4. Question No. 4—JusticeHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of JusticeQuestion No. 4—JusticeHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question as lodged has been changed and I wish to—SPEAKER: Yes Dr Smith—the member will resume his seat. Notice was given to the member's party that the question had been changed. The member has—and I've seen him being given—the question as it was changed to. He will ask it in that form and if he does not do that we will go on to question No. 5. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We certainly were not notified that the question was going to be changed. The sheet was simply distributed and put on to the members' desks. What I would take up with you though is that I didn't challenge anything that the Hon Tracey Martin had to say before because I felt that you had ruled that you had allowed the question to stand on the basis of information presented at the time but you would have considered another argument. But in that effort you would've also considered what we would say about that and it is an utter nonsense to suggest that someone makes a finding without investigating. SPEAKER: No we're not going down that track again and I do want to make it absolutely clear to members that I have been advised that the appropriate people were informed of the change to this question before midday. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Now if the member wants to ask the question he will ask it as it is on the sheet now. If he wants to argue about it we'll go to question No. 5. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Of course I want to ask my question. SPEAKER: Well ask it. Go ahead then. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can you please explain why I'm not allowed to raise a point of order? It's a practice that—I've seen many points of order raised in this House. It's an important one and I should at least ask you to hear me out. SPEAKER: I will hear the beginning of the member's point of order. If I consider it does not have merit—and that is often the practice with this member—it will be rapidly interrupted. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is that the verification I provided to the Clerk's Office referred to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Hansard of the Deputy Prime Minister speaking on this issue—where he's speaking on the very issue of the question the Hansard shows him listed as the Deputy Prime Minister. SPEAKER: OK. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: And so my question—SPEAKER: Thank you. I looked at the authentication. It referred to both the Deputy Prime Minister and the leader of the New Zealand First Party. I made the ruling that in my opinion the comments were made not as Deputy Prime Minister because there were no deputy prime ministerial responsibilities for this. If the Deputy Prime Minister made comment in this House on that he was not making it in his deputy prime ministerial role. So the member will either ask the question as it is there now or we will go to question No. 5. 4. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Justice: Does he agree with the Leader of New Zealand First's description of the Electoral Commission's finding that the New Zealand First Foundation has received donations which should have been treated as party donations for the New Zealand First Party. In the Commission's view the donations were not properly transmitted to the Party and not disclosed as required by the Electoral Act 1993" when the Leader of New Zealand First said it's a "very damning statement for the Electoral Commission because they've passed a legal opinion without having the evidence or the proof"? Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I do not agree with that member's supposition that the Electoral Commission makes findings. As the Electoral Commission itself notes in the very same statement that the member refers to it "does not have the investigative powers to form a view." The Electoral Commission does not determine guilt or innocence of any breaches of the Act. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with Mr Winston Peters that the Electoral Commission did not have any evidence or proof for making its statement that the donations were not disclosed as required under the Electoral Act? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I have no knowledge of the processes that the Electoral Commission goes into when it discharges its statutory power to make an inquiry. It has made an inquiry and it has passed matters on to the police who have subsequently passed it on to the Serious Fraud Office. That is as far as it goes. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why will the Minister not back the Electoral Commission? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The member is being completely absurd. I have backed the Electoral Commission. I will back the Electoral Commission every day. They do a fantastic job. Rt Hon Winston Peters: On the question of disclosure and the mentioning of the questioner's electoral return just the other day in this House of over $25000 from the National Party which part of that $25000 was disclosed in particularity and itemised to the Electoral Commission? SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think we'll put that one again in the category of a nice try. It does not flow from this question. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister back the Electoral Commission in their statement that the New Zealand First Foundation has received donations which should have been treated as party donations and were not disclosed as required by the Electoral Act? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I go back to the answer I gave in my primary question which is that the Electoral Commission in fulfilment of its statutory power to make an inquiry has made an inquiry. It does not make findings; it doesn't have the resources or the power to do so. But it is capable of referring matters to other authorities for investigation and that's what it has done. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is the reason he will not back the Electoral Commission's statement because hanging on to power is more important than doing what's right? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The reason I choose to answer these questions the way I do is that that member is consistently tricky and I do not trust his questions. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is it Government policy that political parties be able to form associated foundations as a mechanism to avoid disclosing significant donations? Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The House's proceedings are beginning to become absurd because now we're asking the Minister of Justice to give us an opinion on an establishment which was made in the year 2010 by the then Government of the day—the National Party in control. Now we're having a Minister being asked an absurd question and he has no responsibilities for that. Mr Little was not the Minister in charge at the time and he's still not responsible for that 2010 decision made by the National Party. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Speaking to the point of order. SPEAKER: I don't need any help with this. The question was a pretty simple one. The original question referred to a foundation. The question of whether or not it's Government policy that such foundations can be formed is one this Minister can answer. Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I know that the member asking the question is having difficulty progressing through their seven stages of grief after the 2017 election but I make this point and that is that the Electoral Commission provides some oversight of the way our electoral laws are complied with and are rolled out. It has expressed concern about a number of issues across more than one party including that member's party. We have processes at the moment to deal with claimed breaches of the law and we have a pledge from this side of the House following the next election—if we're in a position to do so—to do a full-scale review of our electoral laws to make sure they're fit for the 21st century and that New Zealanders can continue to have confidence in our processes. Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was: is it Government policy that political parties be able to form associated foundations? That was not addressed by the Minister. SPEAKER: Well the Minister can have another go. Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Government's policy is to make sure that from time to time we ensure our electoral laws and the institutions who are responsible for overseeing them and upholding them do their job have the means to do their job and do that job. They are and I'm very pleased about that. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the statement in Hansard by the Deputy Prime Minister prior to the referral to the Serious Fraud Office that the Electoral Commission is the appropriate expert body to determine whether the New Zealand First Party and foundation broke the law? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: At the risk of indulging that member in his absurdity the law is very clear about the power of the Electoral Commission. Its power runs to conducting inquiries. It is not an investigatory body. It's not a prosecuting body. It's made an inquiry in this and no doubt other circumstances and where it has considered it appropriate to do so it has passed matters on for further investigation and potentially subsequent prosecution as they did in relation to the National Party's two dodgy donations. Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What are the consequences for a member of Parliament who asks a question based on what he says is a quote from another member of Parliament when he knows that that statement is not true? SPEAKER: That is not the appropriate way to raise it. If a member quotes from a document in a way which is deliberate and inaccurate then that is potentially a breach of privilege and it should be dealt with in that way either by letter to me or by a motion to the House."