Lee Melissa; Tolley AnneMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. Before the dinner break we had a little kerfuffle in terms of who was supposed to take a call. There was a little confusion because I was meant to have taken a very short call but it seems I now have 10 minutes. I intend taking the full 10 minutes to lay down the reasons why I am in support of this legislation in terms of the concept as to why there are some things that need working through. The concerns that many members in this House have raised in relation to foreign influence in our electoral process is something that I think all members have legitimate concerns about.Having said that and before I actually get into that I found it rather interesting that the member Mr McAnulty who just took his seat said that he was only taking a short call because it was a very good bill but actually contradicted himself by saying that there are serious questions to be asked. If he believes that there are serious questions to be asked why did he not speak against the Minister when the Minister was actually proposing the rushed process of urgency in this House?That's what this party on this side of the House is opposed to: the ramming down our throats of this legislation which should have gone through due process in this House: a first reading going to the public for their submissions and a second reading. What is the Minister so concerned about with having the Electoral Commission come to this House to actually lay down some of the concerns that they may potentially have on this process? Well apparently he's not very keen to listen to them.I also listened to Marama Davidson when she spoke and said that public trust is waning in this country—that is something that we should be concerned about as legislators. She also said that we have political distancing from the public because of the way that we run. I thought maybe that member Marama Davidson should be concerned about the rushed process as well. Earlier another member—I think it was David Seymour—said it was the Green Party who constantly and continuously spoke against any urgency motion that the previous National Government had. They spoke up against it and yet now when they are in bed with the Labour-led Government they don't speak up. I have to say Shame on you!" because obviously for them principle does not mean that they actually keep to the principles—Hon Member: Unprincipled.MELISSA LEE: —that they believe in. They are absolutely unprincipled. I have to say Marama Davidson I am actually very ashamed of the way that the Green Party have gone through this process—and I say "Shame on you!"One of the reasons why I guess many members are concerned is that all of us have actually seen different influences around the world where the electoral process has been jaded coloured influenced by powers that be who wanted to influence a particular political party or the outcome of a legislative process. I think none of us as legislators wants that; we live in a democracy. I think we are very proud of New Zealand as one of the most transparent democracies in the world but it was rather ironic to listen to a lecture in transparency by Clare Curran earlier I have to say. It was rather ironic to listen to her talk about transparency considering what transpired last year was not so transparent behaviour from that former Minister.National is supporting this legislation because it is the right thing to do like most pieces of legislation that actually go through this House. But I want to know what damage—what wrong—is this Minister trying to do by rushing it through in an urgency motion where all of the processes of this House are being done in a rush. I don't know how long this is going to take but I'm guessing today and tomorrow and there is no select committee process. You know we support the idea of not having the wrong influences and limiting the donations of overseas people—I mean foreigners who perhaps want to influence different parties in this House. I think that's a good thing—limit their influence because we want to make laws for New Zealand. That's a good thing. But when we think that we're limiting that donation to $50—why not just get rid of it? Why is there an arbitrary amount of just $50? This legislation does not actually prevent a foreign power from setting up a company for example being in this country—not being a citizen or a resident—and being able to donate to a political party. However it actually prevents them from donating from overseas for example.I haven't really given this much thought but it could be my brother—now living in the United States—who might have wanted to donate to my campaign but he can only donate $50 to me because he's no longer a registered voter in New Zealand; he's been overseas for such a long time. He does now have dual citizenship. So I guess for all intents and purposes he's actually an American citizen now unable to give me any money apart from $50. I think there are so many New Zealanders who actually live overseas who might want to legitimately participate in this process but are not able to.So in order to prevent foreign influence they have limited the amount of money that foreign—nobody wants a foreign Government to be influencing New Zealand's election; come on we all agree on that. But what does limiting $1500 to $50 actually achieve and what does it achieve to do it in an urgency motion where we can't even get the public's view on this or the Electoral Commission's view on this or the view of anybody else who might have a decent thing to argue and give us a different perspective? Often that's what the select committee process is actually about. People come in and give us the reason why they might like the piece of legislation or they disagree with it so that all the members of Parliament who are sitting in the select committee can listen to their reasoning. Sometimes some of those select committee submissions have been very helpful to me when I'm making a decision in the process when we're actually making law in this House.One of the things when we looked at the transparency—and I quite like the idea that candidates and party secretaries are required to take all responsible steps to satisfy themselves that a donation over $50 is not from an overseas person. I don't know why that actually needs to be specified because I think all of us as candidates all of us as members of Parliament are very careful as to who actually donates. I think we try very very hard to make sure of that. Candidates and party secretaries will not be guilty of an illegal practice if they take reasonable steps and I think that is a good thing. I think that's all that we can expect of candidates and party secretaries—to do their very best to make sure—you know reasonable—that there is transparency and that they're not taking donations from overseas entities that might want to perhaps influence but I don't know how much $50 is going to make in terms of an influence there.One of the things that I want to talk about is the transparency issue. You know I think that all of us when we get donations during an election campaign when we have people who want to donate—I have elderly ladies who actually want to support my campaign and write me a cheque for $100 or $50. There are so many people who give varied amounts of donations because they believe in the campaign that you are running. But I just don't know what this process—the urgency motion in this House—is actually achieving. Why is there a need to rush through the process when there is really no urgent threat from an overseas entity? If the Minister knows there is an urgent threat happening then maybe he should tell us what that urgent threat is and the reason why this legislation is being rushed through—because obviously he knows something that we don't. Obviously he's saying that there is an imminent threat. If there is an imminent threat say it. Tell us what the imminent threat is and we will support the process as well as this legislation. But there is no imminent threat. This Minister hasn't given a reason why this piece to legislation has to be rushed through.Our party is supporting this legislation because we believe in transparency; we believe that there should not be foreign—DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member's time has expired."