Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): National supports the small incredibly incremental change that this bill proposes. Let's be clear for those who may have tuned into Parliament having read headlines today that Andrew Little is banning foreign donations. Let's be clear what this bill actually does when you look past the overblown PR because actually in New Zealand right now there is already a limit on foreign actors making donations to New Zealand political parties or campaigns. The threshold is currently $1500 and this bill reduces that threshold to $50 dollars.So National has no issue in supporting that because we think that anyone making a contribution of $70 $80 $100 who's foreign-backed should not be able to do that. We're happy to support that. But let us be clear that this bill does not address the significant issues that have been raised by many in New Zealand relating to the potential for foreign States to influence our democratic process. To claim otherwise is disingenuous and frankly accepts that the New Zealand public are not going to see through this. It actually proposes to pull the wool over the eyes of New Zealanders and I think that it is a sham in that respect.We then come to the question: why is this bill being passed in urgency? While National supports the small measures contained in this bill we absolutely do not accept that passing it in urgency is going to create good results for our democracy or indeed is good lawmaking.I want to give you a sense of the way in which this bill was introduced. We sat in caucus today and watched at about 11 o'clock as people started coming and going from the room. And we thought Well what is this? What major event has happened in New Zealand?" And then we're told "Oh look the Government's introducing a bill under urgency to address electoral law matters." I will admit that when I heard that I thought "Gosh this must be significant. Maybe this relates to the New Zealand First Foundation. Maybe this actually relates to some corrupt practices that could have been occurring somewhere. Maybe this relates to the Prime Minister deciding to be strong and doing something about Winston Peters and the way that that party has been conducting itself with respect to political donations."But no what we heard was in fact the reason why a bill was being introduced with no consultation no prior briefing—it was going to be passed through all stages under urgency with no opportunity for public submission no opportunity for expert analysis no opportunity for select committee scrutiny not even the opportunity for electoral law experts to give it a pass—was because we needed to lower the threshold from $1500 to $50. That is poor lawmaking and it is an embarrassment that members opposite are trying to claim that it is justified because it's somehow some big new ban.Let's address the questions that this bill leaves unanswered—we've had some of these raised already. First of all you've got this idea that it leaves out local government altogether. Well why is that? Second of all it leaves open the very real risk that foreign States could circumvent these measures by providing donations through a New Zealand - based resident or company. There is nothing to stop in this bill a foreign State making a significant contribution to the New Zealand First Foundation. There is nothing in this bill to stop that. I think New Zealanders would be interested to know that the Minister of Justice is happy to stand up and say he's banning foreign donations but does nothing in this bill to address that very real risk. There is nothing in this bill to deal with foreign donations to groups that are campaigning for one side or another in a referendum. So we could potentially in next year's election have the situation where foreign actors are donating to campaigns about the cannabis referendum or about the end of life choice referendum and this bill won't touch them—it won't touch them in any way.This bill doesn't deal with the fact that a foreign actor could still make an anonymous donation of up to $1500. No that's not contained either. This bill leaves open more questions than it answers and yet the opportunity for Parliament to suggest to the Minister areas where it could be improved areas where it could be tightened additional clauses that could be added is being completely run roughshod over because of the urgency that is being given to this legislation. It is being put through in an accelerated shoddy way and unnecessarily so.You'd ask yourself "Well maybe this does need to be done urgently because we need to act to stop these donations happening tomorrow." But you'd be wrong because actually this bill doesn't come into effect until 1 January. In fact some of the clauses in this bill don't come into effect until April next year. So there is absolutely nothing to stop Minister Andrew Little giving a select committee an opportunity for a week or two weeks to get submissions from the public and to ensure that this is good lawmaking but he is choosing not to do that. Mark my words there will continue to be questions raised about foreign actors influencing our democracy and being able to do it within the law for so long as this bill exists in this form.This bill will not prevent the question of whether or not foreign actors are influencing our democracy. Minister Little had an opportunity to engage with National in good faith on this issue. We have stated clearly our interest in ensuring that foreign actors do not unduly influence our democracy. This is an interest that members on all sides of this House should hold because actually we hold dear the idea that New Zealanders decide how our Governments are run New Zealanders decide who is voted for and New Zealanders decide how an election should be influenced. But no Minister Little has foregone the opportunity to reach a consensus on this issue and instead has put forward a shoddy tiny little bill that goes nowhere near to resolving the genuine issues at stake here.I would go so far as to say that this bill is window dressing that takes the New Zealand public for fools. What it is is a bill that's designed to get the headline but isn't designed to address the real problem. And isn't that Labour summed up—that it's more important to be seen to be doing something than it is to actually address the root cause of an issue? Members opposite should be asking themselves "If I really care about foreign influence in an election should I maybe be asking Andrew Little whether we just taihoa here and we open this bill up for just a few submissions?" Right now I know that there are academics just up the hill at Victoria University. If they were asked to put in a submission tomorrow they'd get it done. There are academics at Otago University Auckland University and there are people acting within our legal profession who would happily submit to this in a quick and efficient and professional manner. And you know what? I trust that they would come up with ideas that could be worthy of passing through this Parliament. But no they have been denied. They have been denied because the Government has chosen to put through this window dressing bill under urgency.It's this idea of being clever at politics; clever it somehow making it seem as if National is for foreign donations. Well no that is not the case. We accept that lowering the threshold is a good idea. We don't want to keep the threshold as it is but we think that this bill could be a lot better.Labour's starting to get a track record when it comes to this sort of legislation. We had the waka jumping bill we've had the Referendums Framework Bill we've had the Electoral Amendment Bill. In all of those cases what happens is the Minister arrogantly becomes impatient and decides it's more important to be politically expedient than it is to make durable law based on a bipartisan consensus. I am worried about that because when I came into this House I came with a very clear view that everyone here in Parliament comes with a genuine desire to do what's right for our country and to be involved in good lawmaking and this is not good lawmaking. This is lawmaking that we should all be embarrassed about because actually it denies New Zealanders the opportunity to make good suggestions. It denies opponents the opportunity to be heard and frankly it doesn't go to the nub of the issues.This is a small bill. The PR about it is completely overblown. There is no rationale for urgency. It leaves many many unanswered questions. The Minister has refused to engage. This is window dressing at its worst and members opposite should be ashamed. But National because we are cooperative and because we believe in ensuring there isn't foreign influence on our democracy will support these changes while continuing to oppose the urgency through which this is being passed."