Ross Jami-LeeJAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany): Facebook memories reminded me this morning that today marks nine years since I was first elected to Parliament. I certainly never expected nine years ago that I would be the centre of a debate over foreign political donations and I'm using that term deliberately. Foreign political donations and foreign interference is what I want to focus my time on here. In the Prime Minister's statement that we are debating the Prime Minister lists as one of her Government's achievements the banning of foreign political donations. It's true that the new $50 threshold for overseas donations is an improvement. But as I've said previously in the House I doubt it will do very much to deter those determined to find other ways around the ban including—SPEAKER: Order! Mr Jackson leave the House.JAMI-LEE ROSS: —using the wide open gap we still have where foreign State actors can funnel funds through New Zealand registered companies. The foreign donation ban is one of the few recommendations that has spun out of the Justice Committee's inquiry into foreign interference activities in New Zealand elections that has been picked up. Probably the most important submissions that we received through that inquiry were those from Professor Anne-Marie Brady of Canterbury University and what we heard from the Security Intelligence Service (SIS) director Rebecca Kitteridge. It was all eye-watering and eye-opening stuff and sobering for us to hear and read their evidence. We have not and I think we still do not take seriously enough the risk of foreign interference activities that we've been subjected to as a country. Ms Kitteridge rightly pointed out in her evidence that the challenge of foreign interference to our democracy is not just about what occurs around the election itself. Motivated State actors will work assiduously over many years including in New Zealand to covertly garner influence access and leverage. She also specifically pointed out the risks we face from foreign State actors through the exertion of pressure or control of diaspora communities and the building of covert influence and leverage including through electoral financing. After Pansy Wong resigned from Parliament I was selected as the National Party candidate for the 5 March by-election nine years ago. It was made very clear to me at the time that I had to put a big emphasis on getting to know the Chinese community. It was also pointed out to me very early on that I must make good connections with the Chinese consul-general. Madam Liao at the time was very influential with Chinese New Zealanders and important to my own success as well. In hindsight it was naive of me to not think carefully about the pull that a foreign diplomat had on a large section of the population in my electorate. The consul-general in Auckland is treated like a God more so than any New Zealand politician except probably the Prime Minister of the day. Each successive consul-general seemed to be better and more effective at holding New Zealand residents and citizens of Chinese descent in their grasp. Consul-generals Niu Qingbao and Xu Erwen were also treating us as MPs—not just myself others—as long-lost friends. All this effort if you read Professor Brady's paper called Magic Weapons is a core plank of the Chinese Communist Party's deliberate and targeted efforts to expand political influence activities worldwide. It's also the very risk that Rebecca Kitteridge warned the Justice Committee about. Professor Brady's paper is a 50-page academic work. I can't do it justice here but I recommend all MPs read it. The activities of the Chinese Communist Party here domestically where Chinese New Zealanders have been targeted should be concerning enough for all of us. But the efforts that Chinese Communist Party - connected individuals have been making over the years to target us as politicians and New Zealand political parties also needs to be taken seriously. Every time we as MPs are showered with praise or dinners or hospitality by Chinese diplomats we're being subjected to what Professor Brady calls united front work". Every time we see our constituents bow and scrape to foreign diplomats it's a result of their long-running efforts to exert influence and control over our fellow Kiwis. Both Professor Brady and Director Kitteridge have warned about the risk of foreign interference activity where funding of political parties is used as a tool. This isn't necessarily unlawful provided the donations meet the requirements of the Electoral Act. In 2018 I very publicly made some allegations relating to donations. I have said publicly already that the donations I called out were offered directly to the leader of the National Party at an event I was not in attendance at. I did not know at the time that those donations were made that they were in any way unlawful. I never had any control over those donations and I have never been a signatory of any National Party bank account in the time that I've been an MP. I never benefited personally from those donations. I was never a part of any conspiracy to defeat the Electoral Act. And the point at which I blew the whistle on these donations—first internally then very publicly—that point came after I learnt of new information that led me to question the legality of the donations. After raising these issues publicly they were duly investigated first by the police and then the Serious Fraud Office. The result of those allegations is already public and I can't traverse much detail here but I will say that I refuse to be silenced and I will keep speaking out about what I know and have seen goes on inside political parties. I refuse to be quiet about the corroding influence of money in New Zealand politics.Last year I learnt off the back of concerns I myself took to the proper authorities that the National Party had been the beneficiary of large amounts of foreign donations. These donations are linked back to China and linked to the Chinese Communist Party and with ease entered New Zealand. I didn't go searching for this information. I was asked if I knew anything of the origins of the donations. I didn't know. It was all new information to me and I was surprised by what I learnt. What I learnt was that large sums of money adding up to around $150000 coming directly out of China in Chinese yuan over successive years ended up as political party donations. Two individuals Shaoli Xie and Shaona Zhang were used as conduits for the donations.These