Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): National supports the intent of this bill to reduce the threat of foreign intervention in our democracy and foreign influence on our democratic processes and we support the very small the very minor provision of lowering the level of overseas donations from $1500 to $50. So we support this bill. But what we do take particular issue with and have taken issue with throughout the urgent stages of this bill's passage is the overblown way in which it has been described. This bill does not amount to a ban on foreign donations. It falls very short of that because it does not address some of the major issues that have been raised by experts and others. All it does is lower the level of donations that can be received through formal channels. We lament the process that this bill has been taken through. We lament it being passed through urgency because we see that that has denied the democratic right of New Zealanders to have their say on this bill to question whether or not it will achieve the purpose it says it has and to examine the provisions and the detail of how they will come into effect. It has denied the consultation with the affected parties to find out what it may mean in practice and it has been put through urgency in a way that is unnecessary and unjustifiable because the bill's measures do not actually get implemented until 1 January next year and in fact some of the provisions of this bill don't get put in place until the 1 April next year. So we do lament that process and we put that on the record because we are concerned that over the next year—in fact into the years ahead—there will continue to be questions raised by the public there will continue to be concerns raised about the potential for foreign interference in our elections and we do not wish it to be thought that we think this bill will address those issues. It will not. There is a lot missing from the bill. There is still the potential—and the regulatory impact statement raises this and experts have raised it—that foreign States will be able to circumvent the rules in our foreign donation regime. That is a very real concern and the Minister in the chair himself acknowledged that concern. We are concerned that the bill still allows for anonymous donations of up to $1500. Again officials have acknowledged that that is a potential loophole whereby foreign actors will seek to use the anonymous donation channel to continue to influence. I note that New Zealand First has been the biggest recipient of anonymous donations and we have invited New Zealand First again and again to address who those anonymous donations have come from and why it is that they receive so many anonymous donations and that remains unanswered.The bill also doesn't include any provisions for this to apply to local government and we have queried throughout this debate why that would be the case. If we are so concerned about the influence on democracy why is it that we're only concerned about central government democracy and not what goes on at local government? That seems a missed opportunity. Finally when it comes to this question of how this has been overblown and the PR about this being a huge ban I just want to point out a fact that has been tabled in this House in the regulatory impact statement which is about where donations currently go because actually this bill is very narrow. It deals with donations of between $50 in value and $1500 in value that come from foreign entities and foreign persons. When we look through the electoral returns for the past 10 years it is clear that the vast bulk of donations of that size of between $50 and $1500 have been made to the Green Party. It is the Green Party in 2018 who received 57 overseas donations under $1500 it is the Green Party who in 2017 filed a return with 60 overseas donations under $1500 and it is the Green Party who in 2015 filed a return with 300 overseas donations under $1500. This is relevant because we have had throughout this debate people talking about the spectre of dark forces of foreign influence and the fact that this regime in itself will kerb that threat. Well if that is the case then the Green Party must know something that we here don't know about the influence those hundreds of donations have had on them because if really all it took was this bill to address that problem then clearly the donations they have been receiving are of significant concern to them.What this bill does not do is go any way to address the actual concerns New Zealanders have right now about our donation regime—concerns that have been raised on the front pages of New Zealand's newspapers in recent weeks. We know what this is. This bill is simply an attempt to distract and divert the New Zealand public and I believe that New Zealanders are smarter than this Government gives them credit for. They see this for the sham that it is. Yes it has a good intent. Yes supporting the lowering of the level of donations is a good idea. But please let us be clear: this does not ban foreign donations. Thank you Mr Speaker.