Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

💬 Erica Stanford: Tacit consent.

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

💬 Hon Member: Because they’re corrupt.

I think I know why. You know why? The only reason they are on the Government benches—

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

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

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

So I take issue with the provisions in Part 2 that leave a gap absolutely wide open around the issue of foundations, when it is on everybody’s lips, from Kaitāia to Bluff, the rort that has gone on within New Zealand First. So I would urge members opposite to get to their feet and say that if we are serious about improving the integrity of our electoral system, why we would not include, within the definition of such a donation, foundations that have been set up by parties like New Zealand First, solely—

💬 Clayton Mitchell: National Party.

—with the reason of getting round the electoral law. We’re more than happy to be open with our foundation. I hear the colleague from New Zealand First—will he be supporting the amendment to include the foundations?

💬 Hon Member: That was your foundation.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: We declare everything.

We declare everything. So I ask the question of New Zealand First: do you support the inclusion of the foundation in the declaration of donations? Does the Green Party support foundations that are set up by political parties being included?

💬 Marama Davidson: A whole lot of reform there, Mr Smith.

Not prepared to answer a very simple question—I’ll tell you why. The only reason they’re on the Government benches is because of the decision of New Zealand First. We have the unusual situation where the party that got the most votes and won the most seats is not the Government. That is because of New Zealand First’s decision. The public have a right to know who was funding New Zealand First; that has been kept secret. That is immoral and that is wrong in our electoral system.

Thank you, Mr Chair. In this committee of the whole House stage of the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2), it’s important that we actually take what little opportunity we have to interrogate the detail of this, to give the debate the dignity that it deserves—or, actually, probably quite a lot more given how truncated the process has been.

Let me start by trying to understand a bit of what’s in the Minister of Justice’s head, to which he alluded to in yesterday’s debate, about, basically, the interpretation of what he sees as an appropriate practice for prosecuting potential offences under this. Minister Little talked about a scenario where, basically, the more that a donation exceeds $50 the more scrutiny should be applied to a possible breach. That might be a reasonable sort of point for the Minister to make, but I don’t think it’s reasonable for him to be pontificating on that in a way that suggests that decision-making bodies should take it into account, but not have it included it in the law.

So, looking at clause 5, which, as the Minister rightly says, is the main sort of operative provision, I would like the Minister or the Minister in his stead, Peeni Henare, to answer where in the definition section 207(2) of “candidate donation” or “party donation” do we have reflected this idea of proportionality—that the higher the amount the more scrutiny would be applied. I’m happy that between $0 and $50, there’s none, because that’s not an offence—that’s fine; that’s fair enough as far as it goes. But after that we’ve got on record from the current Minister of Justice, who’s introducing a reform bill—you know, modest as it is—a suggestion from him about the way that the law should be applied, and that is not recorded in the law itself. If the committee of the whole House stage is to have any meaning whatsoever, then it must be that the Minister can actually explain what he means by that, and, more particularly, his appetite for considering a change that we ourselves on this side of the House might put in if he’s not willing or prepared to do it. I’m assuming that the Green Party or other coalition colleagues or support party colleagues haven’t done so. That’s a serious miss if that’s something that’s sort of on the table, generally speaking, in terms of the law reform, but actually doesn’t exist anywhere but in the Minister’s head. So that’s the first thing.

The second question that I’d like to be answered by the Minister relates to the definition of “overseas person”. We’ve got here in clause 5(5)(a) discussion of an individual, probably a natural person—fine—who resides outside of New Zealand, but it doesn’t actually have any more detail about that. Does that mean simply that the person cannot reside outside New Zealand at the time that they make the donation? Does it mean that they must have resided in New Zealand to qualify as a non-overseas person? Maybe just during the election campaign period. Maybe during election year. Maybe during the three-year term for which the donation relates. Maybe since writ day, if we want to get a little bit more refined. There are a number of different answers that could be given to that, all of which might be reasonable.

But the fact of the matter is that all we’ve got is just, in the present tense, an individual who resides outside New Zealand will be disqualified. Well, does that mean that someone who is a New Zealand resident who goes overseas—perhaps on a holiday, for example; just a private individual perfectly entitled to go overseas on a holiday—if they make the donation at that time, that that is a donation by an overseas person? So these are pretty serious questions in terms of the way that the law will be applied and understood, and I’d like to think that this is an answer that the Minister can give for at least a little bit of direction, seeing as he hasn’t troubled to spell it out more clearly in the legislation.

I anticipate that the Minister might say “Well, this meaning of ‘overseas person’ exists elsewhere.”, and it simply would have the same kind of interpretation applied to it. In the first instance, I don’t think that’s satisfactory, if that’s sort of where he intends to go, simply because the whole point of rewriting a law is that you do it in as clear a way as possible. Certainly, loopholes and other shortfalls that can be identified at the committee of the whole House stage should be rectified at this stage, so it would be a relatively easy Supplementary Order Paper—a stroke of a pen, really. Again, I’d offer to potentially do some work on that if he can indicate that he’s amenable to that.

But, at the same time, I also don’t think it’s appropriate for us to leave open this question about what it means to reside outside New Zealand simply by talking about the existence of another definition. If that’s the approach, then surely we should just say that an “overseas person” has the same meaning in some other statute or perhaps another—[Time expired]

So here we are taking up quite a bit of Parliament’s extra time where select committees could have been sitting and progressing some of the matters that might have improved the general statistics around the year of delivery for the Government—although, that would be a pretty hard call to make. So we are here trying to solve a $66 problem. That’s the average amount of donation, as pointed out by my colleague Dr Nick Smith, received anonymously by political parties at the last election.

💬 Hon Tim Macindoe: How much?

$66. That’s why we’re here today, to change the law to make a $16 difference in the average amount of anonymous donation that has to be declared.

You can’t help thinking that this is in the House today because the Government had a very bad week last week. The Government had a particularly bad weekend just before the House resumed on Tuesday. I think the Prime Minister gave her Ministers a bit of a hurry up, and said, “Right, we’ve got to get on the front foot. We’re being buried by this New Zealand First anonymous donation scandal, so we need to put something out there that tells the people of New Zealand that we’re on the case.” Andrew Little would have said “I’ve got something: I can solve the $66 problem.” by coming to the House with this amendment bill that we’re dealing with today.

But the real question is: why is there no reference, as Dr Smith has said, to the foundations or other entities that are set up to support political parties? Why is there no reference to that? Now, we have, in the name of Dr Nick Smith, an amendment to the bill that would put those foundations under the same regime as anybody else. The National Party has a foundation; we declare every donation to that foundation.

The real question is: where did the $840,000 that New Zealand First received in the lead-up to the 2017 election come from? Where did it come from, this $500,000 into this capital-funded foundation and $340,000 into their campaign itself? All anonymous; no declarations at all. But here we have them colluding with the Government to take up Parliament’s time, to solve a problem about a few people from offshore who save up their pennies and send their $66 to the Green Party—because they’re the ones who are the major beneficiaries of anonymous donations.

