McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to oppose this bill the Electoral Amendment Bill. Before I get stuck in so to speak I'd just like to start off with something a bit more positive than what I'm going to end with and that is to acknowledge the work of the Justice Committee and also of the Minister who attended our select committee to answer questions especially around the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) and other aspects of this bill. It was great to be able to have a Minister within the select committee available to answer our questions and our queries. I also would like to acknowledge the 42 submitters on this bill: 41 of them were for the bill itself and once the SOP came in we actually had to go back out for submissions for which we received one. Out of those submissions we had nine people that appeared and gave us oral submissions as well. But I have listened to some of the debate here this evening and I do have to fight back I guess on some aspects of it. One member from the Labour Party said that this bill has proceeded in a normal way. I disagree that it's proceeded in a normal way. In fact I believe that it's been rushed because we are going through a process before a review has even been completed. We're going through this process before we're finishing the year off so it can be implemented before the next election. This is rushing law but I guess when law is being rushed the way that it is recently maybe it doesn't feel like it if we give it an extra few days as opposed to trying to do it all in a week. It's wrong that one party having won in an election is going about changing the electoral laws without the consensus of other parties especially when we're talking about electoral laws—changing it so that it advantages themselves but nobody else within the House. So I think that this is nothing more than a grudge bill. I mean why else would you put this legislation through in such a shortened time especially with that review that is due next year. I mean what's the hurry? Harete Hipango: It's become par for the course. NICOLE McKEE: Yes that's right. It has become par for the course; under this Government it certainly has. But the hurry that we know is upon us is the 2023 election and we can see why they're trying to rush it through because the writing is on the wall. Labour looks like they're going to be out next year. The numbers are falling they're on their way. Perhaps they wondered How could we make electioneering difficult for the Opposition parties? I know let's say that people who do donate more than $5000 to a political party only do it for political gain and they need to be outed. We need to name them." No doubt cancel them in the left woke wayward way that Labour chardonnay socialists like to do. The current public disclosure threshold is $15000. What political influence can be bought for $15000? I've heard a member from the Green Party actually say that there is no accountability for anything over that when there is. There always has been. She mentioned the word "corruption". I just can't see how any political party in New Zealand can be made corrupt by a $15000 donation. And if Labour are worried about that figure—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Just stick to the bill. There are some certain phrases which are unparliamentary and shouldn't be said in this House because that could well lead to disorder. NICOLE McKEE: Thank you Madam Speaker. If one would be worried about a figure of $15000 one should ask why—is this something of concern that a particular party may be alluding to? Perhaps they can't raise $15000 themselves in donations and maybe the thought is that other parties should be restricted in that ability as well. But the way that this Government wants to perhaps out some of the donors is to name them. And the thing is as well if you're raising funds within an electorate the figure now goes down to only $1500 dollars. There's nothing that anyone is trying to hide in the Opposition parties. We want donors to be able to donate to be able to do so lawfully and also to be able to keep in confidence what they give to other political parties. Some may be donating to more than one party. Some may be donating a bit more to one party over another. They should not be outed over that. There's nothing for anyone to hide here. We expect that private and confidential information should remain just that because they are private people because they don't want to be stigmatised for their political support because they don't want to be closed cancelled or suffer potential retribution for the financial support that they offer and because they have every right to their autonomy without fear of cancellation or retribution for who they wish to support in politics. Perhaps they said "Let's make it harder for the volunteers that work in these Opposition parties; let's make them report a whole lot more because there is no real purpose for it but let's make it difficult for Opposition in 2023." This bill touts that it's all about transparency and improving it for the voters—for whom and for what purpose? Is it for just two political parties that are currently sitting on the other side of the House who get the least amount of financial support to know and then potentially target funders of opposing parties? This bill means that people either won't financially support or will not support the party of their choice because their rights to autonomy are eroded by this bill. This bill restricts freedom of expression and party funding. Everyone loses here. I thought that the Government wanted more people to be involved and to participate in elections. If that's the case why are there restrictions being placed on them? Why delve into where and how people spend their hard-earned cash the money they have in their pockets after the Government has taken their share of it? People donate because they are free to do so here in New Zealand. It's called democracy. Democracy has freedom of expression attached to it. Now this Government are wanting to put conditions on it and when Minister Jackson told us democracy has changed maybe this is what he was talking about. I'll call it what it is; it's a bill to try and defund the current Opposition parties from raising funds for the upcoming election. It's been pushed through quickly so it's in place for the 2023 election and I believe it's because Labour are very worried about their position. Writing legislation so that the people's choice can be corrected before the next election is wrong. If that's not what the Government are doing then support my SOP to amend the start date for reporting to 31 December 2023. I'll bring it to the Table on Thursday. Think of the volunteers and the unnecessary work that is being placed on them heading into an election year. Prove and show to New Zealanders that this isn't a bill about stopping the freedom of expression to play politics into the Government's own hands but a genuine attempt at transparency. They won't because it's not. It's about damage control now that Labour know that they're on their way out. It's about damage control because Labour knows that the Opposition parties are better at fundraising than them and they want to try to reduce the flow of funding that will be advocating to get this Government out. Government interfering in people's lives interfering in their decisions—you used to stop at the front gate now you're going through the front door. The Government is going through the front door and not stopping at the gate. They are going into private homes. There is no adequate policy justification for this bill and there is no consensus across Parliament. Big Brother needs to get back out the gate and stay there."