisfy ourselves—that those anonymous donations are not sourced from foreign actors? Can we really be sure that this bill is closing that gap? Why is it that he rejected the ministry advice on that point? Why did he reject the ministry’s preference that that limit be lowered at the same time? Does he have any concerns about those anonymous donations being used?

The third question that I want to ask is this question about the boundaries between what is considered as a foreign donation to a party and what is considered as a foreign donation to another entity. Again, the bill sets out this particular issue that will be relevant in the 2020 election around groups that are campaigning on referenda. Of course, this is significant, because, as we know, referenda and the debates around them can impact on the way that an election is carried out and can impact on the way in which parties are perceived and votes are cast.

Again, the regulatory impact statement specifically points out that this bill doesn’t restrict donations to organisations or groups that are campaigning for one side or another on a referendum campaign. I ask the Minister whether he is concerned that that leaves open the ability of foreign actors to unduly influence our democracy. And if he does have that concern, is this something that the Government thinks should be actually addressed prior to the 2020 election in which we’re having at least two referendums? Is this a significant issue? Is it something that the Minister has considered and has addressed?

As I’ve said earlier, we’ve had people in this House talk about their deep concern about the influence of big foreign money. Well, surely, if that is a genuine concern, we would be concerned about the way in which that could influence the outcome of a referendum, or is there some reason that I’m missing, that’s not in the regulatory impact statement, that the Minister hasn’t addressed, as to why the Minister is comfortable with that and why the Government is comfortable with that?

Finally, my final question is around why this bill is limited to general election parties and candidates, and why it doesn’t extend to local body elections and candidates. It would seem to me that if, really, the intent of this bill is to ensure there isn’t undue foreign influence on our democratic processes then, actually, local democratic processes are just as important. In fact, having consistency in the regimes seems simple and obvious and could be achieved with a very simple clause within this bill, and I’d ask the Minister why that wasn’t considered.

Of course, I won’t accept as an answer the Minister saying, “Oh, well, there wasn’t time to think about it and consult.” Let’s be honest, this bill hasn’t been consulted on in any way. In fact, the regulatory impact statement is very clear that the party secretaries and the parties themselves—those who will be charged with working out whether a donation is foreign sourced—haven’t been consulted at all. There’s been no opportunity for parties to say, “Well, here’s what we think could be an issue. Here’s where we think the burden of proof might need to lie. Here’s the sort of evidentiary basis that you might need to consider.” In fact, I would wager that political parties could have been quite helpful—the party secretaries and others, and the lawyers involved in these issues—in talking about how this would actually effect their operations. But they have not been consulted, so I don’t accept the argument that “Oh, well, we couldn’t consult local government either.”, because the same threshold should apply.

So I do want to know why local actors have been left out, because, when you read the regulatory impact statement, what comes through most clearly is the view that, actually, this bill will do very little to really address the genuine issues with foreign donations. What this bill does is—“send a signal” is the language used—send a signal. I want to know from the Minister whether he is satisfied that sending a signal is sufficient, when we already have evidence in New Zealand on the front pages of our newspapers of a particular party taking extreme steps to avoid the disclosure of money that they are receiving, and New Zealanders are already unable to see who it is that is contributing to a political party because of the steps they have taken to work around things. So my question is: why does the Minister think that this sends a signal that will have any impact at all, given the number of holes in it, and given the number of questions his own officials have asked about it?

Is he not concerned that the lack of scrutiny, the lack of select committee process, could in themselves create more loopholes that further raise concerns from the New Zealand public? I would wager that we will see in the next year or two ongoing significant questions about the ways in which foreign actors are able to influence our political regime, and I would put to the Minister: does he share that concern; and, if not, why not? Thank you.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. We’ve had now a succession of members opposite who’ve all raised the same question or questions, and so I think it’s appropriate to provide the answer, and, hopefully, to provide the answer once to the questions asked multiple times.

Just taking the final point of the member who’s just resumed her seat, Nicola Willis, which is: why confine it just to general elections? Can I just acknowledge, for those who might be watching Parliament for the first time, this stage of the debate on a piece of legislation is a very close and detailed examination of every clause in a particular bill, which is what we call something before it becomes a law. And, right now, we are talking about a law that seeks to ban foreign donations to political parties and political candidates.

So the reason why this bill is confined to general elections is because in the circumstances that we have now, with evidence publicly given, particularly by our security and intelligence agencies, about the risks and the threats that we face like many other democracies of undue foreign interference and foreign influence, we have to take appropriate action. But because we’re doing so under urgency, because we haven’t had the benefit of the findings of the Justice Committee’s inquiry into the 2017 general election, I have made the decision to confine it just to general elections, because next year is the year of a general election. We want to have the regime in place that affords protection to New Zealand voters and citizens to make sure that our democracy isn’t unduly interfered with.

On the issue of gaps in the bill—and I hear the points from the National Party and there is a bit of pot calling the kettle black, because if you have a look at the tabled amendment that is in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith, there is no reference, for example, to donations made to registered companies that might therefore be a vehicle through which overseas donations are routed. There is only one party in this Parliament that is currently the subject of a Serious Fraud Office investigation; it happens to be the National Party. There is only one party who in their returns in the 2017 general election showed an extraordinary number of donations to candidates from their head office, and that is the National Party.

So if the issue is about a law—or actions and behaviours that on the face of it could defeat the intent of the legislation—there is plenty we can look at. This bill deals with an issue that the Justice Committee is right across, which is the risk and threat of foreign interference and influence in our electoral system through donations. It bans them subject to a de minimis sort of threshold. But what it does, most importantly, and in answer to the questions about whether it will really stop, the sort of things that people are concerned about, particularly going through New Zealand - registered companies and using New Zealand persons as defined in the legislation as a funnel through which donations could be made, I refer members—again as I did in my opening remarks—to clause 8 of the bill and to clause 10 the bill. Clause 8 sets up the positive duty on party general secretaries—and let’s remember, party general secretaries are subject to a number of statutory duties right now—to ascertain that the donation is not a foreign donation.

And of course, the words—and Chris Penk will enjoy this. There is, in subsection (1) of proposed section 207JA, set out in clause 8, the word “a” before the word “donation”. And then, following that, in paragraph (a), the word “the” before “donation” tells you that it’s not just donations that are suspected to be foreign; it is actually every donation that is covered. Every donation will achieve a level of scrutiny because that’s the way you fulfil that duty. But then the belt and braces kicks in in clause 10 and new subsection (3) of section 207L, which is a defence to the charge, and it’s very clear what that defence entails. If a party general secretary has not taken—in a situation where there were reasonable grounds to suspect that a donation exceeding $50 came from or was made on behalf of an overseas person, then the defence will not be available and the offence will be complete.

That’s the belts and braces approach and answers Nicola Willis’ questions and answers Gerry Brownlee’s questions and answers every question raised by members opposite. That is the belts and braces approach. That is the protection that New Zealanders will have against foreign donations interceding in our democracy and in our general election. The bill is deliberately kept very simple because of the circumstances that we’re in and the subject matter that we’re dealing with, and that is the reason why this House should get on and pass this bill.

KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Chair. A call just to highlight a couple of issues in relation to the tabled amendment in the name my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith and the value of it, which seems to have been missed by a couple of members opposite—namely, one of the Green Party members last night, and also the Minister in the chair, the Hon Andrew Little. The wording is very deliberate—to talk about a couple of entities that have the effect of being associated with or supporting the candidate.

So the idea here, for the benefit of the Minister and anyone else listening, is that what we want is a regime that is functionally going to meet the aim of the bill, because if we’ve got a bill that says that it’s to protect democracy by restricting foreign donations, then it should be every entity that is capable, effectively, of being like the candidate or being like the party in the context of donations. So that’s why Dr Smith, with wording that is, I think, very good—I couldn’t have drafted it better myself—it’s the same in each case. The intent there very much is to highlight that the intent of the law is what we should be concerned with as well as ensuring that, obviously, the letter of the law meets that aim.

Now, I’ll come back to the Minister’s point around also, potentially, having companies included in that. I think it’s a reasonable point that he raises and I do want to address that shortly.

But the Green Party member last night talked about shell companies, and I’d used that phrase in relation to a point that had been made by an outside commentator, a point that he might have been able to make had we had a select committee process of any kind. It’s a point too that’s been on my mind and in those of a few others who are genuinely concerned about—worrying about—undue foreign influence in our politics. The nature of a shell company is that it’s a company that is set up with no other purpose than, essentially, for funnelling donations in this context, or it might have some other sort of pretty nominal purpose. And the point about the bill that is being put forward is really that, essentially, that’s the loophole that remains. What we’ve got to aim to get through is to close these loopholes, and that’s what Dr Smith’s amendment is intended to do. And so it is that I sort of feel like I shouldn’t need to point this out to fellow members of the committee, but the whole point is to close these loopholes.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): I decided to make a speech here this morning because I’ve sat in my office and other committee meetings, hearing these attacks on a party called New Zealand First from the biggest bunch of you-know-whats this Parliament has ever seen.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Answer the question.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Answer the question, Mr Smith. I’ll answer the question. That’s a man who told Parliament that he’d made a declaration to the parliamentary commissioner, excepting when I asked the parliamentary commissioner, she wrote to me and said he did not. So, in short, did he tell the truth to Parliament? No, he didn’t.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Order! I really don’t—I think that is against Standing Orders—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What is?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): To accuse a member of deliberately misleading.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I didn’t say that, did I? That’s your inference from my conclusion in my speech. I said, “except Margaret Bazley told me that he didn’t.” Now you infer from that he’s a liar. Go right ahead, but I didn’t say it.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, I’m sorry, but just a minute. I am dealing with my concern about the comment you made following that, which then accused Dr Smith of telling an untruth.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Read the Hansard.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, I don’t have to because—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, you do.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): —I’m the Speaker.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: You’ve got to provide evidence like everybody else. You’re not a law unto yourself here.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Excuse me. Excuse me. Actually, I am in the Chair and I’m trying to deal with this. I would ask you to withdraw and apologise because you have made an unparliamentary accusation against a member.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Madam Chairperson, I want to know what the accusation was that I’m meant to be apologising for.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’ve explained that to you.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, no—you haven’t, madam. You’ve made the claim, but you haven’t provided the evidence, and you, in your position, are required to do that.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I am not. I am asking the member to withdraw and apologise.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I withdraw and apologise.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Thank you.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Mr Smith—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. It might only be a few seconds—about 40 seconds—into the member’s contribution to this debate, but this is a debate about this electoral bill, not about the past or any particular one member in this House. We’ve been all called to speak to the debate, and we have, and the Minister of Justice has answered questions that have been raised legitimately as a consequence of that debate, and I think we should continue along those lines.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I thank you.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Speaking to the point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Look, I don’t need anything. I’m sure that the member is going to get to—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. You have sat here for the last hour and heard accusation after accusation about the past, and now, all of a sudden, the defender of that behaviour gets up and says you can’t mention the past. Surely, he is gainsaid by his own colleague’s action.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I thank the member for that point of order. We are debating Part 1 of the bill in front of the House, and I’m sure that the member is going to continue his speech and direct that towards the bill in front of us.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. If that is the case, how do you describe what you’ve allowed to go on here in the last hour of attacks against a political party, baseless as they are, and they will be proven to be so?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Look, I don’t need any help—thank you. Thank you. First of all, I have not been in the Chair for the past hour; I took the Chair at 10 o’clock. I have listened very carefully to the debate in that time, and there have been questions asked of the Minister about parts of this bill before the House that might address concerns that have been in the media. Now, that is entirely appropriate. That is entirely in accord with Standing Orders because they are addressing parts of the bill. They’re asking questions of the Minister about the parts of the bill. I’m sure that the member is able to address those issues in relation to the bill.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Let me say that there was a speech last night made in this respect—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Are we continuing now with your speech?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Of course I am continuing. Did I say point of order before I rose to my feet that time?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No. I just want to check that you have the right amount of time.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No—well just follow the script, Madam Chairperson. Even you should be able to do that.

The reality of the matter is that there was a speech—

Hon Member: He’s riled up, isn’t he? He doesn’t like the truth. He’s not liking the truth now.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No—of course I don’t like it. I don’t like people with a capital “H” as their major feature of their character. The people who are screaming out over there evince that.

Last night, there was a speech made in this Parliament that should have made the headlines all around this country. It was about a political party—and I want to know how this Part 1 is going to catch this sort of behaviour—that went offshore and raised $150,000. Just one donation—one donation—$150,000. All the emails and all the texts and everything associated with that arrangement were offered to this Parliament, but not one of those people over there, acting as though they’re as pure as the driven snow, asked for a shred of evidence. You know why? Because they’re as guilty as sin, and they’re not going to win getting away with the kind of behaviour they thought to get away with.

