Macindoe TimHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you Mr Chair. Well the committee stage of any debate in the House of course is every member's opportunity to ask questions and to raise important issues on the measure that's under consideration and it's deeply concerning that yet again here we have the Government parties—Labour New Zealand First and the Greens—with their heads down making no effort to get involved in the debate. But it's particularly important when there's been no select committee process and no opportunity for the public—and particularly legal experts who we rely upon—to ensure that we get important measures right. They've had no such opportunity because of this rushed process under urgency so it's doubly important for all members of the House to be fully involved in thorough and appropriate scrutiny. I do hope that the Minister who's in the chair at the moment Peeni Henare who I know is an honourable man and who I'm sure will take a close interest in it will engage respectfully and fully because I've got a number of questions and my colleagues Dr Nick Smith Chris Penk and the Hon Gerry Brownlee have raised a number. I want to draw his attention to the general policy statement in this electoral amendment bill in which it makes clear that the Minister's purpose is for the bill to make several changes to the Electoral Act 1993 to send a clear signal that only those who are part of New Zealand's democracy and who live in or who have a strong connection to this country should participate in our electoral system. Well I approve of that and as you know all members on this side of the House with the exception of the ACT Party are supporting this bill as well so there's no debate over that important principle. But I have a very important question which I hope the Minister is going to answer which is: if that is the case why is it only applying to parliamentary elections? We have two important triennial election processes and I would suggest that if as Minister Little has said the risks of undue influence and interference are very real—and I agree with his statement—why has he exempted half of those two triennial processes from this bill? Surely the risk of electoral malpractice at the local level is just as great and should be dealt with in exactly the same way because if we're going to have what is being described as substantial reform to our political system in an attempt to prevent foreign interference in our elections it should apply to all our elections to ensure that there is consistency and to ensure that those who may have ill intent towards us don't have an opportunity to get around it at the parliamentary level just by going through the door at the local government level. Local elections have the potential to be just as susceptible to foreign interference as parliamentary elections and possibly more so. So I hope that the Minister is going to respond to that because local government decision-making is often less well-scrutinised and doesn't receive the same media attention that we receive in this House as central government decision-making. So surely it's important that the measures are consistent. The next thing of course is he's got to give an answer to the question that we have asked repeatedly now for several hours as we've gone through the first two readings and the committee stage which is why on earth are we having this urgency at all? There's been no consultation with the Opposition. The changes were announced while we were in the middle of our caucus meeting yesterday so the opportunity to deal with them was really only during the lunch adjournment before we came into the House in question time. That is insulting. That is totally inappropriate. More importantly it flies in the face of well-established constitutional convention that electoral reform measures are done with the best of consultation with the best of agreement and consensus across the House and with the best of expert involvement because it is so important that political parties don't enact electoral measures to their own advantage. That's why last night I used the term screw the scrum" to the Government's advantage which the Hon Tracey Martin objected to and I didn't get a chance to reply to her then. It's the fact that they have not followed that well-established and very important constitutional convention and I ask them to explain the urgency and to explain why they've flown in the face of very well-established and important constitutional procedure. I hope that the Minister will take a call to explain that. I want to move on in the time remaining—I hope that I get a second call—to a number of other questions that I've got for the Minister because he'll be aware of the fact that a number of commentators last night and this morning have been decrying what is happening here. Nobody objects to what the intent is but they believe that this is very poor lawmaking as is so often the case when measures are introduced under urgency in a rushed and non-consultative way. This is a bill that is poorly drafted. It won't fulfil all of the Government's clearly stated objectives—that's not just my opinion; that's the opinion of constitutional experts who have been watching what's been going on. Now some of them might just be dismissed as people who wouldn't necessarily favour the Government but I think that would be a very simplistic approach for the Minister and his Government to take. So let me put some of their concerns to the Minister and see if he can respond. From Jordan Williams we've got in a media release that I saw early this morning: "Justice Minister"—Hon Peeni Henare: Was that his apology? Hon TIM MACINDOE: I beg your pardon? CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Order! Ministers should not interject from the chair. Hon TIM MACINDOE: Thank you Mr Chair. I was about to say that Jordan Williams in a reply this morning asked "Justice Minister Andrew Little to clarify whether the ban on foreign donations to political parties will also prevent foreign donations made via 'foundations' connected to political parties." and that was the very important point that both the Hon Dr Nick Smith and the Hon Gerry Brownlee were making. We must have an answer to that question. It would be totally unacceptable for this debate to conclude without that question being very clearly and appropriately answered because that is the issue that the commentators and that's the issue that the public want to know about. That's the thing that is raising most public concern and we've got to get that right. Mr Williams went on to say that "If a ban on foreign donations results in more political parties setting up 'independent' foundations to accept donations on their behalf or for their benefit then this law could end up having a negative effect on transparency." How does the Government respond to that really important—Chris Penk: Good point—unintended consequences. Hon TIM MACINDOE: —observation which as Mr Penk has just said effectively amounts to not just unintended consequences but deeply adverse chilling consequences. Mr Williams concluded: "This kind of difficulty in the detail is why important legislation should go through the scrutiny of a select committee process rather than being rushed through under extraordinary urgency." Well it's not extraordinary urgency but I know what he means. It is under urgency and it's totally inappropriate. The Government needs to respond to all of that and as I've said the rushed nature of this particular measure has been the subject of considerable speculation and comment in this morning's media. I was watching The AM Show earlier and I heard Duncan Garner opining on this at some length. So I want to ask the Minister how does he respond to Duncan Garner's opinion on this morning's AM Show when he—Mr Garner—also asked why is the measure being rushed through the House under urgency when the reason for doing so has not been explained. Unless I've been asleep—and I don't think I have been—can anybody tell me if we've had an explanation? Hon Members: No. Hon TIM MACINDOE: No—not one. No one speaking in this debate at any stage has explained to us why this measure is being rushed through under urgency when there is so much support for it. If the process was being conducted in a much more respectful and collegial way we could all be bringing the best of our minds to it taking on board the expert opinion we would have heard through the select committee process and ensuring that we have a law that is fit for purpose and that achieves the objectives we're all committed to rather than having another piece of rushed legislation from a Minister who adopts his arrogant "I know best" approach which we have seen so often and where quite clearly we will have flawed imperfect law with loopholes in it and—as Mr Williams noted this morning—it has the potential to make things worse by not bringing these murky foundations under its ambit.That's why I am strongly in support of my colleague Dr Nick Smith's amendment. I commend it to the committee. He simply wants to insert the words "or to any incorporated or unincorporated foundation or trust that is associated with or supports the candidate" in clause 5 before subclause (1) which relates to candidate donations. There's a similar provision in clause 1 after subclause (5) in relation to party donations. Does any member of this committee object to that idea? Can any member of this committee explain why we wouldn't want to do that? I'm still listening. I haven't heard a single answer—not one—so I assume that silence is consent. I assume therefore that there'll be unanimous support for Dr Smith's amendment and I look forward to the voting on it when that will happen.If the Minister wasn't so arrogant—and I'm sorry to have to describe him in that way but to have behaved in this way as he has done now on four occasions in relation to electoral law there's no other way of describing it. Arrogant high-handed taking this "I know best" mentality and firing abuse at the Opposition in his first reading speech last night even though we were going to support the measure—that seemed to me an extraordinary way of going about trying to retain our support. Why when we had to listen to all that abuse if he genuinely wants sound constructive effective fit for purpose legislation is he taking this high-handed approach when as has been pointed out many times we could have had a short select committee process but given people the time to comment still have dealt with this matter very early in the new year if necessary and have had everything in place well in time for the election."