Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2)

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.

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—

Order! The member’s time has expired—[Interruption] The member’s time has expired.

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.

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—

Order! The member’s time has expired.

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?

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!

—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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

—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.

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—

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.

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.

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.

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—

We are on call No. 10 and if Mr David Seymour would like to have that call he can have it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

—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—

—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—

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.

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—

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—

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.

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.

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—

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

—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—

The member’s time has expired.

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.

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.

—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.

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?

—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?

—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.

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?

Goodness me! Minister Martin does seem to want to draw attention to—

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

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.

—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.

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.

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.

E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe.

💬 Stuart Smith: Under pressure, Andrew?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

All members are honourable, and I believed the members.

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

Debate interrupted.