You can look as cross-eyed as you like, Mr Penk, but you’re not going to win here. The fact is he was the one that shouted out last night. He shouted to Jami-Lee Ross. He said, “But you did it.” See? There he was, a colleague of the very guy that did it, and he’s shouting out “But you did it.”, as though, somehow, that sort of behaviour, or that sort of comment, exonerates their attempt to get around, in the most devious way, the law of this country.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Tell us about your foundation.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I’m very happy to tell us about the foundation, because it’s based on the National Party’s foundation. Isn’t it amazing? It’s based on the National Party’s foundation. Oh no—these people are so born to rule—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: He did ask me.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s true, and I apologise on behalf of members on this side. We won’t ask that member any more questions. But we do need to come back to the bill. On the substantive stuff, I’ve already said quite loudly several times in this House today that everything relating to the National Party Foundation is available for scrutiny as part of public record. It’s not our foundation that’s not available for public scrutiny. We now should come back to the bill, and perhaps the member the Deputy Prime Minister might like to explain why the Government doesn’t want to have scrutiny on foundations. We welcome it; why doesn’t he?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): If I can respond to that point of order. First of all, it wasn’t a point of order; it was a debating point. Second of all, we are not going to continue along this line, because there were interjections asking questions and the member on his feet has every right to answer those interjections. So I’ll now call the Rt Hon Winston Peters to continue with his speech, speaking to the bill.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Speaking to the bill in Part 1, the reality is that all these matters should be transparent within the law. Can I say, with respect to the last question from over the other side there, in respect of New Zealand First, this matter is being examined by the very authorities qualified to do so. But they don’t include the biased media, and they don’t include the biased, prejudiced, and deceitful members of the Opposition. Simply this: it won’t stop there, of course, because I’ve got senior National Party members contacting New Zealand First saying, “Why on earth did they start this attack, because it’s going to rebound on us.”

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Could we talk about the bill?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yeah, well, I want to know—if we speak to Part 1—how does the Minister feel about that? Is there going to be some sunlight—is there going to be the disinfectant of truth—shone on a certain political party that has had for years in excess of $100 million never disclosed ever. They have the gall and the audacity to rise in this Parliament and condemn by attempts by innuendo and slight a party that has behaved within the law and will be proven to be so. We are the ones who are volunteering to the Electoral Commission the information. We’re not asked for it. No, no—we’re volunteering it. But here comes the rub: you’re next, Mr Brownlee.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I seek leave of the House to table the letter from the former president of New Zealand First and treasurer seeking to be heard at the Justice Committee inquiry because of inappropriate financial dealings within New Zealand First. The letter is to the Justice Committee.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: This is rubbish. Sit down.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Excuse me.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It’s just rubbish.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Excuse me. It’s a legitimate seeking leave. Is that letter available on the website, or is that part of the—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It’s a letter that’s been sent and circulated to the Justice Committee.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): So it’s still within the—it hasn’t been released. It’s not a public letter.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It hasn’t, but, as I’ve been advised by the clerks, where a member of the public writes a submission or letter to a select committee, they may choose to make that document public. They have indicated they’re quite happy for it to be public, and that’s why I seek the leave of the committee of the whole House, in the interest of transparency and openness, to table the letter from the former—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): So they have indicated they are happy for that letter to be made public.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): In that case, I’ll put the leave.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No—it’s not a point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It is a point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): It isn’t. I beg your pardon. He has sought leave. There is no debate.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: The matter’s subject to committee.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The House—we’ve already had this. I am going to put the leave. Is there any objection to that letter being tabled? There is. There is objection.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Well, that was a particularly typical obfuscatory, arrogant, bombastic contribution from the leader of New Zealand First, who spent the best part of five minutes saying absolutely nothing. Nobody listening to this debate will have any more idea where they stand on any of the important issues than they did before he started.

I want to distil it down to one very simple question, which he failed to answer in amongst all the bombast and all the abuse that he fired over this side of the House, and that is: will New Zealand First vote for the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s tabled amendment? Will New Zealand First vote for the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s amendment, which will clear all the concerns that he’s speaking about?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: We don’t vote for hypocrisy.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: “We don’t vote for hypocrisy.” Oh my goodness. Doesn’t that just explain the utter hypocrisy we’ve just listened to for five minutes? I hope that the world is watching, because, apparently, the Russians hang on every word. So let’s hope that they all are. Utter hypocrisy—utterly disingenuous. All he needs to do is support Dr Nick Smith’s amendment, and we will have the disinfectant of sunlight that he apparently is calling for. But, oh no—we won’t get it; not from him.

Now, there is another question—there is another question. In his point of order, Dr Nick Smith has just sought leave to table a document. Unfortunately, leave was denied. Who by? The leader of New Zealand First, of course. He claimed—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Oh my goodness. Here we go again.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Which part of Part 1 of this bill is that member remotely referring to?

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Speaking to the point of order—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, I don’t need that, actually. I did listen, and the member was asking for support for an amendment that is actually on the Table. So that was in order. He’s moving off that now, but that was in order.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Thank you, Madam Chair, and, of course, I was responding to an interjection, and you have ruled previously in this debate that it’s perfectly legitimate to respond to an interjection. I want to make the point that we have tried to seek leave to have a letter tabled, and the member who took the call called out “rubbish”; twice, he called out “rubbish”. So what I want to ask him now is, is he denying that that letter exists?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It’s rubbish.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Oh, it’s rubbish!

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, hang on, hang on, hang on. First of all, I have supported the member with his first question relating to the amendment. But, now, his speaking time is not questioning members sitting opposite. I would now like him to come to the bill.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Thank you, Madam Chair—even though I was responding to his interjection?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yeah, but that doesn’t mean the rest of your speech carries on.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: OK, well, given the fact that he told us absolutely nothing that added anything constructive to this debate, we’ll move back to those who’ve made more useful contributions. I do want to thank the Minister of Justice, who has returned to the chair, for standing up to answer questions, because we had had utter silence for more than an hour from the other sides of the House. And we were beginning to think, well, here we were again under urgency, no select committee process, and all the Government was wanting to do was shut it down. We’ve already had a closure motion from Mr McAnulty.

But I have to say to the Minister of Justice, he only answered one question, and even that he did inadequately because he told us that intelligence agencies have advised him and the House that there’s a need to take action but that he has decided—the Minister of Justice has decided—that without a select committee process, this measure should be confined solely to general elections. Our question, of course, was: why not include local body elections? And “I have decided”, says Mr Little, “that without a select committee process, we should confine it to general elections only, rather than including local body elections.”

Well, that exactly explains why he should have followed longstanding constitutional convention and due process and put this matter out for full consultation; not the opposite—of him saying, yet again, “I know best.” Well, he wasn’t in the chair earlier when I asked him how he responded to Mr Garner’s comments on The AM Show this morning, but Mr Garner was asking why we’re pushing this measure through under urgency. He said there was no obvious answer and he smelt a rat. Clearly, the rat is sitting over on that side of the Chamber at the moment, because, in particular, what Mr Garner was talking about was the New Zealand First Foundation.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I won’t have a dysfunctional geriatric call me a rat, and I’m asking him to apologise.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, I think now it’s one all.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no, no. He can’t get away with that. Why didn’t you stop him—if you’re doing your job properly?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Ah, now the member is getting a bit close to the bone. There was an aspersion cast, and probably unparliamentary, but, unfortunately for the member, he just responded. So it’s one all, so let’s keep going. We’ve got 34 seconds.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I noticed that the clock has been—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, it hasn’t stopped. Keep going.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: The clock didn’t stop for the whole time, so I think that I’ve lost—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Keep going.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Well, I’m asking the Minister of Justice how he responds to Mr Garner, because we and the members of the public want to know—in particular, relating to this murky New Zealand First Foundation that’s become more murky, not less, as a result of the last contribution, which no members of their caucus have yet been willing to defend or explain. They’ve simply tried to deflect attention from it. I want to know from the Minister what conversations he’s had—[Time expired]

JO LUXTON (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): In his most recent contribution, the Minister said that he was answering all the questions that were asked of us as we were talking about the movement of money that might be considered an anonymous donation. And, then, the Minister pointed to the various duties that will fall upon the general secretaries or appropriate persons, authorised persons, inside political parties to ascertain where that donation came from. So the question I’ve got is: if the donation came from a trust or from a foundation or from a political action group or any other third-party group set up to support a particular type of politics, and that particular entity only—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You wouldn’t know the law at all, would you? You’re worse than that woodwork teacher.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Winston hates the workers; it’s unbelievable, actually. Can we go into that? I’m responding to an interjection now.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Sorry, can we stop the time. Now, you’re a senior member of this House, sir, and you know that to sit there and throw abuse across the Chamber—personal abuse—is not within the Standing Orders, and I’d ask you to stop because all it does is lead to disorder. [Interruption] I’m on my feet, and I’m asking the member to please not throw personal insults across the Chamber that will only lead to more disorder.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Just to recap: if an external group, separate from a political party, decides to make a donation to that political party, and the general secretary or the authorised person responsible in the party asks the question, “Where did the donation come from?”, well, is there a problem, if, in fact all that foundation is doing is distributing interest earnt on donations that are made to it. If it is, in fact, the capital fund, as our foundation is, and that donation is made, is there a requirement to go further than knowing that it was interest earnt on anonymous donations or donations to that political group, that funding group. Because there’d be no need for that group under this law to declare those donations. No need whatsoever. They don’t need to. But, in the case of the National Party, they do. We have no problem whatsoever. That’s all right, Mr Peters. We’re not the people that are running around at the moment trying to pretend that $840,000 worth of anonymous donations apparently came from the voting base of New Zealand First in small donations. If it was $50, it’d mean 17,000 people had to donate to New Zealand First. That’s more than half the people who voted for them.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. He has clearly got in to an area that’s not remotely connected with this bill, and you sit there and allow him to get away with it. Well, we are not going to sit here while he abridges the Standing Orders because he doesn’t have the intellectual capacity to understand what his parameters are. We are going to stop him. But what he’s actually doing is digging a hole and telling you all about the National Party and the way they operate. And I want to thank him very much for that context, but it’s outside the Standing Orders in terms of the subject of this debate: Part 1 of this bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, if the member had been paying attention to me, I was signalling to the member that he had to come back to the bill. Up until his last sentence, he was actually asking the Minister a question that was relevant to the bill. But he did vary off that, and I was signalling to him, quite clearly, to come back to the bill. So I am capable of doing this job.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: In my own defence, I was simply responding to a—what’s it called?—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Interjection.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —interjection from the other side of the Chamber. I was trying to find a more fluid word. The question still remains for the Minister to perhaps tell us if this amendment from Dr Smith is not to be supported, then what is there to stop a third-party political action group of some kind—trust, foundation, whatever you want to call it—receiving anonymous donations, putting them into a capital fund, and then making donations in their own name on the interest earned on those funds to any political party. And if the obligation on the general secretary or authorised person in each case simply says—sorry.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Can we stop the clock? I called the point of order a good five seconds ago—six seconds, actually. Why are we unable to respond to the interjections coming from the Deputy Prime Minister?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You haven’t been stopped.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: He’s also talking to the gallery, which I think you might have noticed. Oh, I’m not worried now. OK.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Is there a point of order?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There is.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You are able to respond, but it’s brief. As I said before, of course you can respond, but you keep it brief.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, perhaps I’ll take another call, and you’ll be generous enough to let me have it.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, you haven’t finished this one yet. Are we going?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Can we go back five seconds?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Ha, ha! No, keep going.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Then the question simply is: what would that situation be? Would it mean that the general secretary’s obligations are discharged simply by being told it is from the earnings on a capital sum from this particular organisation? Where in the bill does it say that it should be greater scrutiny than that?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Dr Smith, you’ve had four speeches already.

KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: He’s already put it—he can’t put it twice.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yes, you can.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 5 be agreed to:

before subclause (1), insert:

(1AAA) In section 207(2), definition of candidate donation, replace “or to any person on the candidate’s behalf,” with “to any person on the candidate’s behalf, or to any incorporated or unincorporated foundation or trust that is associated with or supports the candidate,”.

after subclause (5), insert:

(5A) In section 207(2), definition of party donation, replace “or to any person or body of persons on behalf of the party who are involved in the administration of the affairs of the party,” with “to any person or body of persons on behalf of the party who are involved in the administration of the affairs of the party, or to any incorporated or unincorporated foundation or trust that is associated with or supports the party,”.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Other amendments

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. This part of the bill deals with some associated but very important issues, ensuring the integrity of elections through controlling other forms of foreign influence. So the first of those defines the party secretary by functions that the person performs and says that the person designated as party secretary must live in New Zealand. The other major change, or minor change with significant impact, is that in relation to advertising, and it, effectively, says that advertising online or on social media must carry the same promoter statement or attribution that advertising in any other medium, particularly print and television and radio, also carries. That way, we know who is paying for advertising; we know who is trying to influence the electorate. These matters tidy away something that I think, given the presence of advertising on social media, might have been done some years ago, but it makes sense to do it now to address that issue that New Zealand, through this Parliament and its Justice Committee, and through reportage on the evidence gone to that committee, knows is a real risk for New Zealand. So on that basis, this simply tidies that away and closes the circle on foreign interference and foreign influence.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): It is just extraordinary that this very minor provision that requires a party secretary to be residing in New Zealand—that’s the only change in clause 16—is being rammed through Parliament under urgency. Now, there isn’t any record of any of our registered political parties ever having anybody live overseas, so the idea that we’ve got to ram through Parliament a bill which we only saw less than 24 hours ago because there’s this great concern about foreigners becoming secretaries of political parties is a pretty extraordinary measure. It is quite silly that Parliament is being asked to rush through such a minor, small change that poses such little risk, albeit a measure that the select committee, in hearing submissions, was very open and supportive of—making that very minor change.

