Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2)

I move, That the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’ve been back and checked the record, and I see the new member for Christchurch Central—

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

—might be able to answer—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

—this question for me.

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

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

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

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

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

Well, the member opposite says National did it. I say, on which electoral bill?

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: Do you yield, Mr Smith?

I simply ask the question: which electoral bill?

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do you yield for a question?

No.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: You don’t yield?

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

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

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

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. No, well that’s—

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bit quiet now. Bit quiet now, Tracey.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chlöe Swarbrick: Put forward an SOP, Penk.

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

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

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

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

Read the Act?

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

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

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

💬 Hon Clare Curran: What about the National Party foundation?

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

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: They’re all declared.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s a bit rich.

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

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

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

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

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

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

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: You’re a bully.

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

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

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

I also want to talk about the—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, she doesn’t like this, does she? She doesn’t like this.

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

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

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

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

I believe I have been speaking to the bill for the whole time.

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

—and, in particular, I am rebutting—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

💬 Hon Clare Curran: What a joke.

—the constitutional principles. Sorry, Ms Curran?

💬 Hon Clare Curran: Tell the truth, Tim Macindoe.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

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

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

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

💬 Hon Clare Curran: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

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

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

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

💬 Hon Clare Curran: I withdraw and apologise.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Intriguing that Ms Curran would make the comment—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m sorry, Madam Speaker, what am I withdrawing and apologising for?

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

Well, I’ll withdraw and apologise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): 19.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

💬 Hon Member: Nothing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What a negative contribution we just heard then from Opposition members who are voting for the legislation—

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

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

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

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

I’m sorry, I omitted to say this was a split call—so, Melissa Lee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Split call—Jami-Lee Ross.

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

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

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

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

💬 Chris Penk: You did it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

💬 Hon Clare Curran: What about the Inner Mongolian donations?

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

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

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

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

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