funds eventually made their way to the New Zealand National Party. The New Zealand National Party still holds those funds. The National Party is still holding at least $150000 of foreign donations received in two successive years. I call on the National Party to return those foreign donations that it holds or transfer the money to the Electoral Commission. I doubt the National Party knew at the time that the money was foreign—I certainly didn't either—but now that they will have that information to hand they need to show leadership and do the right thing.To avoid doubt this $150000 dollars' worth of foreign donations is not the same as the $150000 from the Inner Mongolia Rider Horse Industry company that they raised last year.The warnings sounded from academics and spy agencies are not without reason. These two examples I give are very real examples of foreign money that has entered New Zealand politics. Professor Brady with reference to the list of overseas members of the overseas Chinese federation which is part of the Communist Party's infrastructure listed three top united front representatives in New Zealand: Che Weixing Gan Kaiwan and Zhang Yikun. All three are well known to political parties. In a recent press statement from a PR agency representatives of Zhang Yikun highlighted the philanthropic approach that he takes in New Zealand. The press statement on 19 February specifically said that he has been "donating to many political parties and campaigns." except his name has never appeared in any political party return. When asked by the media if political parties had any record of donations from this individual all said no. But a quick search online will find dozens and dozens of photos of Zhang Yikun dining with mayors and MPs over the time inviting them to his home and his recent 20th convention of Teochew International Federation had a who's who list of politicians turning up including a former Prime Minister. The foreign donations I mentioned earlier all have connections to the Chao Shan General Association. The founder and chairman of Chao Shan General Association is Zhang Yikun. To summarise these two bits of information the largest party in this Parliament has been the beneficiary of large sums of foreign money. That money is linked to an individual who is listed as one of the top three Chinese Communist Party united front representatives in New Zealand. That individual's PR agents say he has donated to many political parties and campaigns yet he's never shown up in any donation returns in the past. One of Professor Brady's concluding remarks in her submission to the Justice Committee was that foreign interference activities can only thrive if public opinion in the affected nation tolerates or condones it. We must not tolerate or condone any foreign interference activities. We must also not stay silent when we see problems right under our nose. It's time for the political parties in this Parliament to address seriously the political party donation regime that we have. I realise that both the two main parties in this Parliament often have to agree but perhaps it's time to put that out to an independent body. It's too important for us to ignore and it's not right that we should allow these things to go on under our nose. I seek leave to table two charts that show a flow of money from China into New Zealand and to the New Zealand National Party. SPEAKER: I seek an assurance from the member that these charts are not integral to any matter currently before the courts. JAMI-LEE ROSS: These charts have been prepared by the Serious Fraud Office and I cannot give you that assurance. SPEAKER: You cannot give me that assurance. Well I'm not going to put the question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The sub judice rule is not as to the fact; it's as to the argument of the merit of the case and I think a far too rigid rule is being applied here. If a flow chart without any other comment is to be ruled out from being tabled because you say it is sub judice—it is not arguing anything but the fact. It is not arguing for the merits it's not taking sides it's not trying to be persuasive and I think it should be allowed in. SPEAKER: Well I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his comments. This is clearly a matter on which I've thought long and hard. I think in the last Standing Orders review or possibly the one before that the sub judice rules were significantly tightened. I think it's fair to say that those changes were not unanimous. There was one member who stood out against the tightening of those rules and it was me. But having said that as Speaker I am obliged to apply the rules as they exist and the member has not been able to give me an assurance that the information contained in the chart is not central to a case currently before the court. Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The problem with that is you've got a serious legal concept that's been handed down through the decades indeed the centuries now being interpreted by parliamentarians as though they are a court of law in this context. The sub judice rule applies to any court of law—any document associated with a court of law—across our legal jurisdiction. But no parliamentarian should be given—sorry I'm not making an attack on the parliamentarians but I think it's improper for parliamentarians to say "Well we've got a better interpretation of that and this is what it is."Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think for me the question is how Mr Ross came to hold the documents: whether in fact he is holding the documents because of his involvement in a case that may be before a judicial body or whether he came to hold them through some other means.SPEAKER: Well I think I'm able to deal with that question on the matter of the briefings that I have received. Jami-Lee Ross has made it clear to me that the chart to which he refers or the information to which he refers is something which has come into his possession as a matter leading up to this and containing information relevant to this case. Hon Aupito William Sio: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Noting the seriousness and the magnitude of the issues that have been raised with Mr Jami-Lee Ross and noting also that his time is up is it appropriate for me to seek leave that he be given extended time to complete his statements?SPEAKER: The answer to that is that it's not appropriate for that member to seek leave for another member in that way."