I do draw attention to the committee the contribution from the New Zealand First Minister Tracey Martin, who made the point that party secretaries are volunteers and they need to be respected—those that volunteer in political parties—and we on this side of the committee agree with that. What I find extraordinary is that while we want to respect the role of party secretaries, we have the New Zealand First leader’s lawyer, Mr Brian Henry, threatening to sue the party secretary and office holders of New Zealand First. Is the reason that the Government wants to make sure they are in New Zealand so that New Zealand First is able to silence and penalise those office holders that are blowing the whistle on the financial mispractice that has been going on within New Zealand First?

It was interesting that in the former debate, the Government, the Deputy Prime Minister, objected to the tabling of a letter from office holders of the New Zealand First Party who want to appear before the select committee—in a protected environment, where they enjoy parliamentary privilege—because they are so fearful of the legal action that has been threatened by Mr Peters and by Mr Brian Henry for them disclosing the moral issues that have gone on within New Zealand First. I would ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Andrew Little, whether the motivation for the change in clause 16 being done in a rush is because New Zealand First wants to be able to ensure it can sue and take legal action against those former New Zealand First office holders, the president and the treasurer, who have recently resigned because of financial mismanagement within that party. [Interruption] I’m sorry?

Darroch Ball: I said get your facts straight.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, the president of the New Zealand First Party has resigned. You had to elect a new one at the election. He resigned because he says there were moral issues over the finances of New Zealand First. He said he could not explain the secret $500,000 of donations that went to the foundation. He has said on the public record that he was unaware of the $340,000 of anonymous donations to New Zealand First at the last election—

Darroch Ball: When did he say that?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —10 times than any other—

Darroch Ball: When did he say that?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: And he has also said, in response to the interjections from the New Zealand First member, that he resigned because he could not, for moral reasons, sign off on the financial accounts of New Zealand First. I draw to that member’s attention that the New Zealand First Party was the only party not to declare any donations at the 2017 election—extraordinary for a party that played the pivotal role in determining the outcome of that election. I’d invite the member who’s interjecting to get to his feet. I know the country would love to know whether he disagrees with the former party president. I know the country would love to know whether—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I would like to know how that relates to Part 2.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, this clause here is all about the party secretary, and about party office holders.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That’s right. I understand that.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: And it is about changing them and saying they must live in New Zealand. My concern: I’d like to hear from the Minister as to whether the reason for requiring them to live in New Zealand is so that Brian Henry and Winston Peters can carry out their threat of suing those office holders, whereas if they lived outside the new jurisdiction—and I’d love to know from the Minister why on earth it’s necessary to rush under urgency, in 24 hours, in what has been described as terrible lawmaking, a provision around that provision.

The second provision in Part 2 of this bill deals with the issues of electoral advertisements and modern media, and it’s quite a sensible provision. What it is saying is that the rules that apply to a newspaper or a television or a newspaper advertisement should equally apply to social media. It is quite appropriate that we update our electoral law to bring it into the social media and internet environment of advertising. But the problem I have with it is this: why is it necessary to ram this through in just 24 hours? What opportunity has there been for people to submit on that? My bigger concern is that there are many other provisions within the Electoral Act that are not up to date with the internet age, with the age of social media; why are we solely picking out this particular provision and rushing it through under urgency? Why do we not, in fact, ensure that we make all of the changes that are necessary to our Electoral Act to take into account the internet and social media advertising provisions? I’d love the Minister to respond to those two points.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Chair. Turning to Part 2 and looking a bit more deeply at the meaning of “party secretary” under clause 16, and again it is changing the Electoral Act itself. It seems to me that a few questions would be helpfully answered by the Minister of Justice, answers which we might well have gained or be expected to gain during a select committee process. So if any of them sort of seem a little bit mundane, or perhaps in the nature of items that I could be expected to have known, or be able to cross-reference, or to ask our excellent officials in this space then I simply, respectfully, refer you to the fact that we’ve had a process whereby there’s been so little opportunity for that kind of scrutiny of the bill until this point, such that it’s now still, even at this relatively late stage, the committee of the whole House stage, less than 24 hours since some of us learnt even of the existence of the bill, let alone have a chance to read and understand it.

So looking at the definition of “party secretary” or “secretary”, or the meaning of it, in new section 3EA—echo, alpha—we’re talking about a person who, in relation to a party, is responsible for the administration and correspondence of the party. My question to the Minister is what does that mean in the context of a party, which, inevitably I’d say in any reasonably sized party or any unreasonably sized party either, for that matter, might well have more than one person who’s responsible for administration and correspondence. I do acknowledge that there are provisions there that are pointed to in terms of the designation of that. I’m not fully aware of all those meanings. I must admit I haven’t had a chance within the limited time available to look through those.

What I’m really seeking from the Minister is an assurance that the meaning of the “party secretary” is such that we could have a situation where if more than one person was carrying out that function of administration and correspondence that they would be caught by the terms of the Act, because I suspect that’s the intention. I suspect that the function of the Act is intended to, in this case, point to the need for him or her to be living in New Zealand. But with the phrasing of this particular bill very much in the singular, it’s not clear to me that it would be possible that you’d have co - party secretaries, perhaps, in the same way that the Green Party has co-leaders. So that’s a possibility that I’d be grateful if the Minister would be able to clear up.

The second is really the substance of the amendment regarding the party secretary, which is a new requirement that they must live in New Zealand. That raises a number of interesting questions as well: for example, is it possible to have a non - New Zealand citizen who is performing this function but living in New Zealand at the time? The converse of that, so to speak, would be a New Zealand citizen who was living overseas at the time but not able to fulfil the role of a party secretary. That seems a bit anomalous with the way that we’ve got the overseas aspect of an overseas person elsewhere in the same bill.

There we’re talking about it being OK to be a New Zealander, or technically a non - overseas person, either because you’re, essentially, legitimately part of New Zealand’s democratic purposes, albeit that you’re living overseas at the time, or you can be someone who might generally be regarded as foreign, in sort of a pretty loose sense of that word, but based in New Zealand. So I don’t know why a different approach has been taken in relation to a party secretary in terms of where they are physically living at the time. Then the obvious question becomes, as well: well, what does it mean to live in New Zealand? Do they have had to live for a minimum sort of qualifying period?

Perhaps we could borrow the language from other statutes on the book, to be ordinarily resident—for example, a certain number of days per year; those kinds of mechanisms. They exist elsewhere in the law. It would not be hard to fit them in there. And again, I’d be happy to work with the Minister and anyone else on the other side of the Chamber who’d be prepared to add a bit of clarity in the law which does not currently exist, and for reasons that, as discussed in terms of process, we haven’t had the chance to sort of patch up or tidy up until this point.

Moving to clause 17 now, again within Part 2, really this is an interesting one about electoral advertisements. What we’re talking about is a person who’s not able to publish various kinds of advertisements without specifying their name and so on. That’s fine as far as it goes. But I’m wondering about the phrase “permit to be published”, in particular, whether this is going to capture the social media companies themselves. So it’s not just a candidate for an election, for example, it might be myself duly re-elected as the National Party candidate for Helensville, and if I can continue with that train of thought. [Bell rung] As well as continue as the National Party candidate for Helensville then I’d simply point out that we’ve got an interesting little point raised by the law.

We were talking about a person who can’t, essentially, publish something without demonstrating their true name or their address. But you could argue very readily, and I think quite reasonably, that a platform like Facebook or Instagram or Twitter or any of those other social media entities or perhaps some other online portal actually, arguably, is permitting to be published such an advertisement. So my question to the Minister, and no doubt his excellent officials who are standing by for such questions, I expect, is whether such social media companies and other publishers, if we regard them as publishers and not merely platforms, will be caught by that definition and whether or not the Minister intends that to be so; then the technical advice about whether that is, in fact, something that the law is able to achieve mechanically by those words.

The remainder of that clause is around the requirements for the person who is doing the publishing. So we need to know their true name; that’s a reasonably intriguing phrase. I don’t know what the true name of a person might be as distinct from an untrue name or a false name. I wonder if that means a person who has changed their name, perhaps, legally—it might be by deed poll—or is generally known by another name for whatever reason. Whatever change in their lifestyle or other circumstances might dictate that they might want to go under a different name—perfectly legitimate reasons that a person might do that.

So I wonder if that’s what the Minister is intending by having the true name of the person as the test for what they’ve got to publish in terms of identifying themselves, because I’m not sure that that’s the best expression of that, just to sort of suggest that someone could have a true name or an untrue name or a false name. So perhaps a legal name or a name by which they can be readily identified or associated, which would surely be sort of the purpose behind the legislation, given that what we’re looking at, I suspect, is ensuring that people who are publishing ads in the online space as well as in more general kinds of ways, can be captured by the intent of the legislation, which has a certain amount of transparency about who exactly is putting up what on Facebook or online and the like.

Then the final point in relation to that, and again I sort of make it as a point but intend it as a question, is around the person’s place of residence or business, so the address for that has to be published. I wonder if the Minister would contemplate having a test equivalent to those for authorisation statements where it’s something along the lines—and forgive me if I don’t get the wording exactly correct—that it’s an address at which the person might reasonably be expected to be found. I’m sort of looking over in the direction of the officials as well as the Minister as I say that. I don’t know if that’s something they contemplated. It might be that there’s very good reasons that they haven’t gone with that, and it would be good to know those reasons if so.

These are the kinds of questions. Of course I don’t wish to labour the point too much but with a new person in the chair I’d probably get away with it.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Nope.

CHRIS PENK: No? She’s shaking her head. She’s been watching, unfortunately. Well, there go my next two contributions.

But in any case, the point really was, and it is actually a serious one, that they’re asking these questions now because it’s the committee of the whole House stage and this is the appropriate time or one of the appropriate times, normally, for being able to sort of interrogate this level of detail, interrogate even the Minister, if we can sort of put it like that, and understand that. Normally, the other opportunity to do that would be in the select committee process. We could sort of embarrass ourselves with our lack of knowledge and perhaps silly questions, although, you know, famously there’s no such thing as a silly question, but for anyone who’s attended the Justice Committee there is such a thing as a silly question.

And so it is that I’d love the Minister to respond with answers to those two key points. One is about the party secretary, which I suppose, in turn, has two parts: who’s responsible for the administration of correspondence, could that be more than one person in relation to a particular party; and, second, what does it mean that they must live in New Zealand. Then the other point, really the key one in relation to the electoral advertisements, was whether the likes of Facebook, but again other entities too that publish or allow themselves to publish, “cause or permit to be published” even in the wording of the law, are they captured by that intention to, essentially, create an offence whereby someone can’t do that without publishing name and address details.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the members who have spoken so far on this part of the bill. I will seek to attempt to answer their questions. I’ll start with the contribution by the Hon Dr Nick Smith, whose central question was: why haven’t other changes been made? And, look, I could say, “Well, that’s a bit rich, because in nine years nothing changed.”, but the reason is because this is a bill that seeks to deal with the obvious and now increasingly—the increasing clear risk of foreign interference and undue foreign influence in our political system. So I’m pleased to hear that that member supports the extension of the requirement to put promoter statements on all forms of advertising, including those on social media and online advertising, but this has not been a time for a thoroughgoing, comprehensive review of the Electoral Act. That does need to happen, and I’m confident that that will happen, but that is not the objective of this piece of legislation. It is very discrete, it is very confined, and that’s why it is the way that it is.

To Chris Penk’s usual, always very interesting contributions—I disagree with him that there is any such thing as a dumb question; there are no dumb questions. He knows that, and his contributions keep Ministers in the chair on their toes, which is the role of the committee of the whole House stage, mostly. So to deal with the definition of “party secretary”—really, I understand the question to be: is the role divisible? If you have a look at the drafting of that clause 16, which refers to other parts of the Electoral Act which make references to the party secretary, those provisions referred to in that clause 16 and the new section 3EA—so the current sections 63(2)(c)(iii) or 63(2)(c)(iv)—that refers to the person named on the application to register the party; that is the party secretary. In section 67(3)(c), it is the person notified to the Electoral Commission as appointed to the position of secretary. Then in section 67AA(2), that provides that if there is a vacancy in the position of party secretary another person must be appointed. So the scheme of the Act already says there must be this person designated as party secretary. It is that person—and all that that provision adds is that the person must live in New Zealand.

Which brings us, neatly, to the next question that the member posed, which was: what does live in New Zealand mean? Well, there is not a residential requirement, nor even a citizenship requirement. It simply means that the person must be in New Zealand and living—to live in New Zealand, clearly, there has to be some sort of authority to do so. I’m attempting to say the person has to be in New Zealand and not dead. I mean, that would be an accurate interpretation and definition of it, and that would be a useful start, but, actually, I think it is very clear the person must be located in New Zealand, discharging the responsibilities of this person designated, for statutory purposes, as the party secretary.

The next question that that member asked was in relation to clause 17 and “permit to be published”. I simply say to the member: that is just the language already used in the Electoral Act and we’re not seeking, because of the circumstances in which this legislation is in the House, to make any other changes or craft up any other kind of drafting that will have an impact on the rest of the Electoral Act. We are drafting this bill in a way that is consistent with the rest of the Act, and that explains that one.

Penultimately, the member asked about the true name. Now, that is simply, you know, ensuring that aliases are not used. You could not use “Daddy Thicc Snacc”, for example, in the promoter statement. It would have to be the name of the person, if you like, as recognised in the register of births, deaths, and marriages, of whatever country the person may have originated from, including New Zealand. But it must be the recognised name for official purposes.

