9. Question No. 9—JusticeHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of JusticeQuestion No. 9—JusticeSPEAKER: This is a question with a slightly longer answer.9. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Justice: Does he agree with the statement by electoral law expert Professor Andrew Geddis regarding the disclosure of donations at the 2017 election You can't have a country's political system run in this way and be considered the second least corrupt nation on the planet"?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Yes and I agree that we can't build a reputation for our political system which is based on electoral spending that is only "pretty legal" a Serious Fraud Office investigation into a questionable $100000 donation to the National Party Ministers—Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You are quite insistent that the grammar in questions is precise so that you're able to rule more easily on the answers being given by Ministers. This question refers to donations at the 2017 election. So far the Minister in his addressing of this question—or attempt to address this question—has it would seem missed the point of the question.SPEAKER: I'm going to let the Minister continue in the hope that he'll get strictly within the bounds of the question soon.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The heart of the question goes to the reputation of this country's political system—that's what the quote from Mr Geddis refers to.SPEAKER: Yes and I've now looked at the question again carefully; it does have two legs. The first leg the Minister has answered by saying "Yes" and he can now answer the second leg which goes to a much broader quote on the part of Dr Geddis.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: To pick up where I left off we were at: Ministers in a previous Government travelling on the taxpayers' dollar to shill for overseas support confusing private and personal interests in relation to—Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is quite proper for a Minister to seek leave and to notify the Speaker to have a longer answer. I think it's inappropriate for that to be used as an opportunity to have a go at the Opposition parties.SPEAKER: Well I think it's a little bit rich for someone—[Interruption] Who laughed then loudly? The member will leave the House. He can come back for question 11. Hon Damien O'Connor withdrew from the Chamber. SPEAKER: Yes Upper Moutere it was your member. It is a little bit rich for someone who asks a very political question to be unhappy when there is a political answer. Andrew Little start again.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes and I agree that we can't build a reputation for our political system which is based on electoral spending that is only "pretty legal" a Serious Fraud Office investigation into a questionable $100000 donation to the National Party Ministers in a previous Government travelling on the taxpayers' dollar to shill for overseas support confusing private and personal interests in Oravida doing questionable deals over convention centres—Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister answering the question knows full well that electoral rules have been changed on numerous occasions and the rules that related to 2017 and the 2017 election are the rules that are in question. I think it's quite unreasonable for the Minister to take a defensive position in support of his coalition partner by using this opportunity to have a go at the Opposition.SPEAKER: Order! Order! There's been no reference to any coalition partner at all that I'm aware of. Now the problem I've got now is whether I get the Minister to start again but I think I'll just get him to wind back slightly rather than start from the beginning again.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Thank you Mr Speaker. I only have one other point to raise in relation to our political reputation abroad and that of course relates to the funnelling of candidate donations through the National Party head office to confuse their origins which happened in the 2017 general election.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is it consistent for the Minister of Justice to refuse to make any comment about the front-page headlines of the last three days regarding his coalition partner but express extensive views about matters that go many years back?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The issues that have been the subject of the front-page headlines for the last few days are the subject of at the very least a preliminary investigation by the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission is independent of the executive Government. It would be entirely inappropriate for me to comment on a matter that the Electoral Commission is investigating into because I don't want to end up like the member who asked the question with a conviction for contempt. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Supplementary—supplementary? He always goes after the person—SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. If the member wants a further supplementary he can have one. He's just had one ruled out.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is extremely unfair in my view. You sat there and listened to a totally gratuitous flick coming from the Minister of Justice someone who a higher standard might be expected of particularly when dealing with members in this House—Fletcher Tabuteau: Point of order.Hon Gerry Brownlee: —and particularly at a time—I'm in the middle of one. Sit down fella. SPEAKER: Sit down.Fletcher Tabuteau: This isn't a point order; it's a speech. SPEAKER: I think for the first time since I've been Speaker we're going to have two out at the same time. Away you go.Fletcher Tabuteau withdrew from the Chamber. SPEAKER: He was of course right.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Beg your pardon?SPEAKER: He was right. It is not a point of order yet.Hon Gerry Brownlee: No but you've got to of course frame it because otherwise how could you rule?SPEAKER: No. The member I think it's fair to say is taking quite a big frame.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well I'll get right to the point. I think if you were to at a later point look at the Hansard you'd find that it was an unreasonable comment it doesn't help the order of the House and denying Dr Smith of some of the limited supplementaries that we get on this side of the House I think is unreasonable.SPEAKER: And the member is aware of the fact—or should have been aware of the fact—that I shut the Minister down when he started his flick.