Just think about the numbers, again, given by Dr Smith this morning: two for Labour; three for National, so we got our, you know, nearly $200; four for New Zealand First, that apparently was only a small fraction, around $250 of the unexplained $840,000; and then 10, about $660 to $700, for the Green Party.

We’re here solving that problem to make sure that in future, all of those donations, coming to around about 15 donations—so, what’s that? About 15—oh, I can’t think how much it is. A very tiny amount. A very tiny amount—a very tiny amount. But this bill does not deal with the issue that New Zealanders are struggling with at the moment, and that is the high and mighty, finger-pointing exercise at everybody else by New Zealand First while there is no explanation for the $840,000 that made its way into their kitty in the 2017 year.

So the amendment that’s been put up by Dr Smith would mean that that sort of arrangement comes under the scrutiny of the Electoral Commission. Mind you, let’s be clear that if the Electoral Commission do use the legislation they’ve got now, then New Zealand First is in some trouble—no question about that—but that is something for them to announce, not for us to announce here in the House today. What I will say is simply this: if we are going to have Parliament’s time taken up on an electoral amendment bill dealing with issues that are pressing, it cannot be the $66 anonymous donations declared by parties; it has to be about the $840,000 undeclared by New Zealand First.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, the committee stage of any debate in the House, of course, is every member’s opportunity to ask questions and to raise important issues on the measure that’s under consideration, and it’s deeply concerning that, yet again, here we have the Government parties—Labour, New Zealand First, and the Greens—with their heads down, making no effort to get involved in the debate. But it’s particularly important when there’s been no select committee process and no opportunity for the public—and, particularly, legal experts, who we rely upon—to ensure that we get important measures right. They’ve had no such opportunity because of this rushed process under urgency, so it’s doubly important for all members of the House to be fully involved in thorough and appropriate scrutiny. I do hope that the Minister who’s in the chair at the moment, Peeni Henare, who I know is an honourable man and who I’m sure will take a close interest in it, will engage respectfully and fully, because I’ve got a number of questions, and my colleagues Dr Nick Smith, Chris Penk, and the Hon Gerry Brownlee have raised a number.

I want to draw his attention to the general policy statement in this electoral amendment bill, in which it makes clear that the Minister’s purpose is for the bill to make several changes to the Electoral Act 1993 to send a clear signal that only those who are part of New Zealand’s democracy and who live in or who have a strong connection to this country should participate in our electoral system. Well, I approve of that, and, as you know, all members on this side of the House, with the exception of the ACT Party, are supporting this bill as well, so there’s no debate over that important principle. But I have a very important question, which I hope the Minister is going to answer, which is: if that is the case, why is it only applying to parliamentary elections?

We have two important triennial election processes, and I would suggest that if, as Minister Little has said, the risks of undue influence and interference are very real—and I agree with his statement—why has he exempted half of those two triennial processes from this bill? Surely, the risk of electoral malpractice at the local level is just as great and should be dealt with in exactly the same way, because if we’re going to have what is being described as substantial reform to our political system in an attempt to prevent foreign interference in our elections, it should apply to all our elections to ensure that there is consistency and to ensure that those who may have ill intent towards us don’t have an opportunity to get around it at the parliamentary level just by going through the door at the local government level.

Local elections have the potential to be just as susceptible to foreign interference as parliamentary elections, and possibly more so. So I hope that the Minister is going to respond to that, because local government decision-making is often less well-scrutinised and doesn’t receive the same media attention that we receive in this House as central government decision-making. So surely it’s important that the measures are consistent.

The next thing, of course, is he’s got to give an answer to the question that we have asked repeatedly now for several hours as we’ve gone through the first two readings and the committee stage, which is why on earth are we having this urgency at all? There’s been no consultation with the Opposition. The changes were announced while we were in the middle of our caucus meeting yesterday, so the opportunity to deal with them was really only during the lunch adjournment before we came into the House in question time. That is insulting. That is totally inappropriate. More importantly, it flies in the face of well-established constitutional convention that electoral reform measures are done with the best of consultation, with the best of agreement and consensus across the House, and with the best of expert involvement, because it is so important that political parties don’t enact electoral measures to their own advantage.

That’s why, last night, I used the term “screw the scrum” to the Government’s advantage, which the Hon Tracey Martin objected to, and I didn’t get a chance to reply to her then. It’s the fact that they have not followed that well-established and very important constitutional convention, and I ask them to explain the urgency and to explain why they’ve flown in the face of very well-established and important constitutional procedure. I hope that the Minister will take a call to explain that.

I want to move on in the time remaining—I hope that I get a second call—to a number of other questions that I’ve got for the Minister, because he’ll be aware of the fact that a number of commentators, last night and this morning, have been decrying what is happening here. Nobody objects to what the intent is, but they believe that this is very poor lawmaking, as is so often the case when measures are introduced under urgency, in a rushed and non-consultative way.

This is a bill that is poorly drafted. It won’t fulfil all of the Government’s clearly stated objectives—that’s not just my opinion; that’s the opinion of constitutional experts who have been watching what’s been going on. Now, some of them might just be dismissed as people who wouldn’t necessarily favour the Government, but I think that would be a very simplistic approach for the Minister and his Government to take. So let me put some of their concerns to the Minister and see if he can respond. From Jordan Williams, we’ve got, in a media release that I saw early this morning: “Justice Minister”—

💬 Hon Peeni Henare: Was that his apology?

I beg your pardon?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Order! Ministers should not interject from the chair.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I was about to say that Jordan Williams, in a reply this morning, asked “Justice Minister Andrew Little to clarify whether the ban on foreign donations to political parties will also prevent foreign donations made via ‘foundations’ connected to political parties.”, and that was the very important point that both the Hon Dr Nick Smith and the Hon Gerry Brownlee were making.

We must have an answer to that question. It would be totally unacceptable for this debate to conclude without that question being very clearly and appropriately answered, because that is the issue that the commentators, and that’s the issue that the public, want to know about. That’s the thing that is raising most public concern, and we’ve got to get that right.

Mr Williams went on to say that “If a ban on foreign donations results in more political parties setting up ‘independent’ foundations to accept donations on their behalf or for their benefit, then this law could end up having a negative effect on transparency.” How does the Government respond to that really important—

💬 Chris Penk: Good point—unintended consequences.

—observation, which, as Mr Penk has just said, effectively amounts to not just unintended consequences but deeply adverse chilling consequences.

Mr Williams concluded: “This kind of difficulty in the detail is why important legislation should go through the scrutiny of a select committee process, rather than being rushed through under extraordinary urgency.” Well, it’s not extraordinary urgency, but I know what he means. It is under urgency and it’s totally inappropriate.