Finally, the member asks whether the reference to—I think in clause 17, proposed new section 221A(1)(b)—the person’s place of residence or business should be changed to be an address where the person might be reasonably expected to be found. Again, we don’t have that form of words in any other place where the person is expected to provide an address, and that, I think, answers all the questions posed so far.

Part 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): It is not unusual in debates of this type for people to stand up and suggest all sorts of other names for a bill, suggesting they might be adopted by the committee as more appropriate to describe the bill. I don’t think that’s necessary in this case. It is an amendment, albeit that these amendments are somewhat minor and probably missed the point of what is most in front of the public at the present time. But what does strike us as a little strange is the bill coming into effect—it’s unclear: does it come into effect with the Royal assent, with these other parts delayed until 1 January or 1 April? So it says, “this Act, except sections 15 and 16, comes into force on 1 January 2020”, so that’s when the assent is given to it. The assent is given before that, but it’s effective from that date. I take it that’s the—thank you for the nod from the Minister.

Well, that gives quite a few days, potentially, for people to round up anonymous donations. Now, I stand here as part of a party that declares those donations. Most parties in here do; one, apparently, doesn’t. It just seems odd that Cabinet decided to allow—given that this bill will probably pass today, 3 December—some 27 days or so, perhaps 25 days when we take out statutories, three weeks, to go out and round up a swag of anonymous donations and to load them into the kitty. Now, you know, the Minister’s got a very interesting look on his face. I don’t know that he wouldn’t have thought about this, but it seems to me that that is odd. So we would like to know the reason for that gap. The Governor-General is in New Zealand; it would be possible to have this bill signed this afternoon, in fact. Even if the Clerk says, well, they want a couple of days to tidy it up, it’s not unusual for bills to go up in their rough state to get the assent, particularly bills that are done under urgency. So it has to be a public question that should be answered: why has there been urgency afforded to give effect to the lowering of the threshold for anonymous donations, when, in fact, there is a three-week—at least—window where those anonymous donations can go through under the current arrangements?

The next bit’s unclear also. Why would you have clauses 15 and 16, which relate to the issue we were just talking of before, I believe it was the residency of the general secretary—I’ll stand corrected on that. But perhaps it would be a good idea for the Minister to briefly tell us why those two clauses, particularly, are left out. In here it’s the party secretary, and the meaning of the word “party secretary”. Why do we have to wait until April for those to become effective in the law? Is there a need for, perhaps, one of the Government parties to sort out its arrangements in the three and a half months that they’re going to have—nearly four months, actually, from this point—to reach the 1 April deadline? That’s somewhat inexplicable. If there is a simple explanation, then I think it would be useful for the Minister to give that explanation to the committee.

The next part of this, of course, is to agree that this bill amends the Electoral Act 1993. Well, I think it would be inappropriate for us to all agree to vote for this—bar one—and then not to agree to this part. But it would be interesting to hear from the Minister what his intentions are for the wider consideration of the Electoral Act. Will this bill before the House today, under urgency, be the last Electoral Amendment Bill prior to the 2020 election? That is a pretty crucial point in my view.

So there are three things. Could we know, from the Minister, why there’s this three-week gap where there seems to be a moratorium on compliance with the new law, that will be passed today, for the receipt of anonymous donations? Why do we have to wait until 1 April for there to be compliance on the residential impost on whoever is secretary of the party? And, finally, what’s the process from here?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I thank the member Gerry Brownlee for that contribution. Look, the commencement is as you would expect, because particularly in relation to the obligations on party general secretaries, it allows time for both the Electoral Commission to prepare any guidance on the application of the new provisions but also on party general secretaries to ensure that they have systems and processes in place ready to go. They may well have to get some endorsement from their respective governing boards, which they might have to do in a reasonably hasty period of time at a busy time of the year. Look, if there are members who think that between now and 31 December they can hustle around and cobble together some foreign donations compliant with the current law, fill their boots, I suppose—but I doubt whether that’s going to be practically possible.

The next question was about the 1 April residential requirement. Again, that is just a reasonable time for both the residential requirement and the advertising requirement. In the event there are arrangements in place where a party doesn’t comply with those things or there is advertising booked that has not yet had a promoted statement put on it, there is time to rectify that to get through the busy Christmas and New Year period in a reasonable time to get various houses in order.

The final question was: what is the process from here? There is one other piece of legislation that commenced before, the Electoral Amendment Bill—(No 1)—which has already started. It’s working its way through the process. That is the one that creates a better chance for more people to cast their vote—particularly, for example, the 19,000 on election day in 2017 who turned up to a ballot booth, weren’t on the roll, and could not enrol. So those changes are still making their way through the House, subject to, obviously, the dictates of this House. I reasonably expect that bill to be passed in the early part of next year so that by the time we get to the election—and certainly the regulated period—all rules applying to next year’s election will be known and understood, the information out there, parties fully compliant, candidates fully compliant, and we will have a very happy 2020 general election.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to pick up on a couple of those themes as originally raised by my colleague the Hon Gerry Brownlee, and which the Minister of Justice, Andrew Little, has touched on as well, just looking at the date on which most of the Act will come into force being 1 January. With respect, I’m not sure that I heard a good answer in relation to the immediate effect, essentially, that the Act could come into force with. I don’t think that anything that is needed to be arranged by way of special arrangement needs to take as long as all the way into the New Year. So a mechanism might be something like “immediately come into force” or perhaps “two days after the time that the Act comes into force.”

But it also would have been available to the Minister to specify a particular calendar date. I mean, maybe some time in this month—it could even be tomorrow, whatever tomorrow might be. I’m just looking around for a calendar. Well, actually, that’s interesting—the calendar says 3 December, but in the real world it’s 4 December, because we’re still in urgency. So I guess we could say 5 December would be perhaps the day it would come in. Ordinarily, of course, you wouldn’t take the risk of putting a particular calendar date, because you don’t know when a bit of legislation’s going to pass, except that when you put the House into urgency to go through all stages—even in the circumstance where, almost exactly to the minute, it’s 24 hours since the Opposition first became aware of the bill—then you do have the luxury of knowing the point at which it will be passed.

So it is that I would suggest to the Minister that even at this late stage it’s not too late. If we’re going to do the urgent thing, we might as well really do it properly, and let’s be as urgent as possible about it, if that seems to be the mood of the House overall, even if not on this side in terms of the extremeness of the urgency. Well, having passed it and having bypassed the ability ourselves to sort of cut ourselves off at the knees in terms of having a reasonable process for the scrutiny of the thing, then we might as well have it applying as soon as reasonably possible—which I would suggest is tomorrow.

Mr Brownlee makes a good point about the availability of the Governor-General to sign things into law. I can confirm—having worked in the viceregal household, admittedly a couple of Governors-General ago—these things can be pretty easily managed, particularly if the aide-de-camp is so efficient at taking faxes off hotel reception, as at least one was in the distant past.

So, anyway, that’s as to date regarding all the exceptions except for sections 15 and 16, but as for those two, I suppose that it’s possible that certain arrangements have to be made in relation to the party secretary living in New Zealand. But nearly four months seems pretty generous for that, and I don’t know what sorts of arrangements need to be made; a sort of pretty grand way of saying that you’ve got to sort of live here or you don’t. I suppose a board might be expected to re-designate someone else or sort of appoint someone. But four months to do that in the context of something that’s supposedly so urgent that we can’t take more than 24 hours to consider it from start to finish does seem pretty luxurious or at least not in keeping with the extent of urgency which we’ve seen passing the substantive parts of it.

As for the Facebook ads, well, I sort of do take the point that it might be that a little bit of lag time is needed for advertising that’s already booked and locked in. But, really, nearly four months to allow an advertising campaign to run through—I’m pretty confident that there will be a lot more political issues that we can criticise the Government about between now and 1 April. We’ll be rebooking ads, no doubt, and for New Zealanders too who want to be participating in the electoral process, and the Government as well, to be fair, you know, they’ll have their own particular issues that they want to promote. I expect that there probably won’t be a lot of ads that are still running then that are running now that can have this sort of no man’s land of being unaddressed and unnamed with the true name, as the legislation says.

So I wonder if we could sort of have a bit of a shorter period on that one, maybe encourage people to unbook the ads if they’re offensive—or, actually, really, just simply add a name and address, because that’s the only requirement that’s changing, that’s the only sort of operative bit within the legislation to bring it in line. I won’t go back into that detail because we’ve talked about the fact that it will bring into line the online world with the non-online world, and that’s sort of a worthwhile thing, but it shouldn’t take so long in an online environment, which, among its virtues, is so quick to react, and can be. So we would suggest that there’s no reason that that couldn’t come into force much sooner than 1 April 2020, seeing as we’re doing this thing with such indecent haste in the first place.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) without amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.

I’m very thankful for the very thoroughgoing examination of this bill by the House at the committee stage, and I know members are always uncomfortable—members on this side of the House, certainly, when we were in Opposition, and including members opposite now that they are in Opposition—on matters that go through under urgency. It is very important, therefore, that when we do consider legislation under urgency, we try to keep it confined to very discrete, specific points, and that is what we’re aiming to do here.

The reason why this bill is here in its form and being considered under urgency is because we had expected, or I had certainly expected, that the very thoroughgoing inquiry that the Justice Committee has been conducting into the 2017 general election, amongst other things, might have been completed by now and we might have had the benefit of their wisdom and their report-back that would have informed changes relevant to the 2020 general election. That has not happened, and I draw no conclusions as a result of that—that is just a fact. We are drawing very rapidly to the close of this year, and next year is a general election year. I know from the advice I’ve received from our independent Electoral Commission that any statutory changes that they are required to act under and possibly to administer, they need to have advance notice of well in advance of the election and well in advance of the regulated period. So if we want to make changes that are important, that are significant, and that are necessary, then we have to make them really well in time for the next general election, and I regard that as before the beginning of the year that is the general election year. So that is what has brought us here.

This bill deals with a very real risk. I don’t have to canvass that yet again, but it is known to members of this House that members of the Justice Committee have seen and heard the evidence that has been public—and, in fact, it’s pretty clear they’ve seen and heard evidence that is certainly not yet public—and it is pretty clear that like many democracies around the world, ours is vulnerable to those abroad who would seek to interfere in our democratic processes and influence the outcome. One way of doing that is by financing political parties or candidates and sometimes causes, and so this bill seeks to address that very real risk.

I’ve seen some commentary that says it doesn’t deal with that risk. I’ve seen commentary from some pretty esteemed academics, actually, who say that. Now, I have to say this to the House: they are wrong—they are wrong.

What this bill does, through a combination of factors: banning foreign donations, with the exception of the $50 de minimis threshold; secondly, placing a clear due diligence requirement on party general secretaries that will apply effectively—because the only way of fulfilling that due diligence duty can happen is by applying it to all donations over $50, and party general secretaries will await the guidance from the Electoral Commission about how that will work in practice. But I say to this House that my expectation is that the application of that due diligence requirement will be proportionate to the level of the donation. The smaller the donation, the less evident activity there needs to be, but the bigger the donation, then the more due diligence is required, and it is pretty standard—has been for many decades, as anybody who has been involved in New Zealand politics will know for many decades—that many provisions in the Electoral Act are subject to guidance by the Electoral Commission. That’s standard—that’s pretty standard. Nothing unusual about that at all—no constitutional crisis to see here.

So there’s the due diligence requirement, and then the third element—the belt and braces element—is the defence to a charge relating to the failure to disclose or to properly deal with a foreign donation is that the party general secretary needs to point to the reasonable steps taken in the circumstances that they undertook. There is a slightly technical argument in relation to the due diligence requirements where it refers to “a donation” followed by a reference to “the donation”, and I know that even in a third reading speech we shouldn’t be sort of dancing on the heads of various pins, but those words are important. As this House hears many times from members all across the House, words mean something. Those words do mean something, and so the commentators, the academics, and, most importantly, the members opposite need to look closely at those words, and when they do—and when they divorce themselves from the contemporary issues of who is trying to defeat the spirit of the Electoral Act worst—they will see that these words actually do mean something.

These provisions will make a serious difference and help us to attenuate that real risk that has become evident of undue foreign interference and undue influence. So, on that basis, I’m very thankful for the scrutiny that has been applied from the House. I’m very thankful for the overwhelming support that the bill has received. I believe it will serve the members in this House, the parties who are represented here, the parties who are not represented here, and, in the end, the most important people in our democracy—the voters—very well as we head into the 2020 general election.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): This is terrible lawmaking. This is a bill that was published only yesterday, and it is now proceeding to its third reading stage.

We’re an unusual country in that we do not have our electoral law protected by a constitution. There has been a longstanding convention in this Parliament that electoral law changes are made on a cross-party basis—a convention that was observed by all three of our Ministers of Justice. What we have here is this Minister of Justice ramming legislation through for no good reason.

He says it’s on the basis of wanting to improve our democracy. It does the opposite. One of the essentials of our democracy is this institution of Parliament, and when we want to change the law, we have a set-down process by which a bill has a first reading, it goes to a select committee, we have experts that are able to submit and advise, the public gets an opportunity to be able to have a say, and a bill goes through its later stages of scrutiny. Do not pretend that this Parliament has given any real scrutiny to this bill. Not a single member of the Labour, New Zealand First, or Green parties took a single call during the committee stages of this bill. It was a farce.

