Little AndrewELECTORAL AMENDMENT BILL (NO 2)Second ReadingDebate resumed.Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move That the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. I'm thankful for the overwhelming support of the House. I've never felt so popular amongst the National Party actually until tonight and I appreciate that support. I acknowledge the contributions in the first reading of David Seymour the member for Epsom and I want to address some of those. I mean it's very clear what the bill does. It introduces a ban—a real ban—on foreign donations because it is very clear that that issue has been canvassed in the public hearings of the Justice Committee in their inquiry into the general election. They've had evidence in secret as well we know from the security and intelligence agencies. They've had other evidence too. Other submitters have expressed concerns about the risks now posed not just for New Zealand but worldwide about foreign interference and foreign influence. So introducing a ban with a de minimis threshold of $50 is as good as we can get. In fact compared to other countries in the world Canada I think has a threshold of $50 Australia about $200 and I think the UK has an even higher threshold than that. But it is very clear what the bill is saying: that donations from a foreign source in accordance with the definition of what that foreign source is or foreign citizen is are banned in New Zealand. It does more than that of course. It now imposes on party general-secretaries an obligation to conduct due diligence and as I have made clear in my first reading speech my expectation is that the level of diligence required is proportionate to the size of the donation. I understand that once the legislation is passed the Electoral Commission will issue guidance about their expectations about how party general-secretaries must fulfil that duty and they will also indicate that there is a level of proportionality required—that is to say a small donation can enjoy a lower level of examination and scrutiny than a much larger donation. That is the right thing to do. I simply come back to the point that I think the member David Seymour was making about Is it really a ban?" I think we do have to be very clear: either we ban foreign donations or we don't. I know in some of the talks that I've had with colleagues on all sides of the House—do you set a threshold of high? Do you set a threshold for example of $1000? 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 $100000 or $200000 ought to have a higher degree of scrutiny. That's what New Zealanders would expect in their election system with parties that rely very heavily on private contributions to fund themselves. There's been a lot of criticism about the process—the fact that we're considering this under urgency—and I simply draw the House's attention to the fact that the issues arising out of the 2017 general election now more than two years ago have been the subject of an inquiry by the Justice Committee now for nearly 18 months. The advice I've received is it's 525 days since the Justice Committee started their inquiry. They've had a specific focus on foreign interference and foreign influence. They've had information from the Electoral Commission they've had it from the security and intelligence agencies they've had it from other parties and other submitters and they've had guidance from me as well and yet that committee still has not produced a report. I've asked for advice on when was the last time that it took the relevant select committee conducting an inquiry into a general election more than two years after the election before they reported back—Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We're in a difficult position because the Minister speaking for the last couple of minutes has been extensively referring to the select committee inquiry. Now I'd love to be able to respond to the issues in the select committee inquiry but I'd be held in breach of privilege because those proceedings are confidential and some of the statements the Minister has made are incorrect but I don't have the opportunity. So I don't think it is right or proper for the Minister to be able to refer to the proceedings of a select committee when he's not been a member and members of the committee are bound by parliamentary process and are unable to do so. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah I'm listening very carefully to the Minister and at the moment I'm satisfied that he's been talking only about the process and not the proceedings. I do understand the frustration that the members of the select committee might feel but you know the House has rejected the opportunity to reverse that. So as long as the Minister sticks to the facts about the proceedings then I think he is within the Standing Orders. Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I'm obliged Madam Speaker and the point I'm simply making is that it has been a long time that we've been waiting for the conclusions of that report and more so than we know—and it's been a matter of public record—about the sorts of issues that the committee has been called upon to consider. I publicly said two or three months ago that I was very keen to see their conclusions that the issue of foreign donations was one that particularly concerned me and the Government and that we were ready to move but we would benefit from the insights that the committee might have gained. We don't have the benefit of those insights and the election year is upon us and for the sake of the integrity of that election and making sure that we all go into election year knowing what the rules are then this bill has become necessary and sadly because of the time of the year and the fact that we've been waiting and I've been waiting we now have to do that under urgency. So I take no criticisms whatsoever about the fact that this is the approach we have had to take. This is an important issue this is a serious issue and ordinarily on matters of electoral law and electoral integrity there would be a level of cooperation and a meeting of the minds. Now I know the largest party in Opposition has agreed to support the legislation and I'm thankful for that and I have listened very carefully to their criticisms. But it is important that on these sorts of issues in this day and age—and the 2020 general election will conducted in circumstances that are different to the 2017 election very different to the 2014 election and a whole heap different to the 2011 election—influence can be conducted and commanded at the push of a button anywhere in the world and we have to be across that. Now like members opposite as I hear their criticisms it would be nice if we could have a much deeper thoroughgoing review of our electoral laws. It didn't happen under the last Government. We've started some changes. We've done changes in time for next year—and there are some still to come through the House—that I think will help enormously. I mean some of those are about actually making it easier for people to vote and I know members opposite seem to be opposed to that. But the truth is—and the advice is very clear—that our electoral laws are not really the laws of 1993. They are the laws of 1956 and they need an upgrade and change. I have committed and I know the parties in Government are committed to a thoroughgoing review following the next election. In the meantime we have to deal with what we've got and what we have right now is a real threat and a real risk around foreign influence and foreign interference and one of the key ways that happens is through the financing of political parties. Now I know members—we can criticise each other and we can all look at each other's record and wonder what's gone on. But the reality is that the risk that we face of foreign interference through financial donations is a very real one and we have an opportunity through this bill—through this modest bill through its measures—to actually seriously address the risk associated with that. In addition to dealing with foreign donations it also requires party general secretaries to be resident in New Zealand and it also adds a further requirement in relation to election advertising—that is to say election advertising conducted online—that the promoter statements or attributory statements need to be on those advertisements. That's what the bill does. They are reasonably small measures but they are measures dealing with a serious and genuine problem and they will have a serious and genuine impact. I've seen one commentator already saying that it doesn't go to the heart of the issue of routing donations through party headquarters and that sort of stuff. I disagree with that. Hon Phil Twyford: Let me guess. Bryce Edwards—was it? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I disagree with that—no it was somebody else whose name I won't mention but I'm almost certain he likes to come up in commentary. But I make this point: the due diligence requirement on party general secretaries is a new requirement. We haven't had that before. We haven't confined it to just a defence in the event that somebody gets caught but actually it now must run through their daily practice in the way that they conduct themselves running parties. That will make a huge difference and of course conducting due diligence in the interests of ensuring that foreign donations are accurate and lawful actually means you have to cover off all donations received by a party because you need to be sure that any donation that ostensibly even looks like it's coming from a New Zealand source and certainly around which there is suitable suspicion actually does fall under the due diligence requirement. So I think a lot of the issues that have caused public anxiety more recently are well covered-off in these provisions. On that basis however I'm thankful for the debate so far. I look forward to the remaining sections of the debate and I commend the bill to the House."