The Government needs to respond to all of that, and, as I’ve said, the rushed nature of this particular measure has been the subject of considerable speculation and comment in this morning’s media. I was watching The AM Show earlier and I heard Duncan Garner opining on this at some length. So I want to ask the Minister how does he respond to Duncan Garner’s opinion on this morning’s AM Show when he—Mr Garner—also asked why is the measure being rushed through the House under urgency when the reason for doing so has not been explained. Unless I’ve been asleep—and I don’t think I have been—can anybody tell me if we’ve had an explanation?

💬 Hon Members: No.

No—not one. No one speaking in this debate at any stage has explained to us why this measure is being rushed through under urgency, when there is so much support for it.

If the process was being conducted in a much more respectful and collegial way, we could all be bringing the best of our minds to it, taking on board the expert opinion we would have heard through the select committee process, and ensuring that we have a law that is fit for purpose and that achieves the objectives we’re all committed to, rather than having another piece of rushed legislation from a Minister who adopts his arrogant “I know best” approach, which we have seen so often and where, quite clearly, we will have flawed, imperfect law with loopholes in it, and—as Mr Williams noted this morning—it has the potential to make things worse by not bringing these murky foundations under its ambit.

That’s why I am strongly in support of my colleague Dr Nick Smith’s amendment. I commend it to the committee. He simply wants to insert the words “or to any incorporated or unincorporated foundation or trust that is associated with or supports the candidate” in clause 5 before subclause (1), which relates to candidate donations. There’s a similar provision in clause 1 after subclause (5) in relation to party donations. Does any member of this committee object to that idea? Can any member of this committee explain why we wouldn’t want to do that? I’m still listening. I haven’t heard a single answer—not one—so I assume that silence is consent. I assume, therefore, that there’ll be unanimous support for Dr Smith’s amendment, and I look forward to the voting on it when that will happen.

If the Minister wasn’t so arrogant—and I’m sorry to have to describe him in that way, but to have behaved in this way, as he has done now on four occasions in relation to electoral law, there’s no other way of describing it. Arrogant, high-handed, taking this “I know best” mentality and firing abuse at the Opposition in his first reading speech last night, even though we were going to support the measure—that seemed to me an extraordinary way of going about trying to retain our support. Why, when we had to listen to all that abuse, if he genuinely wants sound, constructive, effective, fit for purpose legislation, is he taking this high-handed approach when, as has been pointed out many times, we could have had a short select committee process but given people the time to comment, still have dealt with this matter very early in the new year if necessary, and have had everything in place well in time for the election.

Thank you, Mr Chair—a short contribution on this bill. I asked myself, when it came through, why are they doing this? What is the purpose? I just can’t understand why they’ve pushed us into urgency. I had my Māori Affairs Committee cancelled because of this urgency. Two of the members are in this Chamber. We’ve got a heavy workload and we are sitting here arguing about this bill under urgency, and it doesn’t even solve the problem, if there is such a problem.

We’re going to support the legislation. We’re going to support it, but why can it not be done properly in a normal process?

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: Why are you so sensitive to it?

We’re not sensitive to it—we’re not sensitive to it. We are not running a foundation where the donations are not disclosed. We are not worried one bit. That’s why we are supporting it. But we’d even support a shortened select committee process so that members of the public and experts would come in and we could make a decent law, so we can make a bill that actually is going to solve the problem. But no, this Government says no.

We’re into protecting New Zealand democracy from overseas influence, but I don’t actually see evidence to support that we have a problem. The bill does nothing even if there was. Now, if this Government was serious, they would ban all overseas donations or make it so that only eligible people that can vote can donate, or they would include the incorporated foundation amendment that the Hon Nick Smith had put in. This doesn’t even cover the New Zealand First scandal, and that’s the foundation scandal. That stinks.

To introduce legislation under urgency, it’s not justified, so why are they doing it? So I take a step back and I think, OK, this Government are in full PR spin at the moment. They had a pretty terrible poll result, and the serious allegations surrounding the New Zealand First Foundation were in the media and it was getting some impact. Then they come out with this—they rush this out. To me, this Government is in a massive, colossal diversion PR mode. If it wasn’t so serious, it would be laughable, what they are doing. New Zealanders are watching them.

Now, the Hon Nick Smith made many valuable points which the Government cannot counter—they cannot counter. I watched a bit of body language, and I see a lot of heads down, because this Government knows that what they’re doing is wrong. They’re seeking to find a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist, but, if it did exist, I would suggest New Zealand First members should take a look in the mirror. New Zealanders know this Government are a lot of talk and they’re not delivering, and this bill is a classic case of that. It’s solving a problem. The first thing that the Hon Andrew Little said in his PR was that they were dealing with a problem, and that problem doesn’t exist. They were banning overseas donations. Well, that law’s already evident. All they’re doing is dropping the level. Never has this Parliament seen a Government that has promised so much and delivered so little.

I want to reinforce that in debating Part 1 of this bill, we are dealing with a bill that National members hadn’t even seen 24 hours ago, and the extraordinary situation we have where Parliament is being asked to ram through over 17 detailed changes to electoral law without the experience, without the expertise, of either the Electoral Commission or officials.

I want to highlight particularly the seriousness of the issues that we are dealing with. Professor Andrew Geddis, who I think is widely respected across the Parliament as one of New Zealand’s electoral law experts, said the conduct of the Government has been such that it is putting at risk New Zealand’s ranking as one of the most transparent and least corrupt nations.

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: This from The Hollow Men—this from The Hollow Men.

That’s exactly—Mr O’Connor—the words of what Andrew Geddis said in reference to the issues of the New Zealand First Foundation.

Here’s the part that is unexplainable. We know from the figures in the regulatory impact statement that the level of foreign donations covered by this bill amount to $5,000 per year across all the political parties. We equally know that New Zealand First, that did not declare a single donation at the last election, received $500,000 in donations to a foundation that was kept secret, and it received 10 times more anonymous donations than any other party, at $340,000. So here’s my question: if we’re concerned about the integrity of our democracy, should we be more worried about the $840,000 anonymously going to New Zealand First, or should we be concerned about the $5,000 of average donations across the board to all political parties covered by this bill? Eight hundred and forty thousand or $5,000: which do you think has had the greater level of influence?

Here’s what New Zealanders know: the outcome of the 2017 election was determined by New Zealand First. New Zealand First was the only political party—

💬 Kieran McAnulty: We’ve heard this before—repetition.

—that did not declare a single donation. New Zealand First was the—well, the Labour member is concerned that I’m repeating it, because it’s important, and I would challenge that Labour member to get to his feet and defend it. I’ll tell you how important it is: it determined who was the Government of New Zealand. Do New Zealanders—

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: We’re waiting for the Serious Fraud Office report.

And I challenge Mr O’Connor: does he believe New Zealanders have a right to know who the funders were that determined the outcome of election 2017? Absolute silence. I know what New Zealanders think. New Zealanders heard that they were going to be the most open, transparent Government ever, but on the crucial issue of who funded New Zealand First, who decided the outcome of election 2017, the Green Party and the Labour Party are apologists for the skulduggery that has gone on within New Zealand First, that is absent from this bill.