Then, let’s look at the substantive issue in the regulatory impact statement. This bill is presented as an answer to the issue of foreign donations, and so it is materially important as to how many donations have been coming in. Well, here are the facts. Over the last seven years, the average amount of foreign donations coming into New Zealand was $5,000 per year. It’s an average of 60 donations, averaging about $66 each, and what this bill says is that there’s going to be a ban on those of over $50. So let’s be clear: we’re talking about an issue that’s about $5,000 per year. My question to members opposite is why are we rushing a bill through Parliament over the issue of foreign donations of $5,000 a year but ignoring the elephant in the Parliament—the $840,000 elephant?

The outcome of the 2017 election was unusual. For the first time in the history of New Zealand, the party that got the most votes and the most seats did not become the Government. That was determined by New Zealand First. So the outcome of who is the Government, who, every day, gets to makes decisions for this wonderful country of 5 million people, was determined by New Zealand First. And what we know of New Zealand First is they have a secret foundation in which they received $500,000 of donations, and, furthermore, they had $340,000 of anonymous donations—10 times more than any other political party. We know that the president of the New Zealand First Party resigned last month because of moral reasons over that party’s financial issues—and somehow we’re to ignore all of that in this debate about improving our electoral law. As Duncan Garner said so accurately, he smells a rat—and he is absolutely correct.

I pointed out in the committee stage that there are three major weaknesses in this bill. The first is: the one instance of proven corruption in our New Zealand Parliament involved Labour MP Phillip Field. Labour MP Phillip Field went to jail for taking bribes for getting people New Zealand residency. There isn’t a member of Parliament in this House that does not face pressure every single week—

Hon Meka Whaitiri: What’s that got to do with the bill?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —about granting residency and citizenship for our country. The member interjects and asks: why is that relevant? I’ll tell you why: because in the definition of who is a non - New Zealander and can donate for political parties, a person who is in New Zealand on a work permit or someone who has applied for refugee status in New Zealand is able to make a political donation under the detail of this bill that that member did not even bother to engage in.

And so I do say that if we are worried about ensuring New Zealand keeps its reputation—which the National Government bequeathed in 2017; the least corrupt, most transparent country in the world was New Zealand’s international ranking in 2017—then we do need to recognise the risk and the desperation that some people have to be a resident of this beautiful country. And why would this bill say those people can’t vote but they can donate to political parties? That is a big gap.

In the committee stage, I moved an amendment. The amendment said we should not put up with the farce of New Zealand First having a foundation that collected over a half a million dollars of secret donations—that they should be included in the ban. What is the point of having a ban on foreign donations if all a political party needs to do is to set up a foundation, get the cheques in, and then provide it as a loan or to directly do advertising. It is a gaping hole in this bill that you could drive a truck through. Yet members opposite—and the Green Party, the sanctimonious Green Party—voted against an amendment that would incorporate foundations and incorporated societies so that there would be some robustness to the proposals around banning foreign donations. The truth is, this bill is all about politics and not about substance. It is so characteristic of the Government this year—long on rhetoric, very short on delivery.

I was interested to hear the Minister dismiss the views of Professor Andrew Geddis from Otago University. So often that Minister says, “Oh, all the experts are wrong.” Andrew Geddis pointed out that this bill is indeed a very weak response, an inadequate response, if we are serious about protecting New Zealand from foreign influences.

The most disgraceful part of the debate on this bill was the contribution by the Deputy Prime Minister. This is a guy who, when questioned by journalists about those hundreds of thousands of dollars of secret donations—when he was questioned about these sorts of issues—referred to the journalist as a psycho. Do members of the Green Party and the Labour Party support that? That is disgraceful, and I am appalled that members opposite condone that sort of behaviour from the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand.

The reason the National Party feels strongly about these issues is actually that one of the most precious parts of New Zealand is the strength of our democracy. We have the fourth oldest continuous Parliament in the world. We have a deep tradition of respecting the right for the public to decide in New Zealand on their Governments, free speech, and the processes of this Parliament, and what this Government has shown, time and time again, is that for political convenience and opportunism, it is prepared to ride roughshod over those democratic traditions. That’s why we’re whacking through this electoral amendment bill in less than 24 hours. That’s why the Government’s taking away the decision on referendum from this Parliament and giving it to the Cabinet. That’s why the Government, with Green Party support, voted for a bill that would allow party leaders and not the public to dismiss members of Parliament, something that Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons and the founders of the Green Party would be rolling in their graves over.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: She’s not dead.

Golriz Ghahraman: She’s not. Ha, ha!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I know that the Greens are laughing. That’s their attitude. I remember when the Greens used to rally against bills being passed under urgency. They’ve become so unprincipled that they are an embarrassment to the founders of that party. There is nothing as precious as our democracy. There is no area of law that is as important as electoral law. This is no way in which to go about changing those fundamentals of the way in which members of Parliament are elected.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Otirā, e Te Whare, tēnā tātou katoa. Protecting New Zealand’s democracy by addressing the real threat of foreign interference through donations and electoral advertising is what this bill aims to address. I’m proud to stand and support the third and final reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2).

I want to acknowledge the member who has just resumed his seat, Nick Smith, for also supporting this important issue and this bill. It is really something that we want to take to the election next year. We’ve been very, very clear on expectations around foreign donations, and the Minister Andrew Little has outlined the threshold about $50.

But we also, in this bill, talk about the expectations of party secretaries to ensure that the due diligence expected of them is also outlined in this bill in collaboration with the Electoral Commission, and the defence of taking reasonable steps to ensure that that particular expectation isn’t breached.

It is a bill, like the Minister said, that as we go into the start of the election year next year, we want to be very clear that we are banning foreign donations up to $50, and of the expectations of due diligence from party secretaries. It is part of a wider piece of electoral reform that we will be bringing into play on the side of the House. It’s an important issue that all parties in this House have been talking about—and the general public—for months on end.

It is a simple bill to address that. I commend it to the House and look forward to its passage through the House. Kia ora.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s good to have yet another opportunity to speak to the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2). At this, the third and final reading, I thought it might be helpful to provide a bit of a summary of what we’ve heard over the last 24 hours—in fact, less than 24 hours in terms of, actually, the debate happening—to explain, first of all, and separate the process from the substance of the bill.

The fact of the bill existing and the fact of it being something that would be subject to urgency was unexpected, unexplained, and unnecessary. We’ve talked a lot in previous stages, and I won’t reiterate all those points, but in the spirit of a third reading debate, where it’s helpful to place on record the way that things have played out over the course of the debate, albeit the short course of the debate, as a matter of record, we wish to say on this side of the House that we don’t understand or agree with the idea that such urgency was needed in the context of a select committee process—the Justice Committee—that is taking place and will report back any year now.

So one of the interesting points that was made in the debate, I think, was about the quantum of what this bill is actually looking to achieve. The analysis by the Hon Gerry Brownlee was that, essentially, it’s a $16 problem. The maths behind that was something along the lines of the average overseas donation being $66. Here we’ve got a bill that reduces down to $50 the amount that can be kept—so the difference, of course, is $16. So we’re really going to a lot of effort outside of a process that would inevitably have reformed this area anyway to stop $16 worth of donations per time from an overseas person.

That’s about the amount of a block of cheese—Tasty cheese; the only real kind, of course—and it’s sort of ironic that the phrase I associate with the making of cheese is that good things take time. I think the same could be said of legislative processes. The old adage was that the two things that you should never see being made are sausages and laws. Well, I think a block of cheese would be an appropriate way to describe the problem that the Government’s intending to solve in relation to this bill.

I should be really clear that on this side of the House, we do think that there is a problem. We do think that in relation to overseas donations, there is a need for reform. You’ll be aware, and others will be aware, that we are supporting the bill. It is worth supporting because it does at least something in the right direction, albeit that we’ve disagreed as to process and also some of the particulars about the way that it could actually achieve its aim much better.

So I’ll just pass to those thoughts now about the way that the particular law will operate, and a few missed opportunities along the way. Inevitably, it will be the case that we’ve missed opportunities as a Parliament, specifically because of the process having been so rushed. So I’ll sort of refer to those in passing as a general theme of the procedural shortfalls, but really I’m just focussing on a couple of particular things that we could have made somewhat better, including by way of an amendment that was actually put forward and voted down. Dr Smith has talked about that already, and I’ll just do so briefly.

So the first point on the substance of the bill is just that the limited time has limited our opportunity to ensure that the scope is everything that it could be. In relation to local government, the bill says specifically—explicitly—that it doesn’t apply to local elections. Well, it’s good to have that clarity, except that it is a missed opportunity, because many people have been thinking about electoral law reform, both within this Parliament and within that, even tighter still, the Justice Committee and others who have been talking in the general sphere of public life have been identifying a real gap in our statute book whereby we’ve got a Local Electoral Act on the one hand—and Electoral Act, by implication relating to non-local matters; central government, essentially—that are not aligned, even in very basic key areas that you’d expect.

So it is that we’ve still got, after today, after all the heat and light of this process under urgency, a regime in New Zealand whereby local government candidates or parties—you know, we might call tickets, but roughly speaking, we’ve got actors in the local government space standing for election, able to receive donations of any amount, I think, of any provenance whatsoever, and we’ve not taken the opportunity to limit it in any way. Actually, ideally, we’d be aligning the two—that is, the electoral and the local electoral legislation—in that way. It would have been an easy matter from a drafting point of view. On this side of the House, we proved it, even in the short period of time that we had available, by preparing an amendment. We never got the chance to actually table that, but at least some on this side of the House—and I think the Hon Tim Macindoe was one of them—did at least speak to that distinction, that meaningless distinction, or a distinction that shouldn’t be meaningful, I should say, between the local and the central space.

He made such points about the lack of scrutiny in the local government space as compared with this place, here in Parliament. I sort of motion up in the direction of the press gallery symbolically, because we’ve got them physically here, but we’ve also got a lot of attention to the affairs of this House. I look down the barrel of the camera of Parliament TV and note that we are scrutinised here in decision making, as decision makers, in a way that local government is not, and probably never will be. So in terms of a donations regime—which is, after all, at the heart of this bill—from overseas or anonymous sources, surely it makes sense to have no less scrutiny and no less restriction in relation to donations made to local government election candidates. That’s before we even go on to the question of the fact that local government elected officials can make very powerful decisions, very valuable decisions, in the context of resource consent matters and so forth.

My next point is really regarding the scope of the bill—not only which big picture, big ticket items are captured, as I’ve already discussed, but actually even within the bill itself and even in the provisions that are being changed. We’ve missed an opportunity where we’re talking about overseas persons and donations that are made to parties or candidates, but what we haven’t actually changed, unfortunately, is a scenario where we have trusts, foundations—yes, and companies. That could have been an amendment too. That could have been made by any member of the House, including the Green Party, whereby we say, “Well, it’s not good enough simply to be incorporated in New Zealand, or to have a head office here in the case of a company carrying on business here, maybe, but completely foreign-owned, not owned by New Zealanders.”

That seems as though the intent of the bill, which, nominally, was to reduce the prospect of undue foreign interference—we’ve really missed the trick on that one collectively. On the National Party side of things, we can say, at least, that we tried and we had an amendment in there. The Minister said that he thought it strange that the amendment didn’t go as far as he might have expected. Well, that’s fine. We could have amended that further, or he could have amended our amendment to his original, and we could have got there in the end—opportunity missed again.

My final comment or two regards a couple of the discussions that have been had about the way that the electoral law will be applied. The Minister made a suggestion about the way that he could say—in fact, he has been saying to the Electoral Commission—that if a donation is just a bit over $50, which is the threshold, then you don’t need to look too hard, but if it’s a lot more than the $50 threshold, then a lot of scrutiny should be applied. On a common-sense basis, that sort of sounds pretty reasonable, but it’s not in the law.

Then the argument evolves from the Minister to say something like, “Well, it would be common that the Electoral Commission could give guidance about the way that the law is applied, so you don’t need everything written in the law, but you might reasonably expect that the Electoral Commission could give some guidance about that.” Well, that’s fine, but what we have had in the last 24 hours is the Minister giving that guidance to the Electoral Commission, who in turn will be applying it to all political parties, including the Minister’s own, including, you know, Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition and any other players that might be around at the time of the next election, and so on. That seems a strange way to approach lawmaking, where a thorough job is not done. We sort of appear to be filling in the gaps on the basis of how Minister Little feels it should play out when these matters come to a head.

We also had a brief but extraordinary contribution from Winston Peters, not so much a speech as him telling us what the voices in his head are telling him. So we sort of don’t need to dwell on that much further. Just to say: a worthwhile aim of the bill; pity about the process, but we’ll support it none the less.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. A disappointing contribution from Mr Penk there, taking a cheap swipe at the Deputy Prime Minister. I would have thought a man of his talents would look at the substance of the issue before this House.

What I wanted to do here, just very briefly, was just note the fact that this bill is well pitched. There has been some discussion about the obligation on party secretaries to look into where donations come from, and some criticism of it. I think that criticism is quite unfounded, because if we do look at clause 8, which inserts new section 207JA, it talks about the secretary having to take all reasonable steps—it’s kind of got two branches to it—in the circumstances. So if you’ve got a $51 donation, obviously the sky won’t fall if that’s come from overseas, but you’re not expected to spend a thousand dollars trying to find out where that came from. So in the circumstance this is an absolute signal to the Electoral Commission and to the courts that this is a proportional question—that you take the steps that are proportionate to the risk. Now, if you were to get $150,000 through a strangely named overseas company, you’d expect some very robust investigations to be undertaken there. In particular, you’d want to be sure that not only was it not by an overseas person, but it also wasn’t made “on behalf of” an overseas person—the other words used in this piece of legislation.