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the further statement by Professor Andrew Geddis and I quote "If what has been reported is both true and not a breach of the rules of political donations then New Zealand's reputation for being squeaky clean looks like a joke."?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I'm aware that Professor Geddis takes a very close interest in the operation of our electoral systems and he has made that comment; I acknowledge it. He made another one too in relation to the funnelling of donations through the National Party headquarters to National Party candidates when he said "After all it's extremely rare for this elite law enforcement agency"—the Electoral Commission—"to be asked to look at an electoral law matter let alone one allegedly involving the Leader of the Opposition having some role in illegally funnelling six figures' worth of cash to his party."Hon Dr Nick Smith: Are New Zealand electoral laws on disclosure of significant donations working to the satisfaction of Government when a party can avoid disclosure by having a separate foundation fund all sorts of campaigning activities like fund-raising websites guest speakers and advertising?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I think it is most unfortunate that there is at least one party who thinks that it is acceptable to conceal the origin of donations to individual candidates by funnelling it all through their party headquarters. But I expect the Justice Committee in its inquiry into the 2017 general election—an inquiry that has now been running for roughly 18 months—to report on all matters associated with that general election. I am still waiting for their report.Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that the disclosure of donations regime in place at the 2017 election as noted in the primary question was a regime overseen by the former Government?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I can confirm that the law as it is today is as it was in 2017 under that previous Government. I'm not aware of any changes made to the donations regime under that Government. It is very clear that a principal objective of the donations regime as it appears in our 1993 Electoral Act is for a level of transparency but that seems to be defeated when you channel all your donations to candidates through party headquarters and nobody knows who is supporting particular candidates. Hon Gerry Brownlee: Does that then mean that the Minister is concerned that the $840000 unexplained by the New Zealand First Party is of concern to him?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well I only work on facts and I'm waiting to see whether the facts are established but one fact is very clear: there are National Party candidates who received donations for their localised electorate campaigns the entirety of which came from National Party headquarters.Kieran McAnulty: What trends has he seen in New Zealand's Corruption Perceptions Index?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: A very good question. Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index has been running since 1995. Overall New Zealanders can be satisfied that we consistently rank amongst the least-corrupt countries in the world. However in three different years we crashed right out of the top three—those years were 1997 1998 and 2014 and I'll leave members to guess which Government was in place during those years.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Will the Government establish an independent inquiry into the serious allegations about non-disclosure of electoral donations at election 2017 to protect the number one ranking that National bequeathed to this Government from Transparency International in 2017?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I don't share the chronic lack of faith that member has in parts of our Public Service but we have an independent electoral commission; their reputation is absolutely outstanding. Their job is to deal with law enforcement issues in relation to our electoral code. They are doing that. They do it they do a very good job and I remain to see what they have to say about the matter. Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table an email to myself and Simon Bridges received today from the Rt Hon Winston Peters' lawyer Mr Brian Henry threatening to sue for $30 million if statements made in Parliament are repeated outside the House with the exclusion of some personal information in that email.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that being tabled? There appears to be none. Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Ginny Andersen: What other reports has the Minister seen regarding donations at the 2017 general election?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I may well have canvassed this but there are quite a few interesting reports: one from a candidate that declared a total of $54000 in donations one that declared a total of $38000 in donations and one for $59000 in donations—all from the National Party. And those reports were from Chris Bishop Lawrence Yule and Andrew Falloon. Kieran McAnulty: Does he agree with the statement by electoral law expert Professor Andrew Geddis regarding the disclosure of donations that "It's plainly a very bad look"?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As I've said before in this House—[Interruption]SPEAKER: Order!Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I have said before in this House in relation to Professor Geddis that I agree with some things he says; I disagree with others. But I agree with his very close interest in matters of electoral law and compliance with the donations regime and I think his comments about the National Party funnelling donations through their head office I agree with entirely.Hon Grant Robertson: To take the Minister back to the supplementary before last is he saying that those members that he mentioned declared only a donation from the National Party headquarters and no other donations whatsoever and how credible does he find that? SPEAKER: The first part he can answer.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well yes that is correct. The only donations declared were those from the head office of the National Party.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek the leave of the House to table the electoral return of Mr Tamati Coffey which shows that Labour pooled regionally the donations in the candidates' declaration of expenditure.SPEAKER: OK—the answer to that is I'm not going to put it because it is publicly available on the website and frankly no laundromats are going to be tabled in here."