It is appalling that we are now almost an hour into the debate and not one Government member has been prepared to comment on this crucial part of this bill—not one. Not one Labour member, on a bill that is being rushed through in 24 hours that the Opposition didn’t even know was on the Government programme—not a single Labour member has been prepared to take a call. I just ask them a very simple question: why would we not include in the definition of a political donation that which is made to a foundation or a trust associated with a political party? If we’re really serious about transparency, about openness, and about integrity of our electoral system, why would we not address the issue that’s been on the front page of the Dominion Post for four days out of the last two weeks? Why are we like ostriches, sticking our heads in the sand and saying, “Hear no evil, see no evil.”, around the issue of foundations? Why are we taking an approach of seeing no evil and hearing no evil?

Let’s not talk about New Zealand First and its foundation, but, by the way, we’ve got this big problem because we have an average of 60 donations a year of an average value of $66 each from foreign sources over the last seven years. I’ll say it again: this bill deals with the situation of an average of—I’ll give the exact number—69 donations per year, of an average of $66 each. This bill deals with those by putting a limit of $50 on them. Why would we deal with that and turn a blind eye to the issue of foundations and incorporated societies, deliberately designed—as the papers have revealed—to get around the declaration requirements of our electoral law?

The next question I’d love the Minister in the chair to answer is this: how are political parties to reasonably meet the enforcement requirements of what will become an illegal practice on 1 January 2020? That is, I looked on the web, and every one of the political parties in this Parliament has a website for donations. Everybody knows that the web is internationally accessible. If a person in Aussie or the UK or America jumps on the web on 1 January and says, “Hey, I happen to love this particular political party and I want to make a donation.”, and they donate a hundred bucks, they are committing an illegal practice under this bill.

So my view, and my question to the Minister, is: when we have the requirement in the bill that a party must engage in reasonable steps to prevent it, what is required on 1 January? For the bulk of donations these days, that are made over the net, what level of due diligence is required? If somebody sends a $100 donation in on the internet on 1 January to any one of the registered political parties in New Zealand, what practical requirement do they need to make? This is a serious issue; I don’t want my political party being slurred with a view that it’s involved in an illegal activity.

I’d be particularly worried if I were the Greens. They’ve had 20 times more foreign donations, according to the regulatory impact statement, than any other party, and so—

💬 Marama Davidson: We’re not worried.

Well, I’m simply saying: what is the Minister and the Government’s expectation of political parties? Isn’t it interesting? I challenge the Green Party on their simple numbers. How is it possible that the Green Party has championed banning foreign donations for the last five years but has got 50 times more foreign donations, according to the regulatory impact statement, than any other party? This sounds like preaching one thing and doing exactly the opposite. Now, I’m not arguing that the average donation was about 60 bucks a pop. I’m not arguing that the Green Party’s policy was necessarily affected by those donations. But what I do say to the Green Party is this: I’m not worried about the person in the UK who provides a donation to the Green Party, or for that matter to the National Party, of 60 bucks. I’ll tell you what I am worried about: I’m worried about the party that determined the outcome of the last election receiving $500,000 in secret donations to a foundation. I’m concerned that they received 10 times more anonymous donations than any other party—a total of $340,000. My view is that $840,000 represents far more mischief than the 20-odd donations of about 60 bucks each on average that are covered by this bill.

That’s why I say to members opposite: if you are serious about improving the integrity of our democracy, why would you not support my amendment to include foundations and incorporated societies associated with candidates or political parties, to make sure that we do actually have sunlight and disclosure in this area? The honest truth is this: it is only a matter of political convenience that Labour and the Greens are turning a blind eye to the scandal enveloping New Zealand First. They are only in the chair as Minister, only the Government, because of New Zealand First’s illegal activity around election donations. They don’t want to close that loophole. They want—[Time expired]

So a question for the Minister: if the Government parties are not concerned enough to put Dr Smith’s tabled amendment into the legislation, bringing the scrutiny on foundations and other organisations that offer financial support to parties in New Zealand, does that mean that the Green Party, for example, may now set up their own foundation and receive donations of an anonymous type into that foundation—as we know, they are able to call on this international network of people who are prepared to support their style of politics—and have absolutely no scrutiny over that money whatsoever? Is that what this means?

Is it a fact, then, that the Government accepts the arrangement that New Zealand First has: that a donation into their foundation is not a donation to a political party and therefore does not have to be declared? Is it their position, also, that if a donation is made directly to the political party—in the case of New Zealand First, $340,000, with the other $500,000 going into the foundation—that also does not need to be declared? These might be matters for the Electoral Commission, but we’re here altering the Electoral Act that that commission works on. So it seems to me that when we are right in the thick of the controversy over the missing $840,000 from New Zealand First, there is no mention of how that should be accounted for in the future.

In the National Party, we’ve run a foundation for quite a few years. We make no secret of that, but every donation that’s made to that foundation is declared, because it’s absolutely clear that the donation is being made for political purposes. So if we are now going to have a situation where, if an overseas donor—

💬 Clayton Mitchell: Show us.

—makes an anonymous donation of—

💬 Clayton Mitchell: Open up your books.

There we go—that’s fantastic. The bagman from New Zealand First has just said, “Show us the books.” I’ll tell you what, fella, go down to the Electoral Commission. Look at the return and you will be able to see the books. But, if we want to see New Zealand First’s books, oh no, they’re under Winston’s mattress somewhere, tucked away where no one can see them—a long list of foreign donors from all sorts of Eastern European countries and others, putting into the coffers of New Zealand First, and secretly made available to the party for all sorts of activity. Come on. The pot has got to stop calling the kettle black. That is unbelievable.

So let’s get back to the bill. Does this bill mean that anonymous donations in excess of $50 made on a website, perhaps to some kind of foundation that supports the Green Party, for example, or green politics, some kind of—what are they called in the United States?—political action group gets set up. They’ve got no particular affiliation, but they might make donations for various political activities, and they would be prepared to declare themselves. No question about that—that’s no problem. But their stream of funding could remain anonymous. Their stream of funding could remain totally anonymous, because there would be no requirement in the New Zealand law for that political action group or political foundation or trust or whatever structure you might want to have to declare where their money came from.

So it seems very, very odd that we’re here looking at a problem that could be worth only about $5,000 on an annual basis—anonymous donations to political parties—but, in fact, we are ignoring the fact that there is a massive loophole here available and used so far by New Zealand First and available to others inappropriately to avoid scrutiny of where the money comes from. A simple question to the Minister is: why? Why is it not in there? What’s the problem? Why is it so hard to insist that a political action group set up to receive funds for political purposes does not have to declare their anonymous donations?

Thank you, Madam Chair. In this contribution I want to ask a number of questions to the Minister, because I think what is really left very clear to anyone reading this bill is the huge gaps in terms of addressing the problem it says that it seeks to address. We’ve had contributions earlier in these debates from the Green Party, in particular, who’ve talked about the influence of big foreign money. We’ve had others talking about the scourge of foreign donations. And yet, when you go and read the regulatory impact statement and you look at these issues as they’ve played out in New Zealand over recent weeks, I am left with big questions about what this bill will actually achieve.