So this is a very well-pitched piece of legislation. We’re not holding it up. We’re not delaying improving our electoral law. This is an excellent piece of legislation. I commend it to the House.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Well, thank you very much, Madam Speaker. What a sad process we’ve gone through over the last 18 or 19 hours as we’ve considered this legislation.

The first point I want to make is the Government’s press release and, in fact, their whole behaviour over this is, as David Seymour says, “pantomime”. This is not a ban; this is the lowering of an already low threshold from $1,500 to $50. So any claim by the Government that this is a ban and that this eliminates foreign donations is just wrong—any attempt by the Government to claim that it is is incorrect. That’s been pointed out by us and it’s been pointed out by numerous commentators. So that’s the first point.

The second point is—and we have litigated this at length on this side of the House—the process leading up to this has been appalling. Now, it is true that the Justice Committee has taken quite some time over the inquiry into the 2017 election—that is correct. There are good reasons for the length of time it has taken. One reason is that at the start of the inquiry we decided not to include the 2016 local election inquiry, and then we decided to include it. The second reason is that the Minister decided to—not instruct us—ask us to consider the matter of foreign donations, and we have been doing that; well, the committee’s been doing that. I’m, sadly—or not so sadly—no longer on the committee. But the committee has been doing that.

Now, these are tricky issues. The issue of the extent of foreign interference in New Zealand elections, or the attempted foreign interference, is something that the committee has been hearing evidence on, but also there’s the issue of what you do about that. Now, this is a sliver of the possible remedies to the mischief of foreign interference in New Zealand elections. This is literally the merest sliver of what you could do as a Parliament to respond.

If you want an example of some of the things that I think the committee is probably considering, it’s the submission of Anne-Marie Brady, who’s made, I think, at least one submission to the committee. She’s been on Twitter this morning, outlining her possible remedies. None of that is in the bill; not a single thing. So this is literally the merest sliver of a thing that you could do. As various commentators have pointed out—both in this House and also in the media—you could drive a truck through it in terms of the protections that the Government purports to be putting in place.

So the process has been a shocker. Yes it’s true that the committee has sat on these issues for quite a long time, but we on this side of the House do not believe that justifies the Government, basically, in the case of the Minister, throwing a tantrum and deciding that, because he’s the Minister and, by definition, he’s got the number in the Parliament, he can just basically take an idea, turn up to the House, and decide on Tuesday morning, “Oh well, I’ll put the House into urgency and we’ll ram it through and we’ll pass it through all stages by Wednesday morning, by half past 12 before the House lifts for lunchtime”. Just because the committee has taken a long time, does not justify doing that.

Actually, I believe, from my time on the committee, the report of the committee will be a good report. It will be a substantive report. It will be a comprehensive report. The reason it will be is: firstly, because it’s taken quite a long to get there; secondly, because there are some good people on the committee with real legal expertise and real investment in the issues; and, thirdly, committee members have taken a serious look at the issues, because these are critical issues for our democracy. On the issue of local elections, for example, there’s widespread agreement, I think, across the Parliament that local elections are conducted poorly, turnout is a shocker, we need to improve it, we need to reform the way we do that. So the committee report will be good on that.

There is widespread agreement that we need to protect against foreign interference in our elections. The committee, I’m sure, will produce a substantive report in relation to some of the suggestions that have come forward from commentators like Anne-Marie Brady and others. There will be a whole series of improvements that the committee recommends for the conduct of general elections more generally in light of the experience at the 2017 election.

Our point is Parliament should have waited for that committee to report. So that’s the second point about poor process.

Ginny Andersen: Ha, ha!

CHRIS BISHOP: Well, members opposite laugh, but, I mean, the process that is always followed following elections is that you have a bipartisan committee that considers the issues, there’s generally a bipartisan report, it comes forward, any amendment bills come forward, it generally passes through with bipartisan support, and we incrementally improve the operations of our elections. Actually, that’s been a pretty good process.

The third point I want to make is there is no need for urgency—absolutely no need. Members opposite have not even tried. They have not even attempted to justify the urgency with which we are considering this legislation. It can’t be that—

Golriz Ghahraman: Yes they have.

CHRIS BISHOP: —well, Golriz Ghahraman says, “Yes we have.” Well, that is completely not true. For the Greens to stand up—the sanctimonious Greens, who spent nine years, when National was in Government, lecturing the Parliament about urgency being an abuse of democracy and it being, you know, dictatorial and all these other synonyms for fascism, for the Greens to then, essentially, just roll over and support this legislation under urgency, I think, is appalling. I think people will judge them for it.

So many members on the Government side have not even tried to justify the use of urgency for this legislation. If that was the case that there was this flood of donations between $50 and $1,500 that, you know, somehow we’d known about because the commission had disclosed it or told the Minister or something, and he’d made that public, and we had to really crack down, literally overnight, and stop these donations coming in, well, that would be fair enough. That would be reasonable. That might be a case for urgency.

It’s a bit like when the Minister finds out that a bunch of warrants for officers have been improperly or invalidly issued and there might be an issue to do with whether or not people have been legally arrested. Well, that’s, of course, a case for urgency, because the Parliament will want to act swiftly to erase any legal doubt about those arrests. Well, that’s totally justified. As I say, if it was true that there was a flood of foreign donations that we must stop, OK, there’d be a case for urgency, but no one’s made that case—no one has made that case. There’s deafening silence from members. There is literally no justification for urgency in relation to this bill. Barry Soper, I think, this morning or last night, had it completely right, which is he said it’s the worst excesses of what Government does when it’s on the ropes.

So let’s be clear about why we’re debating this in urgency on Tuesday night and Wednesday morning. Let’s be clear about why we’re doing it. The Government’s under pressure. New Zealand First Foundation’s in the media—the excesses of the foundation are, particularly—on Radio New Zealand and in the media. The Government doesn’t like it. In the last 48 hours, there’s been a grotesque breach of privacy through the Government’s own incompetent management of the gun buy-back scheme. It’s been a shocker of a week—or last two weeks, actually—for the Government and a terrible poll on Monday night for the Government. So what do we do? Andrew Little turns up. Hey, Andrew Little, the strategic mastermind who led them to 23 percent. He’s turned up on Tuesday morning and he said to Chris Hipkins, the Leader of the House, “I’ve got the answer. The answer is: let’s go into urgency and ram through a pitiful, small sliver of a bill so that we can distract everyone.” It’s Boris Johnson’s dead cat theory. You know—you throw a dead cat on a trampoline and everyone goes, “What are you doing?” He says, “Oh, it’s a dead cat.” and everyone’s talking about the dead cat. It’s exactly the same. [Interruption] It’s exactly the same. [Interruption] It’s exactly the same tactic that they’re operating, which is, “Let’s just have a debate about something that’s totally, totally near pointless.”

And that’s the fourth point that I want to finish on, which is the bill does very little. You read the regulatory impact statement—it even says that. The best that the regulatory impact statement can muster in support of the bill is that it sends a message. That’s it—that it sends a message. This bill, we support it. You know, in so far as it goes, it’s a sensible bill but the process has been a shocker and this Government’s got no idea what it’s doing. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in support of this bill. It is a step forward to recognising that our electoral donation system needs reform. I was delighted to see the Government pick up this particular measure out of my strengthening democracy member’s bill, which introduces a suite of reforms and we will continue to look further and further into making our democracy fairer because that is a priority for this Government. We live in a global context where democracy has been undermined by big money interference, whether that’s foreign interference, whether that’s multinational companies, whether that’s domestic actors with far more to invest, as they would see it, into our political system, shutting out ordinary voters. And that isn’t the way it’s meant to be.

But we knew that New Zealand was vulnerable and we, in particular, as Greens, know that our issues are vulnerable to this type of interference. We know that action on the climate crisis has been slowed for decades by the interests of big oil, by mining companies globally. We know cigarette companies—and the member who just resumed his seat, Chris Bishop, would know a lot about that having been a cigarette lobbyist—have interfered with healthcare reforms, with putting labels on cigarette packaging. We know they did that. We know that the gun lobby in the United States has brought that country’s public safety laws to a standstill for money. So we knew that change needed to be made. Imagine our Parliament sitting here passing our gun law reforms that were so necessary after this year’s terrorist attack in Christchurch, and having to be beholden to big money interests from the gun lobbies elsewhere in the world—and we know they tried. So this is change that is necessary.

I will go through the bill because there’s been some comments made that were a touch nonsensical. It is a ban on foreign donations. Fifty dollars is the cap, because as they know, the officials said that where people are selling things like raffle tickets, inquiring about the immigration status of someone in a town hall meeting is quite difficult, but we are raising the bar in terms of putting a positive obligation on party secretaries in all other cases to enforce a ban on any foreign donations above that amount, which we say they do have an obligation to regulate.

We can talk about urgency. We know, and we’ve heard across the House, everybody admits that the Justice Committee has been reviewing the 2017 election. And also within that and separate from that, they’ve held an inquiry into foreign interference in New Zealand’s democracy. For months and months they’ve heard submissions. They’ve heard submissions from experts, from members of the public, from human rights organisations, and everyone agrees that this ban is necessary, although much more is also necessary. I sat in some of those select committee hearings, although I don’t ordinarily sit on the Justice Committee, but this is a special interest of mine and I do have the member’s bill. So I did sit on some of those sessions, and it was extraordinary, the obstructive attitude taken by at least one member of the Opposition that I won’t name. It was extraordinary the patience that that committee and submitters showed in the face of just absolute disorderly behaviour.

Who would want to stop progress on reform of our political donations regime? Who would want to slow that process down? Why would you not want this ban in place before the 2020 election? They know they can’t oppose it publicly. They know the Serious Fraud Office is investigating their political party for receiving a large donation that allegedly was cut up to go under the threshold for anonymity, allegedly by—and incidentally—a foreign businessman. They know they can’t say no to this this year publicly, and there is a saying in politics, “When you’ve got no power, you delay.”—that’s what they tried to do. There’s been a process at select committee. There’s been a recommendation to this effect and we weren’t going to let them keep our democracy vulnerable.

The Green Party has supported urgency in cases where we know substantively a select committee process has taken place. We did that at the beginning of this Government with the paid parental leave legislation, which the National Party deliberately had delayed. We knew the substance of that bill had been through a select committee process. The process is what’s important, not the tick-boxing. And we won’t let them delay what New Zealanders need from us as a Government.

There’s been talk of people setting up shell companies to bypass this law. Well, that would be fraud, just as cutting up donations to go under the anonymity threshold is fraud. But first, you need the ban in order to enforce that law. If anyone is setting up a shell company in New Zealand to bypass this law, we would investigate them, just as the Serious Fraud Office is investigating the National Party. If they had, in fact, set up a shell company to bypass this law, they would be guilty of fraud but, first, we need the ban. So that’s that.

Something that people haven’t talked a lot about that’s also in this bill that’s close to my heart and I think really necessary, again, in the global context is that we’re also, apart from the foreign donation ban, requiring people—advertisers, political advertisers—to make themselves known. Now, this is part and parcel of making our system transparent. We know that fake news and all manner of lobbying goes on everywhere else in the world. We know it happens in New Zealand, and we know online, in particular, it’s really easy for those stakeholders to remain anonymous whilst they’re pouring money into advertising that does affect our elections, whether it’s on an issue-by-issue basis or in particular support of a political actor.

This bill makes that system transparent. New Zealanders do need to know who is taking a stake in our democracy, which is also why we need more reform, which is also why my bill seeks to lower the anonymity threshold altogether because actually every political party in this House is able to receive a huge amount of anonymous donations, and that does make our political system opaque. We do need to know if there’s a gun lobby operating here and donating anonymously to our political actors. We do need to know if the oil companies are slowing climate action. And what more we need to know—and I think New Zealanders would be shocked to know—is that we don’t actually have a limit on political donations. We need to introduce one because our democracy shouldn’t be bought and sold on the free market—the free market that they love so much. Simon Bridges was asked about this a couple of weeks ago and he said, “Oh, well, if we don’t let people pour all the money they want into our democracy, they will breach their freedom of speech.” Imagine thinking that freedom of speech and democracy should be up for sale to the highest bidder. It’s impeding freedom of speech to say that our politicians can be bought and sold if you’ve got the money.

So we do need more reform. We actually need the transparency reforms in order to implement this particular change itself. New Zealand does need us to protect the democracy that we hold so dear. We are the second-longest-running free democracy in the world and we should actually be leading when it comes to getting big money out. So I commend this bill to the House. I hope for, and will work towards, further change diligently, and we won’t let them slow us down. Thank you.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): For the benefit of those who may have only recently tuned into this debate, I want to point out that the House, and previously the committee, has now been debating this measure for nearly three hours and 10 minutes this morning and that was the first contribution we’ve heard from the Green Party. That once proud party that has constantly claimed to be champions of democracy and defenders of constitutional precedents and freedoms has today been totally disengaged and failed—failed—to answer, until a couple of minutes ago with Ms Ghahraman, any of the important points that have been made.

