Smith Nick; Rurawhe AdrianHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): This is an extraordinary situation where we have our Parliament in urgency being asked to rush through changes to our electoral law where the Opposition party only received a copy of the bill at 11 a.m. this morning after our caucus had even started and where the bill is proposed to go through its first reading its committee stage its second reading and become law by today. The question the Parliament has to ask is: why on earth is the Minister of Justice panicked into this sort of shoddy parliamentary process? The honest answer is this: firstly the Government's just had a bad poll so they want to be looking like they're doing something and the second thing is they are behaving like a wounded bull in response to the very serious disclosures of the New Zealand First Foundation and what is going on within the Government.Can I firstly deal with the issue of foreign donations. I gave a speech that I give every year to my rotary clubs and that speech talked about electoral law and National's views. In that speech I said that the issue of foreign donations was one of concern to National. It was an area in which we felt there needed to be a tightening and that is why we actually support a tightening of the law in that area. But we want it being done in a thoughtful in a careful and in a robust way not in the way of a bill being rushed through the Parliament in a 24-hour period that is more about window dressing than getting to the heart of the issues. The Minister has proclaimed this bill as a ban on foreign donations. I'm sorry that's a bit of political spin. The current law bans donations over $1500. What this bill does is reduce that level from $1500 to $50. But I ask the Parliament to reflect: do we really think the current law with a $1500 limit is really having the big threat to democracy from foreign powers that the Minister speaks of? Fifteen hundred dollars—really?National supports a reduction in that limit but we should not pretend that somehow this is a magic solution to the inappropriate use of foreign donations. Everybody knows and the Minister accepts that all a foreigner needs to do is set up a New Zealand registered trust with a lawyer friend or set up a company in New Zealand and that company could quite legitimately make donations under this bill. That is why this bill is all about politics and not really contributing to the improvements in the fairness of our democracy and ensuring that it is protected from some of the growing influences of foreign individuals.I do want to talk seriously about the process issues of this bill. The very strong precedent—and I sat in the Cabinet room when Prime Minister John Key said that after the fiasco of the electoral finance laws any electoral bill that a National Government promoted would need to have proper consultation with the Opposition and would need to enjoy wide support across the Parliament. The reason John Key is a person of integrity who wants to see New Zealand's democracy being strong and its constitutional conventions being respected is that we are an unusual country. We don't have a constitution. You could pass all number of electoral amendments to try and screw the scrum to the advantage of the governing parties and that is an anathema to those that believe in fair contest. It's like the one sports team in the contest being able to write the rules to suit themselves. While that may occur in the America's Cup sometimes we do not support it as the way for dealing with serious issues of democracy.So every single bill of an electoral nature under the nine years of the previous Key Government introduced by justice Minister Amy Adams Judith Collins or Simon Power involved extensive consultation with the Opposition and involved more than a majority and that involved compromise. I contrast that with respect to the record of Mr Little. This is the fourth electoral amendment bill that he's brought to this Parliament without any consultation with Opposition parties at all. We had it with the waka-hopping law we had it with the law on referendums that's just gone through its third reading we had it with the Electoral Amendment Bill and now we have it with the Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2). Andrew Little is on the public record saying that electoral bills should be consulted on with the Opposition.Contrast that with this bill where the first I heard of it was a phone call at quarter past 11 today after the National caucus had already started a day on which a large number of MPs were delayed with weather being able to get to Parliament. It just exposes how shoddy the process is. So no consultation. I have said to Andrew Little on three occasions: my door is open. Just make the phone call and I'm happy to have the discussion on behalf of National to make sure that we robustly improve our electoral laws. No consultation no select committee process and urgency in Parliament.The Minister made mention of the Justice Committee process and it's proper that we put on the record what has occurred in that respect. The Justice Committee only opened submissions on the issue of foreign interference in the elections in April this year. For the Minister to be critical of that process he needs to have a talk with his own colleagues. That is a select committee of which we've had six different chairs for goodness' sake! The current Labour members of the committee were not even there when we heard the submissions from those interested in the issues of foreign interference. If there is any responsibility for that process being delayed it rests with Labour members and it is disingenuous of the Minister to use that as an excuse for riding over this bill.I ask the Minister: he introduced an Electoral Amendment Bill in October; what's different between October and December? That bill is going to a select committee and we are currently hearing submissions on it. Why is it not possible and why did he not include in that bill those issues that have been around for more than two years rather than introducing them under urgency in this process? We are being asked to pass 20 clauses of law very detailed provisions in an area that everybody knows is incredibly complex to get right around limits on donations and the importance of integrity over electoral law. It is just a disgrace that the Minister is wanting the Parliament to rubber-stamp his particular changes in this area when it is bleedingly obvious that this bill does not go nearly far enough to deal with the risks that the Minister has identified.For instance we've just had a big mayoral campaign in Auckland. Why does this ban on foreign donations not include local government? I have to say that there were accusations during the Auckland mayoral campaign between Mayor Goff and a former Labour MP John Tamihere. If you're serious about containing foreign influence in elections why is it OK for foreigners to be able to make massive donations in respect of local elections? Why are New Zealand registered trusts and companies—why is it possible to just set up a shelf company and get round the provisions that are here and why is the Government rushing through the significant changes that are being made around the social media provisions? All of these issues have been at the heart of nine months of work of the Justice Committee. There is no case for a rush. This is law that needs to be done with care with due attention where the Electoral Commission is able to appear before a select committee.We'll be moving motions. We would be happy to provide for a fast-track process to make sure that improvements in this law are in place for the next general election but there should be a select committee process—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member's time has expired—[Interruption] The member's time has expired.