So the first question I want to ask the Minister is why he is blaming National for what is not in the bill, because, certainly, the Minister has done a show of power in introducing this bill and passing it through as quickly as he possibly can. Certainly, it is clear that he could have the things in there that he wants to have there. In particular, I want to know why the Minister hasn’t progressed the issues that are raised directly in this regulatory impact statement—the risk that foreign states could circumvent any new rules that ban overseas donations by providing donations through a New Zealand citizen or resident or New Zealand - registered company?

I ask that question because it’s very relevant given events of recent weeks. As Dr Nick Smith has said, in recent weeks we’ve had the front page of New Zealand newspapers questioning the existence of the New Zealand First Foundation and those who donate to it. So my question to the Minister is simple: is there anything in this bill that we are discussing today that would prevent New Zealand First, say, getting a donation from a Russian actor into the New Zealand First Foundation and the New Zealand First Foundation later using that money to support their political campaigning? Is there anything in this bill to prevent that? Is there anything in this bill to prevent a Russian actor potentially contributing to a New Zealand - based company that then donates to the New Zealand Food Foundation? Are these loopholes that will still exist, and, if they do still exist, is the Minister confident that he is truly doing what is required to limit foreign influence on New Zealand’s democratic process?

These are very important questions. Is it possible that the New Zealand First Foundation could continue to channel money, or could begin to channel money, from foreign actors? I’d like to hear the Minister’s view on that. In particular, I want to draw his attention to new section 207JA(1)(a) in the bill, which uses the phrase “on behalf of”, because I think it’s very important that we consider what the burden of proof is that the Electoral Commission or others would have to reach in order to demonstrate that someone was providing a donation on behalf of a foreign actor. It’s not clear in the bill what “on behalf of” means. This will, I am sure, be a question of legal relevance. Of course, there has been no select committee process. There has been no scrutiny of this phrasing and what it means and how it would be interpreted by legal experts, by academic experts, or by any of the hundreds of New Zealanders who might have something to say about it. So I’d ask the Minister for his view of what “on behalf of” means and what that represents in terms of a threshold.

The second question that I have is a very important one, which is why the Minister rejected the advice from his ministry set out in this regulatory impact statement that said that it was an operationally weaker approach to not align the anonymous donation limit with the foreign donation limit. Specifically, the regulatory impact statement says, “It is likely to be less effective in stopping foreign donors from supporting candidates and parties through anonymous donations”. So my question for the Minister is does he have any concerns that there will be people who will continue to make donations to New Zealand who are, in fact, foreign actors, who will do so in an anonymous way?

I would again point out that New Zealand First is well known for being the largest recipient of anonymous donations. So I would ask the Minister how will he satisfy himself—how should we satisfy ourselves—that those anonymous donations are not sourced from foreign actors? Can we really be sure that this bill is closing that gap? Why is it that he rejected the ministry advice on that point? Why did he reject the ministry’s preference that that limit be lowered at the same time? Does he have any concerns about those anonymous donations being used?

The third question that I want to ask is this question about the boundaries between what is considered as a foreign donation to a party and what is considered as a foreign donation to another entity. Again, the bill sets out this particular issue that will be relevant in the 2020 election around groups that are campaigning on referenda. Of course, this is significant, because, as we know, referenda and the debates around them can impact on the way that an election is carried out and can impact on the way in which parties are perceived and votes are cast.

Again, the regulatory impact statement specifically points out that this bill doesn’t restrict donations to organisations or groups that are campaigning for one side or another on a referendum campaign. I ask the Minister whether he is concerned that that leaves open the ability of foreign actors to unduly influence our democracy. And if he does have that concern, is this something that the Government thinks should be actually addressed prior to the 2020 election in which we’re having at least two referendums? Is this a significant issue? Is it something that the Minister has considered and has addressed?

As I’ve said earlier, we’ve had people in this House talk about their deep concern about the influence of big foreign money. Well, surely, if that is a genuine concern, we would be concerned about the way in which that could influence the outcome of a referendum, or is there some reason that I’m missing, that’s not in the regulatory impact statement, that the Minister hasn’t addressed, as to why the Minister is comfortable with that and why the Government is comfortable with that?

Finally, my final question is around why this bill is limited to general election parties and candidates, and why it doesn’t extend to local body elections and candidates. It would seem to me that if, really, the intent of this bill is to ensure there isn’t undue foreign influence on our democratic processes then, actually, local democratic processes are just as important. In fact, having consistency in the regimes seems simple and obvious and could be achieved with a very simple clause within this bill, and I’d ask the Minister why that wasn’t considered.

Of course, I won’t accept as an answer the Minister saying, “Oh, well, there wasn’t time to think about it and consult.” Let’s be honest, this bill hasn’t been consulted on in any way. In fact, the regulatory impact statement is very clear that the party secretaries and the parties themselves—those who will be charged with working out whether a donation is foreign sourced—haven’t been consulted at all. There’s been no opportunity for parties to say, “Well, here’s what we think could be an issue. Here’s where we think the burden of proof might need to lie. Here’s the sort of evidentiary basis that you might need to consider.” In fact, I would wager that political parties could have been quite helpful—the party secretaries and others, and the lawyers involved in these issues—in talking about how this would actually effect their operations. But they have not been consulted, so I don’t accept the argument that “Oh, well, we couldn’t consult local government either.”, because the same threshold should apply.

So I do want to know why local actors have been left out, because, when you read the regulatory impact statement, what comes through most clearly is the view that, actually, this bill will do very little to really address the genuine issues with foreign donations. What this bill does is—“send a signal” is the language used—send a signal. I want to know from the Minister whether he is satisfied that sending a signal is sufficient, when we already have evidence in New Zealand on the front pages of our newspapers of a particular party taking extreme steps to avoid the disclosure of money that they are receiving, and New Zealanders are already unable to see who it is that is contributing to a political party because of the steps they have taken to work around things. So my question is: why does the Minister think that this sends a signal that will have any impact at all, given the number of holes in it, and given the number of questions his own officials have asked about it?

Is he not concerned that the lack of scrutiny, the lack of select committee process, could in themselves create more loopholes that further raise concerns from the New Zealand public? I would wager that we will see in the next year or two ongoing significant questions about the ways in which foreign actors are able to influence our political regime, and I would put to the Minister: does he share that concern; and, if not, why not? Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We’ve had now a succession of members opposite who’ve all raised the same question or questions, and so I think it’s appropriate to provide the answer, and, hopefully, to provide the answer once to the questions asked multiple times.

Just taking the final point of the member who’s just resumed her seat, Nicola Willis, which is: why confine it just to general elections? Can I just acknowledge, for those who might be watching Parliament for the first time, this stage of the debate on a piece of legislation is a very close and detailed examination of every clause in a particular bill, which is what we call something before it becomes a law. And, right now, we are talking about a law that seeks to ban foreign donations to political parties and political candidates.