We have heard frequently in this debate highlighted—

Hon Clare Curran: Apologise—first reading and second reading.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: I have referred to the three hours and 10 minutes this morning, Ms Curran, and my claim was correct. We have been in committee all morning. She may not have been here, but that is the fact: that was the first contribution all morning from the Green Party.

Hon Clare Curran: Don’t refer to a member not in the House.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Well, you can abuse me now, but you were wrong, and it would be nice to hear your apology.

Let me continue. We have been highlighting the fact that Henry Cooke made a very good observation that this is great politics but terrible lawmaking, and that has been emphasised by the failure of Government parties to engage. What we’ve had is Government parties demonstrating their contempt for constitutional conventions, which are very important when it comes to matters of electoral law, and proper parliamentary scrutiny, of which there has been very little because only the National Party has genuinely engaged in this debate.

Now, since I’m following Ms Ghahraman, let me just point out that according to the regulatory impact statement, it is the Green Party that have received more than 20 times the number of foreign donations than each of the Labour, National, and New Zealand First parties in recent times. Now, we’re not suggesting that that is an indication of something dodgy about the Green Party—I don’t believe that is true. But it is a fact that theirs is the party that has been receiving vastly greater numbers of foreign donations, and so I’m wondering if the Greens are perhaps acknowledging that they’re the problem here. It’s curious, therefore, that no member of the Greens took a call throughout the whole of the committee stage of the debate to explain their support for a measure that bans the means by which they receive much of their funding. I hope, since they haven’t done so in that contribution a moment ago either, that they will at least do so to their public and their increasingly disenchanted supporters, who we know are feeling badly let down by the failure of the Greens to deliver in Government the same sort of energy and principle that they constantly championed when they were in Opposition.

It’s also very disappointing that neither the Greens nor the Minister sponsoring this bill from the Labour Party, Andrew Little, demanded answers from their New Zealand First colleagues about the very murky circumstances and lack of transparency over the New Zealand First Party’s foundation, which has emerged as the elephant in the room in this debate. I’m quite sure that it is the matter that is going to receive the greatest media attention and public comment, and rightly so, because—and this is a very important point to put on the record—it’s those three parties opposite that voted down Dr Nick Smith’s tabled amendment, which was designed to bring those foundations into this bill. Well, what a disgrace that is.

It looks as if Mr Patterson might be going to take the next call. If that is the case, would he please explain to the House and to the public why New Zealand First voted down an amendment to bring those foundations into the ambit of this bill. If he doesn’t give us that explanation, then all of the doubt, all of the concern, and all of the murk will remain in the public arena.

Now, many observers have, quite correctly, observed that that’s the key issue requiring exposure to the disinfectant of sunlight. Yet, as I say, today, Labour, New Zealand First, and the Greens have voted to exclude foundations from this bill’s valid objectives. We in the National Party say shame on them, and it exposes utter hypocrisy in what they’re doing. That’s what the public wanted answers to. That, as I say, is what the media should highlight, and it’s why this bill is so inadequate and simply won’t meet all of its stated objectives.

Unfortunately, I had to leave the House for the last half hour or so of the committee stage, so I’m not sure if Minister Little answered Dr Nick Smith’s query about the definition of an “overseas person”, but, if he didn’t, it’s another deficiency in this bill that the Government ought to seek to clarify as soon as possible, because it appears to include someone who is in New Zealand on a work visa. Now, a person who isn’t a New Zealand citizen but is here on a work visa isn’t residing outside New Zealand, as is the terminology in the bill, so the question to the Government is: is it the Minister’s intention to enable people who are here on work visas to donate to our political parties? That’s a legitimate question.

Now, I commented in earlier debates on this bill about other inadequacies in the drafting of this bill, and, as we now come towards its conclusion, I want to focus on a couple more, because these inadequacies mean that it will almost certainly need to be amended in the future. It’ll come back to a future Parliament, and they will be charged with putting it right.

Now, another example is that I cited the illogical and still unexplained failure to include foreign donations to local government candidates and entities. The Minister claimed during the committee stage to answer the question, but, quite frankly, he didn’t. He certainly didn’t do it satisfactorily. Local body candidates and entities are just as susceptible—perhaps even more so—to foreign interference, and we need to have an assurance that that is another area where that particular problem won’t be allowed to continue in the future. But this bill won’t stop that.

Let me now turn to the issue of anonymous advertisements, because there are measures in this bill to strengthen the requirements around advertising, and they are welcome, in order to ensure consistency across advertising. As we’ve said repeatedly, there are intentions behind this bill, or underpinning this bill, that we all support, and that’s why National will continue to vote for it. But it isn’t entirely clear that the change will capture those individuals and entities whom it’s intended to capture. Clarity about that from the Government would have been appreciated during the debates, but, as I say, they remained disengaged this morning and therefore that clarity, again, wasn’t forthcoming.

There are serious issues present that the Government has not considered that may well prove to be unworkable. Political parties, including National, always put authorisation statements on their advertisements online, but, if a third party puts up an advertisement with no authorisation statement and no contact details, whether it’s from a foreign country or domestically, we want to know—we need to know—what measures will be in place for the Electoral Commission to contact them to take it down.

Now, someone can do a lot of damage in a day with misinformation and the wildfire of such misinformation going viral. That is deeply unsatisfactory. It’s something that this Government ought to have wanted to stop, because we know that it might take some time for the Electoral Commission to approach Facebook, for example, to get them to take that inappropriate content down. We’ve seen this problem with other big global tech companies online, including Google and various streaming platforms who don’t like being told what they can and can’t have on their platforms. Yet here we have these problems.

So in the last couple of minutes, let me conclude with some general observations. We all acknowledge that this issue is about genuine foreign influence, foreign powers, and foreign interests influencing New Zealand’s process. That is just wrong. We all agree with that. We all agree that this needs to change. Concern about the risks of foreign interference is growing, and it’s based on recent experience in overseas elections. That’s why it would have been appropriate to do this job properly and to take a little bit more time. It could still have been resolved early in the new year with a proper select committee process, but, no, that’s been denied. We know that New Zealand intelligence agencies have advised the committee—that’s a matter of public record—that they have seen actions taken by foreign State actors in New Zealand. That is of concern, and I assume we all want to stop that.

In New Zealand, donation returns indicate that the level of foreign donations received by political parties is pretty low, and we’ve had some figures quoted in this morning’s debate which show that is pretty farcical that we’re having to reduce it to $50 when the average one is only $66. But, anyway, we assume that the same is true for candidates. But, in another illustration of this Government’s total incompetence, this bill doesn’t actually do what the public is calling for. It’s another example of poorly thought-out law that doesn’t achieve its stated objectives. It’s now part and parcel of this Government, which is just failing to deliver across a whole range of issues.

So we are left with the fact that trusts and foundations, such as the dodgy New Zealand First Foundation, which is currently at the centre of a $500,000 scandal, will still be allowed under this bill. National will continue to support this bill because of its better provisions, but we’re deeply disappointed that as a consequence of poor process, unjustified urgency, and an arrogant “we know best and don’t need expert advice” approach from the Government. This incompetent Government has failed again, and this matter will be back before a future Parliament to put things right that they’re getting so badly wrong.

SPEAKER: Before I call Ginny Andersen, I’m going to do a general reminder that members are not to read their speeches.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Mr Speaker, thank you very much. Now, this is an important piece of legislation, as the select committee found out, because we heard, as members of the Justice Committee, that there have been some examples of foreign interference in New Zealand. We’ve heard this from the GCSB and the SIS. And it’s important we take this action urgently, to put in place legislation before the next election, in order to prevent any interference or possibility of that happening.

Yes, there was a more fulsome report from the select committee that would have added far more detail and would have informed the public debate. And it’s very unfortunate that that was stymied to the point where it was not able to be brought to this House. And that was incredibly frustrating. The committee heard evidence and reported back, and all of those members opposite actually were in agreement of the key areas.

Now, the real reason—this is the last thing I’ll say before I sit down—that the committee did not report back was because of the Hon Dr Nick Smith; he prevented it from happening. And it came to the point where his own party tried to physically remove him from that committee because he was being so obstructive, and that is a shame—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think if the member is referring to incidents which occurred in the non-public part of a committee which has not yet reported back, she is out of order and will cease.

GINNY ANDERSEN: Apologies, Mr Speaker. To get to the point, the real reason that came out in the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s speech today was that there was a general unhappiness and dissatisfaction that the party that got the largest vote—this is what he said—were not in Government. And he blamed New Zealand First for that. And that is the underlying real reason, and his self-interest, that shows the true colours. And there is no concern for the public interest in New Zealand to protect our democracy and to protect us from foreign interference. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): That was a very nasty and quite unnecessary contribution to the debate from a member who’s only been here for five minutes and frankly knows nothing.

The reality is that the Government’s hiding something. That’s why the bill is here. We all know that. Why would a bill that affects so little, does so little, be in the House under urgency for the place to consider it, for it not to become effective in one part until 1 January, and in another part, until 1 April? It’s complete rubbish, it’s a total distraction, and it is an absolute nonsense that when the issue that is being considered by so many out there in the public at the moment—the issue of anonymous donations to political parties, focused at the moment very much on New Zealand First—the amendment laid in the House by the Hon Dr Nick Smith was totally rejected by the other side of the House.

We have no problem with there being a reach into foundations, political action groups, trusts, or any other construction that people might like to put around a political party and its funding stream. But, apparently, all the Government parties do. It’s interesting to note that one of the biggest recipients of foreign donations, undeclared anonymous foreign donations, is the Green Party; the very party that’s railed against all sorts of electoral excesses for decades, now comes into the House and exempts themselves, effectively, through this legislation, from the scrutiny that any outside political action group might come under, should they make a donation to the Green Party.

And then, of course, we know about the missing $840,000 from the 2017 election in the New Zealand First Party, and the Electoral Commission is looking into that at the moment. But under this legislation, there’s no problem for an organisation like that. No problem at all.

We in our party declare all donations to the foundation that we have supporting us. We don’t make any bones about that. And, yes, it is a capital structure and we do use the interest for political purposes, but it’s all declared.

So why is it that New Zealand First blocked today—blocked today—a provision that could have gone into this bill that would have made the good practice law? So it’s really very interesting for us to be in a position where we support the bill, because we want transparency. But we find, interestingly, that the number of declared anonymous donations over a long period of time averaged about $66. So we’re in here making a $16 difference to the level at which a current average donation is made. We know some are bigger, because that is average. Some are much smaller. But it really makes the point that if you aren’t going to have a bill that looks at every aspect of funding going to political parties, then it’s a bit of a nonsense to say it is an amendment bill to make the greater security around New Zealand elections to ensure that there are no outside bodies influencing the political process. No one has any idea where that $840,000 came from, except the people inside New Zealand First who received it, or the people inside their foundation who received it. What we do know is that there should be a greater reach and understanding of where those influences—that can be at least made accusation about—come from.

It’s also a bit, we think, odd that we’re going to have a three-week period now between when the bill gets its Royal assent—probably later today—and when the bill comes into effect. Now, you could take out your few statutory days around Christmas and Boxing Day, perhaps the Sundays and the weekends, but it gives, effectively, 15 or 16 working days where these donations can be solicited, can be received, and do not have to be declared if they’re going into the political party above the levels that are currently prescribed.

It’s interesting that the only party that did not declare any donations last election over the specific amount was New Zealand First, and I don’t believe there were 840 people out there who gave them a thousand dollars each. That’s just too hard for me to believe.

Nevertheless, that will be part of the ongoing discussion. We support this bill, but it’s not adequate and it does miss the point. We do know it is here as a distraction.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I rise with pleasure to support this bill, on behalf of New Zealand First, as we seek to eliminate foreign influence from New Zealand’s democracy. It has no place.

The reason we are here, of course, taking out this lowest of the low-hanging fruit—the foreign donations—is because the Justice Committee, which started on this process, reviewing the 2017 election, in July 2018 and is yet to report. This has been a dysfunctional committee on a very important issue. And Minister Little has implored that committee to come back with a report so we can look at these wider influences, and they have failed to do so. So we will support him in bringing this measure—as I say, the lowest of the low-hanging fruit.

We do need this wider reform. There are plenty of international examples out there where we’ve got foreign actors in all sorts of jurisdictions around the world—in hacking and disinformation, and, yes, in funding. We’ve heard from Professor Anne-Marie Brady from Canterbury University that those influences quite possibly exist within our democracy.

Now, we have heard also some incredibly disturbing accounts from Jami-Lee Ross articulating exactly how Todd McClay, as a Minister of the Crown, went over to China and solicited a donation from a foreign national, which then came back through a New Zealand - front company—that most Kiwi of New Zealand - front companies—the “Inner Mongolian Racing Company” or some such thing, and Jami-Lee Ross was advised to tell him how to break those donations up into amounts that would not be detectable, completely flouting the intent of the laws of New Zealand. It is an absolute display of collective amnesia over there, that the only party—the only party—in this Parliament that’s sitting before the Serious Fraud Office is the National Party.

Hon Member: No, no. Winston told us you guys have voluntarily gone in.

MARK PATTERSON: So we’ve volunteered to go to the Electoral Commission, which is the appropriate place. That Serious Fraud Office is a big step up on volunteering information to the Electoral Commission.

