Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): Thank you Madam Chair. In this contribution I want to ask a number of questions to the Minister because I think what is really left very clear to anyone reading this bill is the huge gaps in terms of addressing the problem it says that it seeks to address. We've had contributions earlier in these debates from the Green Party in particular who've talked about the influence of big foreign money. We've had others talking about the scourge of foreign donations. And yet when you go and read the regulatory impact statement and you look at these issues as they've played out in New Zealand over recent weeks I am left with big questions about what this bill will actually achieve.So the first question I want to ask the Minister is why he is blaming National for what is not in the bill because certainly the Minister has done a show of power in introducing this bill and passing it through as quickly as he possibly can. Certainly it is clear that he could have the things in there that he wants to have there. In particular I want to know why the Minister hasn't progressed the issues that are raised directly in this regulatory impact statement—the risk that foreign states could circumvent any new rules that ban overseas donations by providing donations through a New Zealand citizen or resident or New Zealand - registered company?I ask that question because it's very relevant given events of recent weeks. As Dr Nick Smith has said in recent weeks we've had the front page of New Zealand newspapers questioning the existence of the New Zealand First Foundation and those who donate to it. So my question to the Minister is simple: is there anything in this bill that we are discussing today that would prevent New Zealand First say getting a donation from a Russian actor into the New Zealand First Foundation and the New Zealand First Foundation later using that money to support their political campaigning? Is there anything in this bill to prevent that? Is there anything in this bill to prevent a Russian actor potentially contributing to a New Zealand - based company that then donates to the New Zealand Food Foundation? Are these loopholes that will still exist and if they do still exist is the Minister confident that he is truly doing what is required to limit foreign influence on New Zealand's democratic process?These are very important questions. Is it possible that the New Zealand First Foundation could continue to channel money or could begin to channel money from foreign actors? I'd like to hear the Minister's view on that. In particular I want to draw his attention to new section 207JA(1)(a) in the bill which uses the phrase on behalf of" because I think it's very important that we consider what the burden of proof is that the Electoral Commission or others would have to reach in order to demonstrate that someone was providing a donation on behalf of a foreign actor. It's not clear in the bill what "on behalf of" means. This will I am sure be a question of legal relevance. Of course there has been no select committee process. There has been no scrutiny of this phrasing and what it means and how it would be interpreted by legal experts by academic experts or by any of the hundreds of New Zealanders who might have something to say about it. So I'd ask the Minister for his view of what "on behalf of" means and what that represents in terms of a threshold.The second question that I have is a very important one which is why the Minister rejected the advice from his ministry set out in this regulatory impact statement that said that it was an operationally weaker approach to not align the anonymous donation limit with the foreign donation limit. Specifically the regulatory impact statement says "It is likely to be less effective in stopping foreign donors from supporting candidates and parties through anonymous donations". So my question for the Minister is does he have any concerns that there will be people who will continue to make donations to New Zealand who are in fact foreign actors who will do so in an anonymous way?I would again point out that New Zealand First is well known for being the largest recipient of anonymous donations. So I would ask the Minister how will he satisfy himself—how should we satisfy ourselves—that those anonymous donations are not sourced from foreign actors? Can we really be sure that this bill is closing that gap? Why is it that he rejected the ministry advice on that point? Why did he reject the ministry's preference that that limit be lowered at the same time? Does he have any concerns about those anonymous donations being used?The third question that I want to ask is this question about the boundaries between what is considered as a foreign donation to a party and what is considered as a foreign donation to another entity. Again the bill sets out this particular issue that will be relevant in the 2020 election around groups that are campaigning on referenda. Of course this is significant because as we know referenda and the debates around them can impact on the way that an election is carried out and can impact on the way in which parties are perceived and votes are cast.Again the regulatory impact statement specifically points out that this bill doesn't restrict donations to organisations or groups that are campaigning for one side or another on a referendum campaign. I ask the Minister whether he is concerned that that leaves open the ability of foreign actors to unduly influence our democracy. And if he does have that concern is this something that the Government thinks should be actually addressed prior to the 2020 election in which we're having at least two referendums? Is this a significant issue? Is it something that the Minister has considered and has addressed?As I've said earlier we've had people in this House talk about their deep concern about the influence of big foreign money. Well surely if that is a genuine concern we would be concerned about the way in which that could influence the outcome of a referendum or is there some reason that I'm missing that's not in the regulatory impact statement that the Minister hasn't addressed as to why the Minister is comfortable with that and why the Government is comfortable with that?Finally my final question is around why this bill is limited to general election parties and candidates and why it doesn't extend to local body elections and candidates. It would seem to me that if really the intent of this bill is to ensure there isn't undue foreign influence on our democratic processes then actually local democratic processes are just as important. In fact having consistency in the regimes seems simple and obvious and could be achieved with a very simple clause within this bill and I'd ask the Minister why that wasn't considered.Of course I won't accept as an answer the Minister saying "Oh well there wasn't time to think about it and consult." Let's be honest this bill hasn't been consulted on in any way. In fact the regulatory impact statement is very clear that the party secretaries and the parties themselves—those who will be charged with working out whether a donation is foreign sourced—haven't been consulted at all. There's been no opportunity for parties to say "Well here's what we think could be an issue. Here's where we think the burden of proof might need to lie. Here's the sort of evidentiary basis that you might need to consider." In fact I would wager that political parties could have been quite helpful—the party secretaries and others and the lawyers involved in these issues—in talking about how this would actually effect their operations. But they have not been consulted so I don't accept the argument that "Oh well we couldn't consult local government either." because the same threshold should apply.So I do want to know why local actors have been left out because when you read the regulatory impact statement what comes through most clearly is the view that actually this bill will do very little to really address the genuine issues with foreign donations. What this bill does is—"send a signal" is the language used—send a signal. I want to know from the Minister whether he is satisfied that sending a signal is sufficient when we already have evidence in New Zealand on the front pages of our newspapers of a particular party taking extreme steps to avoid the disclosure of money that they are receiving and New Zealanders are already unable to see who it is that is contributing to a political party because of the steps they have taken to work around things. So my question is: why does the Minister think that this sends a signal that will have any impact at all given the number of holes in it and given the number of questions his own officials have asked about it?Is he not concerned that the lack of scrutiny the lack of select committee process could in themselves create more loopholes that further raise concerns from the New Zealand public? I would wager that we will see in the next year or two ongoing significant questions about the ways in which foreign actors are able to influence our political regime and I would put to the Minister: does he share that concern; and if not why not? Thank you."