So the reason why this bill is confined to general elections is because in the circumstances that we have now, with evidence publicly given, particularly by our security and intelligence agencies, about the risks and the threats that we face like many other democracies of undue foreign interference and foreign influence, we have to take appropriate action. But because we’re doing so under urgency, because we haven’t had the benefit of the findings of the Justice Committee’s inquiry into the 2017 general election, I have made the decision to confine it just to general elections, because next year is the year of a general election. We want to have the regime in place that affords protection to New Zealand voters and citizens to make sure that our democracy isn’t unduly interfered with.

On the issue of gaps in the bill—and I hear the points from the National Party and there is a bit of pot calling the kettle black, because if you have a look at the tabled amendment that is in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith, there is no reference, for example, to donations made to registered companies that might therefore be a vehicle through which overseas donations are routed. There is only one party in this Parliament that is currently the subject of a Serious Fraud Office investigation; it happens to be the National Party. There is only one party who in their returns in the 2017 general election showed an extraordinary number of donations to candidates from their head office, and that is the National Party.

So if the issue is about a law—or actions and behaviours that on the face of it could defeat the intent of the legislation—there is plenty we can look at. This bill deals with an issue that the Justice Committee is right across, which is the risk and threat of foreign interference and influence in our electoral system through donations. It bans them subject to a de minimis sort of threshold. But what it does, most importantly, and in answer to the questions about whether it will really stop, the sort of things that people are concerned about, particularly going through New Zealand - registered companies and using New Zealand persons as defined in the legislation as a funnel through which donations could be made, I refer members—again as I did in my opening remarks—to clause 8 of the bill and to clause 10 the bill. Clause 8 sets up the positive duty on party general secretaries—and let’s remember, party general secretaries are subject to a number of statutory duties right now—to ascertain that the donation is not a foreign donation.

And of course, the words—and Chris Penk will enjoy this. There is, in subsection (1) of proposed section 207JA, set out in clause 8, the word “a” before the word “donation”. And then, following that, in paragraph (a), the word “the” before “donation” tells you that it’s not just donations that are suspected to be foreign; it is actually every donation that is covered. Every donation will achieve a level of scrutiny because that’s the way you fulfil that duty. But then the belt and braces kicks in in clause 10 and new subsection (3) of section 207L, which is a defence to the charge, and it’s very clear what that defence entails. If a party general secretary has not taken—in a situation where there were reasonable grounds to suspect that a donation exceeding $50 came from or was made on behalf of an overseas person, then the defence will not be available and the offence will be complete.

That’s the belts and braces approach and answers Nicola Willis’ questions and answers Gerry Brownlee’s questions and answers every question raised by members opposite. That is the belts and braces approach. That is the protection that New Zealanders will have against foreign donations interceding in our democracy and in our general election. The bill is deliberately kept very simple because of the circumstances that we’re in and the subject matter that we’re dealing with, and that is the reason why this House should get on and pass this bill.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Chair. A call just to highlight a couple of issues in relation to the tabled amendment in the name my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith and the value of it, which seems to have been missed by a couple of members opposite—namely, one of the Green Party members last night, and also the Minister in the chair, the Hon Andrew Little. The wording is very deliberate—to talk about a couple of entities that have the effect of being associated with or supporting the candidate.

So the idea here, for the benefit of the Minister and anyone else listening, is that what we want is a regime that is functionally going to meet the aim of the bill, because if we’ve got a bill that says that it’s to protect democracy by restricting foreign donations, then it should be every entity that is capable, effectively, of being like the candidate or being like the party in the context of donations. So that’s why Dr Smith, with wording that is, I think, very good—I couldn’t have drafted it better myself—it’s the same in each case. The intent there very much is to highlight that the intent of the law is what we should be concerned with as well as ensuring that, obviously, the letter of the law meets that aim.

Now, I’ll come back to the Minister’s point around also, potentially, having companies included in that. I think it’s a reasonable point that he raises and I do want to address that shortly.

But the Green Party member last night talked about shell companies, and I’d used that phrase in relation to a point that had been made by an outside commentator, a point that he might have been able to make had we had a select committee process of any kind. It’s a point too that’s been on my mind and in those of a few others who are genuinely concerned about—worrying about—undue foreign influence in our politics. The nature of a shell company is that it’s a company that is set up with no other purpose than, essentially, for funnelling donations in this context, or it might have some other sort of pretty nominal purpose. And the point about the bill that is being put forward is really that, essentially, that’s the loophole that remains. What we’ve got to aim to get through is to close these loopholes, and that’s what Dr Smith’s amendment is intended to do. And so it is that I sort of feel like I shouldn’t need to point this out to fellow members of the committee, but the whole point is to close these loopholes.

I decided to make a speech here this morning because I’ve sat in my office and other committee meetings, hearing these attacks on a party called New Zealand First from the biggest bunch of you-know-whats this Parliament has ever seen.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Answer the question.

Answer the question, Mr Smith. I’ll answer the question. That’s a man who told Parliament that he’d made a declaration to the parliamentary commissioner, excepting when I asked the parliamentary commissioner, she wrote to me and said he did not. So, in short, did he tell the truth to Parliament? No, he didn’t.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Order! I really don’t—I think that is against Standing Orders—

What is?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): To accuse a member of deliberately misleading.

I didn’t say that, did I? That’s your inference from my conclusion in my speech. I said, “except Margaret Bazley told me that he didn’t.” Now you infer from that he’s a liar. Go right ahead, but I didn’t say it.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, I’m sorry, but just a minute. I am dealing with my concern about the comment you made following that, which then accused Dr Smith of telling an untruth.

Read the Hansard.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, I don’t have to because—

Yes, you do.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): —I’m the Speaker.

You’ve got to provide evidence like everybody else. You’re not a law unto yourself here.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Excuse me. Excuse me. Actually, I am in the Chair and I’m trying to deal with this. I would ask you to withdraw and apologise because you have made an unparliamentary accusation against a member.

Madam Chairperson, I want to know what the accusation was that I’m meant to be apologising for.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’ve explained that to you.

No, no—you haven’t, madam. You’ve made the claim, but you haven’t provided the evidence, and you, in your position, are required to do that.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I am not. I am asking the member to withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Thank you.

Mr Smith—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. It might only be a few seconds—about 40 seconds—into the member’s contribution to this debate, but this is a debate about this electoral bill, not about the past or any particular one member in this House. We’ve been all called to speak to the debate, and we have, and the Minister of Justice has answered questions that have been raised legitimately as a consequence of that debate, and I think we should continue along those lines.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I thank you.