So there is need for wider reform. We must do this, but until that Justice Committee returns its report, we somewhat have our hands tied behind our back. New Zealand democracy is for New Zealanders. It is up to us to decide our fate. It is only us that have skin in the game here, and this bill, while it’s a modest step, is a step in the right direction and New Zealand First has pleasure in supporting it.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): National supports the intent of this bill to reduce the threat of foreign intervention in our democracy and foreign influence on our democratic processes, and we support the very small, the very minor, provision of lowering the level of overseas donations from $1,500 to $50. So we support this bill. But what we do take particular issue with, and have taken issue with throughout the urgent stages of this bill’s passage, is the overblown way in which it has been described. This bill does not amount to a ban on foreign donations. It falls very short of that, because it does not address some of the major issues that have been raised by experts and others. All it does is lower the level of donations that can be received through formal channels.

We lament the process that this bill has been taken through. We lament it being passed through urgency, because we see that that has denied the democratic right of New Zealanders to have their say on this bill, to question whether or not it will achieve the purpose it says it has, and to examine the provisions and the detail of how they will come into effect. It has denied the consultation with the affected parties to find out what it may mean in practice, and it has been put through urgency in a way that is unnecessary and unjustifiable, because the bill’s measures do not actually get implemented until 1 January next year, and, in fact, some of the provisions of this bill don’t get put in place until the 1 April next year.

So we do lament that process, and we put that on the record because we are concerned that over the next year—in fact, into the years ahead—there will continue to be questions raised by the public, there will continue to be concerns raised, about the potential for foreign interference in our elections, and we do not wish it to be thought that we think this bill will address those issues. It will not.

There is a lot missing from the bill. There is still the potential—and the regulatory impact statement raises this, and experts have raised it—that foreign States will be able to circumvent the rules in our foreign donation regime. That is a very real concern, and the Minister in the chair himself acknowledged that concern. We are concerned that the bill still allows for anonymous donations of up to $1,500. Again, officials have acknowledged that that is a potential loophole whereby foreign actors will seek to use the anonymous donation channel to continue to influence. I note that New Zealand First has been the biggest recipient of anonymous donations, and we have invited New Zealand First again and again to address who those anonymous donations have come from and why it is that they receive so many anonymous donations, and that remains unanswered.

The bill also doesn’t include any provisions for this to apply to local government, and we have queried throughout this debate why that would be the case. If we are so concerned about the influence on democracy, why is it that we’re only concerned about central government democracy and not what goes on at local government? That seems a missed opportunity.

Finally, when it comes to this question of how this has been overblown and the PR about this being a huge ban, I just want to point out a fact that has been tabled in this House in the regulatory impact statement, which is about where donations currently go, because, actually, this bill is very narrow. It deals with donations of between $50 in value and $1,500 in value that come from foreign entities and foreign persons. When we look through the electoral returns for the past 10 years, it is clear that the vast bulk of donations of that size, of between $50 and $1,500, have been made to the Green Party. It is the Green Party in 2018 who received 57 overseas donations under $1,500, it is the Green Party who in 2017 filed a return with 60 overseas donations under $1,500, and it is the Green Party who in 2015 filed a return with 300 overseas donations under $1,500. This is relevant, because we have had, throughout this debate, people talking about the spectre of dark forces, of foreign influence, and the fact that this regime in itself will kerb that threat. Well, if that is the case, then the Green Party must know something that we here don’t know about the influence those hundreds of donations have had on them, because if, really, all it took was this bill to address that problem, then, clearly, the donations they have been receiving are of significant concern to them.

What this bill does not do is go any way to address the actual concerns New Zealanders have right now about our donation regime—concerns that have been raised on the front pages of New Zealand’s newspapers in recent weeks. We know what this is. This bill is simply an attempt to distract and divert the New Zealand public, and I believe that New Zealanders are smarter than this Government gives them credit for. They see this for the sham that it is. Yes, it has a good intent. Yes, supporting the lowering of the level of donations is a good idea. But, please, let us be clear: this does not ban foreign donations. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, Nicola Willis likes to throw bombs at other parties in the House around donations, and I’ve got a question for her: why did she launder donations of between $1,500 and $15,000 through her Wellington central office? Got any answer to that, Nicola Willis? Laundering donations—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I believe there’s a provision in the Standing Orders that where an allegation like that is made, a member may take a call to refute that allegation, and I think it would be appropriate.

SPEAKER: A person at the end of a speech can make a personal explanation—at the end of a speech. That is open to Nicola Willis if she wishes to do so.

Hon CLARE CURRAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. So despite all of the howls and the fake outrage from the National Party on this bill, the ultimate point is that they are supporting this bill, and that’s a good thing for our nation. But after 18 months, the Justice Committee, which has been conducting an inquiry into the general election, the local body elections, and extending it to foreign interference in our electoral system, has been unable to report to the House, back to Parliament, which it should have done. Why is that? Because it’s been held up. It’s been held up by the National Party. It’s been held up by one particular member—that member is Nick Smith. I challenge again the National Party to explain that, to refute that. That is what the people of New Zealand, anybody listening to this debate, should know. It’s very deliberate. It’s a very deliberate tactic. As a result, it’s their own fault that we are in this House today debating this legislation under urgency, because the Minister who signalled for months that he wanted that report—there’s been very good work done by both sides. That report deserves to come back to Parliament. But because he couldn’t wait any longer, he had to bring this bill to the House. That’s why we’re debating this bill today.

This bill is not a fix-it for everything. There is a much bigger piece of work that needs to be done, and the people of New Zealand deserve to see the depth of the work that’s been done. I want to acknowledge all of the submitters that spent hours before the committee giving their presentations on the impact of foreign donations and interference in our system. I particularly acknowledge Professor Anne-Marie Brady on that. I want to point out to the Opposition over there that currently, there’s one large donation that they are responsible for that is under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office. There’s another $150,000 donation channelled through Chinese donations—both of them are Chinese—that is under scrutiny and should be under further scrutiny. These are serious matters—very serious, in our system, that these things can be happening. We have to pay attention.

It is currently illegal for there to be—and I’ll quickly read the provision. Section 207L in the Electoral Act makes it an illegal practice to enter into “an agreement, arrangement, or understanding with any other person that has the effect of circumventing” restrictions on overseas donations or contributions over $1,500. It is “a corrupt practice if the circumvention is wilful;”. These things need more scrutiny. This bill does not fix all of it, but it lowers that threshold to $50. That is not minor; it is significant. The scrutiny and the duty of care on the party secretaries is absolutely critical, and it will make a significant change. This is an important bill. It’s one step in much-needed electoral reform. I commend it to the House.

SPEAKER: Was the member going to make a point of order—no? Mr Brownlee? I was just checking were we going to have a point of order?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, no. The moment’s passed.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2)

Third Reading

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): I move, That the Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.

I introduced this bill to the House on 27 June, and I’m proud to be here for its final passage today. This bill shows the Government’s commitment to the wellbeing of our farmers and their families. I hope that the Opposition doesn’t, as they’ve done before, stand up and talk about all the negatives that have been occurring, they say, because of this Government, and once again spread a negative perception of the farmers around this country. They are great people doing great work, and they need to be supported.

The bill shows our understanding of the reality and the financial stresses that face farmers after years of debt growing to now be at $63 billion. That is a huge debt, much of which grew under the National Government, under a philosophy which was to double exports. The increase in the volume that they tried to generate created pressure at every level of the farming system—

Hon Dr David Clark: Did they achieve it?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —no, they didn’t achieve it—from debt at the top, all the way down through environmental pressures, pressures on families, on individuals working on the farms. The Government is now taking action in a number of areas, after nine years of neglect by the so-called “Farmers’ Party”, to provide, firstly, a safety net through this legislation to help farmers, ultimately, get more value for what they do and, if they come under pressure financially, to have a dignified way forward.

Although farmers are getting record prices at the moment, they have these high levels of debt and are under perceived pressure. They do feel—too many of them, anyway—that there’s not a clear way forward, and the banks, in their latest moves to squeeze more money from the farms, are contributing to that. Federated Farmers had a survey that they released last week saying that there were less people satisfied with their banks—

SPEAKER: Fewer!

Hon Tim Macindoe: Fewer!

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —fewer, sorry—in a sector that has relied, traditionally, on a good partnership between banks and farmers, where a healthy provision of capital, repayment, and management of it has been the norm. This is no longer necessarily the case.

This bill shows that the Government is committed to find solutions and support for farmers. The sector groups and all the lenders support the bill, and there was a view at the start that perhaps the banks would push back against it. What we have seen in reality, through Australia and now here, is the banking sector seeing the value in a cooperative approach, a collaborative approach to work through this.

I’d like to thank the officials who have contributed to the bill’s development. I’d like to thank all the submitters who came in, and the select committee, who did, I think, a good job and worked through this, and the coalition colleagues. Can I acknowledge New Zealand First for, I guess, seizing the moment and tabling a bill that they’d had floating around for quite a number of years, and that provided an opportunity for the Government to pick up that bill, to make some adjustments, and now we have, as a coalition, run this forward.

I’d like to pay special tribute to two people. They’re not the only two people who’ve been involved, but in the early 1990s I was involved with Gray Eatwell, who had, I guess, confronted the might and power of the banking sector, and then, later, a person—Janette Walker—who had done a huge amount to help people who were in a similar situation, she being, I guess, the victim of what can be, at times, a superior and an abusive, or dominant, position by banks, who, ultimately, carry the day through their mortgage arrangements and can almost do what they like. Those two people had seen firsthand the stresses. They were staunch advocates and had contacted myself and a number of other politicians through the years to try and get something like this in place, and I have to acknowledge their efforts have now come to fruition.

We have done a lot for farmers and working in collaboration with them. I have to say we’ve gotten a recent agreement on agricultural emissions, which we hope will offer certainty, reduce stress, and allow a pathway forward for farmers. We’ve just released a skills work plan developed with the sector to try and release the pressure on trying to obtain skilled farm workers. We’ve, of course, embraced a joint programme for Mycoplasma bovis.

SPEAKER: I’m waving the bill at the member and asking him to return to it.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: The reason I raise these things is because the bill attempts to address a key area of pressure across the farming sector, one of finance. I’ve acknowledged that it’s not the only one, and I guess, if the other things that the Government have done to release the pressure can be acknowledged, then with this bill in place we, hopefully, will have farmers far more positive about what should be a spectacular future. The world needs more food. It needs more quality food and protein, and, in fact, we can deliver that for them.

The Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2) guarantees a number of things—firstly, a fair, constructive, and timely process for farmers to work through their debt problems with their lenders. The reality of an imbalance of power has meant that farmers have, at times, often felt powerless to negotiate with dignity, maybe, a better solution to what is, they will accept, often an unsustainable financial situation.

The second thing the scheme provides is for an impartial negotiation process that allows the mediator, as a neutral and independent person, to help both the farmer and the creditor to work through the debt issues in an effort to reach an agreement. Both have a lot at play, both have a lot at stake, and the mediator, who will be impartial, who will be appointed and overseen by the Ministry for Primary Industries—we believe that that impartial process will deliver a fair outcome.

The third thing is that the proposed scheme would make it compulsory for secured creditors to offer mediation to eligible farming and primary production businesses when they default on payments. So this is a voluntary and proactive way that, firstly, the creditors can offer the mediation and then farmers, of course, can also request independent mediation at any stage. So rather than, as we often do, or people tend to do, try to ignore the situation and hope it will go away, thereby prolonging the agony and often complicating the financial situation, there will be an ability for farmers, probably with a bit of advice, to seek mediation early on.

This Government does understand the importance of the farming sector—the rural sector—of their families and the rural communities. They are still at the core of our wealth creation in this country. The Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2) will bring some balance to what is a core part of ongoing farming operations. I hope that the Opposition, as they have expressed, will support the bill. I know that there’s been a healthy, robust debate in the Primary Production Committee. A few things have been adjusted and, I think, improved. We want to see a healthy rural environment. We want to see debt paid down. The banks want to see that. We have high commodity prices and an opportunity to do that, but ad hoc interventions by creditors or banks will lead to unfair pressure and, perhaps, foreclosures where they are not necessary.

This Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2), in its passage finally through the House, will be a huge step forward to create a balanced situation for finance into and out of the farming sectors, something that has been requested by individuals, needed by the whole sector, and now acknowledged by this coalition Government.

I’d like to commend the bill to the House and hope that its implementation will be seen in the spirit that it was intended—that is, a collaborative, cooperative outcome to work and assist farmers through what might be some difficult financial situations. Kia ora.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was going to have a very conciliatory speech, but after the temptations put by that past member, the Hon Damien O’Connor, it may change. I just want to raise one point with that member, because often members do leave after they’ve done their introductory speech, and that is that we have had an email, a genuine email, from an accounting firm around this bill. They were at a recent Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand rural advisory committee meeting with the Inland Revenue Department.

Now, the Minister’s smiling, so he might be aware of this issue. It’s just an issue that hasn’t been raised with us during the committee stage or any other part of the process, but we just got it on our desk yesterday. There is a tax issue that they have foreseen that they raised with the IRD at that meeting. So if the Minister would indulge the Parliament and possibly look into that issue, that would be most appreciated, because in the Primary Production Committee, all members of the committee worked their best to try and work through any issues that were raised that were genuine. This wasn’t raised—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The Government has indicated to me that it’s their intention to end urgency. The member’s speech and the debate are adjourned.

The House adjourned at 12.50 p.m. (Wednesday)