4. Question No. 4—JusticeHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of JusticeQuestion No. 4—Justice4. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Justice: Does the Government support the statement by the Electoral Commission that the New Zealand First Foundation has received donations which should have been treated as party donations for the New Zealand First Party" and that "the donations were not properly transmitted to the party and not disclosed as required by the Electoral Act 1993"? Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I refer the member to section 6 of the Electoral Act 1993 which states that "The Electoral Commission may if it considers that it is necessary for the proper discharge of its functions … (b) make any inquiries:". I also refer the member to section 7 of that Act which states that "The Electoral Commission must act independently in performing its statutory functions and duties and exercising its statutory powers". So to answer the member's question it is irrelevant whether the Government supports the Electoral Commission in any particular action. The Electoral Commission is independent of the Government and that is as it should be. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the Deputy Prime Minister's criticism of the Electoral Commission when he said this is a "very damning statement for the Electoral Commission because they have no evidence or proof for their statement." and does the full Government retain confidence in the Electoral Commission? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: In relation to the second part of the question yes. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with yesterday's statement by the Deputy Prime Minister that the major donors to the New Zealand First Foundation are entitled to keep their identities secret and is this statement consistent with Government electoral policy? Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It will have occurred to you by now that the Minister being asked these questions is not responsible for the basis on which the question is being put in the first place—that would be obvious to any experienced member of Parliament. The second thing is that this matter in the interests of honesty and openness and candour has been the subject of investigation which we welcome. But for somebody to come here and make this argument out who told Parliament that he had made a declaration to the parliamentary commissioner who then wrote to me and said "No he has not." is a matter of grave audacity. He shouldn't be able to use this Parliament in that way. He can't substantiate what he's doing with respect to the Minister's responsibility and he should be stopped in his tracks. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Speaking to the point of order it's a long-established practice that you can ask the Minister to comment on colleagues' comments. Secondly it's within the Minister's portfolio responsibilities of electoral law and whether the Minister agrees with his colleague on that. SPEAKER: I'm going to ask the member to rephrase his question. I'm surprised there wasn't an objection on another ground. I think the leader of the New Zealand First Party might have made a comment; I don't think the Deputy Prime Minister did. So if the member rephrases his question to get it appropriate then he can ask it again. Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We get again into the difficulty that this Parliament's faced on a number of occasions where you have the various hats being pulled on and off by people but the convention is that a Minister is always a Minister. You can't be a part-time member of the Government. So when the Rt Hon Winston Peters was speaking yesterday unless he introduced himself in another role and made it very clear then everyone has a right to assume he speaks as Deputy Prime Minister a Minister in the Government. Rt Hon Winston Peters: I can help you there. The press statement I put out was put out as the leader of New Zealand First; not as a Minister not as the Deputy Prime Minister but in the name of the office of the leader of New Zealand First—the parliamentary wing. That serves the precise answer. It went out on Sunday at 2 o'clock—last Sunday—and that's my authority for what I'm answering to. Hon Chris Hipkins: This is very well-traversed ground in this House. In fact when the former Prime Minister John Key was questioned about similar matters—party matters—he was often quoted in the media as Prime Minister John Key and he made it clear in the House that he had been commenting as leader of the National Party. The House accepted that and the then Opposition was prevented from asking him further questions about it. SPEAKER: Yes and I'm not preventing the member from asking his question because it is within order to ask a Minister if he agrees with a statement if it's in their general area of responsibility and if it's not the Minister can say so. But in this particular case it is clear to me that there is nothing in the area of the Deputy Prime Minister's responsibilities that is being addressed by this. The Hon Dr Nick Smith—rephrasing the question. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Certainly Mr Speaker. Does he agree with yesterday's statement by Winston Peters that the major donors to the New Zealand First Foundation are entitled to keep their identities secret and is this statement consistent with Government electoral policy? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The statement is consistent with the Electoral Act which allows within its framework for donations up to a certain threshold to be made and the donor to be concealed. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he share the concerns of commentators and political scientists that the large undisclosed donations from the racing industry to New Zealand First alongside millions of dollars of concessions by this Government in its 2018 and 2019 Budget raise serious probity questions about New Zealand's electoral system? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Look throughout the last many years there have been donations of all sorts of origins made to all sorts of MPs. I recall a donation from a labour hire company being made to the Hon Simon Bridges. He subsequently became Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. So I think we have a level of transparency in our current Electoral Act. The question for this House will be and must be whether that Act—much of the drafting of which goes back to 1956—is fit for purpose in the 21st century. This side of the House is keen to see a ground-up review for that legislation that will bring it into the 21st century. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is he concerned that the party that determined the final outcome of the 2017 election breached as many as seven sections of the Electoral Act—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Hon Dr Nick Smith: —notably section—SPEAKER: A point of order—the member sits when someone calls a point of order. Rt Hon Winston Peters: This is a serious offence to the running of this House when a member gets up and thinks he can mouth those allegations without any response. The first thing we have in this country and it's a proud matter of law is that you're innocent until proven guilty. The second thing is there is—[Interruption]SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. Points of order will be heard in silence and the indication which I gave very recently is reversed. Rt Hon Winston Peters: He's about to listen. He began with the first one. Again he has got no right or sanctuary in this House to make those statements when they're not backed up with one fact whatsoever. We are happy to wait upon an external inquiry as set up by the lawful authorities of this country but what we won't do is to have someone think he can get away with making all sorts of libellous allegations in this House and get away with it. SPEAKER: All right—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Speaking to the point of order. SPEAKER: No I'm not going to hear from anyone further on this. What I am going to do is I am going to allow Dr Smith to get a little further into his question and work out from that for myself whether he is making an unfounded allegation or whether he has in very short terms the evidence. I'll remind him that questions have two legs and they don't have seven. Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table the statement by the New Zealand Electoral Commission saying that the New Zealand First Party breached the Electoral Act 1993. SPEAKER: Well that's been well published. I don't know why the member's seeking the leave for that. Further supplementary—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Well the reason I'm seeking the leave is because members are disputing whether there's evidence they broke the law. SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. The member may have a further supplementary now if he wants one. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is the Minister concerned that the party that determined the final outcome of election 2017 has breached as many as seven sections of the Electoral Act? SPEAKER: Right—Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. SPEAKER: No no I'm going to rule that one out it's all right. There's no—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Did he as Minister have any discussions with Labour colleagues on the Justice Committee regarding the request of the former New Zealand First president and treasurer to give evidence in the 2017 election inquiry that saw them ultimately block that request? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister share the concerns of Dr Andrew Geddis of Otago University that the breaches of the Electoral Act as determined—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Now he's about to quote from someone who claims to be a lecturer or professor of law—Chris Bishop: He is a lecturer. Rt Hon Winston Peters: —who seems not to understand—even though he has an office down at that university—the first principle of our law which is that you are innocent until proven guilty. If I was to challenge Mr Geddis to give me the legal opinion and the authority on which he makes his statement he could not. SPEAKER: Order! The acting Prime Minister will resume his seat and Mr Bishop just lost as a result of his interjection the additional question which the National Party had just got. I want to hear the end of the question. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Minister share the concerns of Dr Andrew Geddis of Otago University's political science department who says that the systematic use of the New Zealand First Foundation for the purposes of avoiding the electoral law amounts to the most serious breach of New Zealand's electoral law? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I'm aware of a number of concerns that Professor Andrew Geddis has raised by some parties under our Electoral Act including actions by the National Party funnelling donations to electorate candidates through their party—including to Nick Smith whose only declared donation in the 2017 election was a $25000 donation from the National Party. What was he trying to conceal? SPEAKER: Question No. 5 Darroch Ball. Darroch Ball: Thank you Mr Speaker—Hon Dr Nick Smith: The problem was Labour MPs did the same. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Send that old joke home. SPEAKER: Order! The pair of you the two most experienced members or two of the three most experienced members of the House should know better."