Speaking to the point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Look, I don’t need anything. I’m sure that the member is going to get to—

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. You have sat here for the last hour and heard accusation after accusation about the past, and now, all of a sudden, the defender of that behaviour gets up and says you can’t mention the past. Surely, he is gainsaid by his own colleague’s action.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I thank the member for that point of order. We are debating Part 1 of the bill in front of the House, and I’m sure that the member is going to continue his speech and direct that towards the bill in front of us.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. If that is the case, how do you describe what you’ve allowed to go on here in the last hour of attacks against a political party, baseless as they are, and they will be proven to be so?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Look, I don’t need any help—thank you. Thank you. First of all, I have not been in the Chair for the past hour; I took the Chair at 10 o’clock. I have listened very carefully to the debate in that time, and there have been questions asked of the Minister about parts of this bill before the House that might address concerns that have been in the media. Now, that is entirely appropriate. That is entirely in accord with Standing Orders because they are addressing parts of the bill. They’re asking questions of the Minister about the parts of the bill. I’m sure that the member is able to address those issues in relation to the bill.

Let me say that there was a speech last night made in this respect—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Are we continuing now with your speech?

Of course I am continuing. Did I say point of order before I rose to my feet that time?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No. I just want to check that you have the right amount of time.

No—well just follow the script, Madam Chairperson. Even you should be able to do that.

The reality of the matter is that there was a speech—

💬 Hon Member: He’s riled up, isn’t he? He doesn’t like the truth. He’s not liking the truth now.

No—of course I don’t like it. I don’t like people with a capital “H” as their major feature of their character. The people who are screaming out over there evince that.

Last night, there was a speech made in this Parliament that should have made the headlines all around this country. It was about a political party—and I want to know how this Part 1 is going to catch this sort of behaviour—that went offshore and raised $150,000. Just one donation—one donation—$150,000. All the emails and all the texts and everything associated with that arrangement were offered to this Parliament, but not one of those people over there, acting as though they’re as pure as the driven snow, asked for a shred of evidence. You know why? Because they’re as guilty as sin, and they’re not going to win getting away with the kind of behaviour they thought to get away with.

You can look as cross-eyed as you like, Mr Penk, but you’re not going to win here. The fact is he was the one that shouted out last night. He shouted to Jami-Lee Ross. He said, “But you did it.” See? There he was, a colleague of the very guy that did it, and he’s shouting out “But you did it.”, as though, somehow, that sort of behaviour, or that sort of comment, exonerates their attempt to get around, in the most devious way, the law of this country.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Tell us about your foundation.

I’m very happy to tell us about the foundation, because it’s based on the National Party’s foundation. Isn’t it amazing? It’s based on the National Party’s foundation. Oh no—these people are so born to rule—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

He did ask me.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s true, and I apologise on behalf of members on this side. We won’t ask that member any more questions. But we do need to come back to the bill. On the substantive stuff, I’ve already said quite loudly several times in this House today that everything relating to the National Party Foundation is available for scrutiny as part of public record. It’s not our foundation that’s not available for public scrutiny. We now should come back to the bill, and perhaps the member the Deputy Prime Minister might like to explain why the Government doesn’t want to have scrutiny on foundations. We welcome it; why doesn’t he?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): If I can respond to that point of order. First of all, it wasn’t a point of order; it was a debating point. Second of all, we are not going to continue along this line, because there were interjections asking questions and the member on his feet has every right to answer those interjections. So I’ll now call the Rt Hon Winston Peters to continue with his speech, speaking to the bill.

Speaking to the bill in Part 1, the reality is that all these matters should be transparent within the law. Can I say, with respect to the last question from over the other side there, in respect of New Zealand First, this matter is being examined by the very authorities qualified to do so. But they don’t include the biased media, and they don’t include the biased, prejudiced, and deceitful members of the Opposition. Simply this: it won’t stop there, of course, because I’ve got senior National Party members contacting New Zealand First saying, “Why on earth did they start this attack, because it’s going to rebound on us.”

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Could we talk about the bill?

Yeah, well, I want to know—if we speak to Part 1—how does the Minister feel about that? Is there going to be some sunlight—is there going to be the disinfectant of truth—shone on a certain political party that has had for years in excess of $100 million never disclosed ever. They have the gall and the audacity to rise in this Parliament and condemn by attempts by innuendo and slight a party that has behaved within the law and will be proven to be so. We are the ones who are volunteering to the Electoral Commission the information. We’re not asked for it. No, no—we’re volunteering it. But here comes the rub: you’re next, Mr Brownlee.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I seek leave of the House to table the letter from the former president of New Zealand First and treasurer seeking to be heard at the Justice Committee inquiry because of inappropriate financial dealings within New Zealand First. The letter is to the Justice Committee.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: This is rubbish. Sit down.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Excuse me.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: It’s just rubbish.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Excuse me. It’s a legitimate seeking leave. Is that letter available on the website, or is that part of the—

It’s a letter that’s been sent and circulated to the Justice Committee.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): So it’s still within the—it hasn’t been released. It’s not a public letter.

It hasn’t, but, as I’ve been advised by the clerks, where a member of the public writes a submission or letter to a select committee, they may choose to make that document public. They have indicated they’re quite happy for it to be public, and that’s why I seek the leave of the committee of the whole House, in the interest of transparency and openness, to table the letter from the former—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): So they have indicated they are happy for that letter to be made public.

Correct.

In that case, I’ll put the leave.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No—it’s not a point of order.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: It is a point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): It isn’t. I beg your pardon. He has sought leave. There is no debate.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: The matter’s subject to committee.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The House—we’ve already had this. I am going to put the leave. Is there any objection to that letter being tabled? There is. There is objection.

Well, that was a particularly typical obfuscatory, arrogant, bombastic contribution from the leader of New Zealand First, who spent the best part of five minutes saying absolutely nothing. Nobody listening to this debate will have any more idea where they stand on any of the important issues than they did before he started.

I want to distil it down to one very simple question, which he failed to answer in amongst all the bombast and all the abuse that he fired over this side of the House, and that is: will New Zealand First vote for the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s tabled amendment? Will New Zealand First vote for the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s amendment, which will clear all the concerns that he’s speaking about?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: We don’t vote for hypocrisy.

“We don’t vote for hypocrisy.” Oh my goodness. Doesn’t that just explain the utter hypocrisy we’ve just listened to for five minutes? I hope that the world is watching, because, apparently, the Russians hang on every word. So let’s hope that they all are. Utter hypocrisy—utterly disingenuous. All he needs to do is support Dr Nick Smith’s amendment, and we will have the disinfectant of sunlight that he apparently is calling for. But, oh no—we won’t get it; not from him.

Now, there is another question—there is another question. In his point of order, Dr Nick Smith has just sought leave to table a document. Unfortunately, leave was denied. Who by? The leader of New Zealand First, of course. He claimed—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

Oh my goodness. Here we go again.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Which part of Part 1 of this bill is that member remotely referring to?

