Little AndrewPart 1 Amendments relating to overseas donations (continued)Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): 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 $150000 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.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: 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."