Speaking to the point of order—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, I don’t need that, actually. I did listen, and the member was asking for support for an amendment that is actually on the Table. So that was in order. He’s moving off that now, but that was in order.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and, of course, I was responding to an interjection, and you have ruled previously in this debate that it’s perfectly legitimate to respond to an interjection. I want to make the point that we have tried to seek leave to have a letter tabled, and the member who took the call called out “rubbish”; twice, he called out “rubbish”. So what I want to ask him now is, is he denying that that letter exists?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: It’s rubbish.

Oh, it’s rubbish!

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, hang on, hang on, hang on. First of all, I have supported the member with his first question relating to the amendment. But, now, his speaking time is not questioning members sitting opposite. I would now like him to come to the bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair—even though I was responding to his interjection?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yeah, but that doesn’t mean the rest of your speech carries on.

OK, well, given the fact that he told us absolutely nothing that added anything constructive to this debate, we’ll move back to those who’ve made more useful contributions. I do want to thank the Minister of Justice, who has returned to the chair, for standing up to answer questions, because we had had utter silence for more than an hour from the other sides of the House. And we were beginning to think, well, here we were again under urgency, no select committee process, and all the Government was wanting to do was shut it down. We’ve already had a closure motion from Mr McAnulty.

But I have to say to the Minister of Justice, he only answered one question, and even that he did inadequately because he told us that intelligence agencies have advised him and the House that there’s a need to take action but that he has decided—the Minister of Justice has decided—that without a select committee process, this measure should be confined solely to general elections. Our question, of course, was: why not include local body elections? And “I have decided”, says Mr Little, “that without a select committee process, we should confine it to general elections only, rather than including local body elections.”

Well, that exactly explains why he should have followed longstanding constitutional convention and due process and put this matter out for full consultation; not the opposite—of him saying, yet again, “I know best.” Well, he wasn’t in the chair earlier when I asked him how he responded to Mr Garner’s comments on The AM Show this morning, but Mr Garner was asking why we’re pushing this measure through under urgency. He said there was no obvious answer and he smelt a rat. Clearly, the rat is sitting over on that side of the Chamber at the moment, because, in particular, what Mr Garner was talking about was the New Zealand First Foundation.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I won’t have a dysfunctional geriatric call me a rat, and I’m asking him to apologise.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, I think now it’s one all.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no, no. He can’t get away with that. Why didn’t you stop him—if you’re doing your job properly?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Ah, now the member is getting a bit close to the bone. There was an aspersion cast, and probably unparliamentary, but, unfortunately for the member, he just responded. So it’s one all, so let’s keep going. We’ve got 34 seconds.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I noticed that the clock has been—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, it hasn’t stopped. Keep going.

The clock didn’t stop for the whole time, so I think that I’ve lost—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Keep going.

Well, I’m asking the Minister of Justice how he responds to Mr Garner, because we and the members of the public want to know—in particular, relating to this murky New Zealand First Foundation that’s become more murky, not less, as a result of the last contribution, which no members of their caucus have yet been willing to defend or explain. They’ve simply tried to deflect attention from it. I want to know from the Minister what conversations he’s had—[Time expired]

I move, That the question be now put.

In his most recent contribution, the Minister said that he was answering all the questions that were asked of us as we were talking about the movement of money that might be considered an anonymous donation. And, then, the Minister pointed to the various duties that will fall upon the general secretaries or appropriate persons, authorised persons, inside political parties to ascertain where that donation came from. So the question I’ve got is: if the donation came from a trust or from a foundation or from a political action group or any other third-party group set up to support a particular type of politics, and that particular entity only—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: You wouldn’t know the law at all, would you? You’re worse than that woodwork teacher.

Winston hates the workers; it’s unbelievable, actually. Can we go into that? I’m responding to an interjection now.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Sorry, can we stop the time. Now, you’re a senior member of this House, sir, and you know that to sit there and throw abuse across the Chamber—personal abuse—is not within the Standing Orders, and I’d ask you to stop because all it does is lead to disorder. [Interruption] I’m on my feet, and I’m asking the member to please not throw personal insults across the Chamber that will only lead to more disorder.

Just to recap: if an external group, separate from a political party, decides to make a donation to that political party, and the general secretary or the authorised person responsible in the party asks the question, “Where did the donation come from?”, well, is there a problem, if, in fact all that foundation is doing is distributing interest earnt on donations that are made to it. If it is, in fact, the capital fund, as our foundation is, and that donation is made, is there a requirement to go further than knowing that it was interest earnt on anonymous donations or donations to that political group, that funding group. Because there’d be no need for that group under this law to declare those donations. No need whatsoever. They don’t need to. But, in the case of the National Party, they do. We have no problem whatsoever. That’s all right, Mr Peters. We’re not the people that are running around at the moment trying to pretend that $840,000 worth of anonymous donations apparently came from the voting base of New Zealand First in small donations. If it was $50, it’d mean 17,000 people had to donate to New Zealand First. That’s more than half the people who voted for them.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. He has clearly got in to an area that’s not remotely connected with this bill, and you sit there and allow him to get away with it. Well, we are not going to sit here while he abridges the Standing Orders because he doesn’t have the intellectual capacity to understand what his parameters are. We are going to stop him. But what he’s actually doing is digging a hole and telling you all about the National Party and the way they operate. And I want to thank him very much for that context, but it’s outside the Standing Orders in terms of the subject of this debate: Part 1 of this bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, if the member had been paying attention to me, I was signalling to the member that he had to come back to the bill. Up until his last sentence, he was actually asking the Minister a question that was relevant to the bill. But he did vary off that, and I was signalling to him, quite clearly, to come back to the bill. So I am capable of doing this job.

In my own defence, I was simply responding to a—what’s it called?—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Interjection.

—interjection from the other side of the Chamber. I was trying to find a more fluid word. The question still remains for the Minister to perhaps tell us if this amendment from Dr Smith is not to be supported, then what is there to stop a third-party political action group of some kind—trust, foundation, whatever you want to call it—receiving anonymous donations, putting them into a capital fund, and then making donations in their own name on the interest earned on those funds to any political party. And if the obligation on the general secretary or authorised person in each case simply says—sorry.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Can we stop the clock? I called the point of order a good five seconds ago—six seconds, actually. Why are we unable to respond to the interjections coming from the Deputy Prime Minister?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You haven’t been stopped.

He’s also talking to the gallery, which I think you might have noticed. Oh, I’m not worried now. OK.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Is there a point of order?

There is.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You are able to respond, but it’s brief. As I said before, of course you can respond, but you keep it brief.

Well, perhaps I’ll take another call, and you’ll be generous enough to let me have it.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, you haven’t finished this one yet. Are we going?

Can we go back five seconds?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Ha, ha! No, keep going.

Then the question simply is: what would that situation be? Would it mean that the general secretary’s obligations are discharged simply by being told it is from the earnings on a capital sum from this particular organisation? Where in the bill does it say that it should be greater scrutiny than that?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Dr Smith, you’ve had four speeches already.

I move, That the question be now put.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: He’s already put it—he can’t put it twice.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yes, you can.