Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): It is just extraordinary that this very minor provision that requires a party secretary to be residing in New Zealand—that's the only change in clause 16—is being rammed through Parliament under urgency. Now there isn't any record of any of our registered political parties ever having anybody live overseas so the idea that we've got to ram through Parliament a bill which we only saw less than 24 hours ago because there's this great concern about foreigners becoming secretaries of political parties is a pretty extraordinary measure. It is quite silly that Parliament is being asked to rush through such a minor small change that poses such little risk albeit a measure that the select committee in hearing submissions was very open and supportive of—making that very minor change. I do draw attention to the committee the contribution from the New Zealand First Minister Tracey Martin who made the point that party secretaries are volunteers and they need to be respected—those that volunteer in political parties—and we on this side of the committee agree with that. What I find extraordinary is that while we want to respect the role of party secretaries we have the New Zealand First leader's lawyer Mr Brian Henry threatening to sue the party secretary and office holders of New Zealand First. Is the reason that the Government wants to make sure they are in New Zealand so that New Zealand First is able to silence and penalise those office holders that are blowing the whistle on the financial mispractice that has been going on within New Zealand First? It was interesting that in the former debate the Government the Deputy Prime Minister objected to the tabling of a letter from office holders of the New Zealand First Party who want to appear before the select committee—in a protected environment where they enjoy parliamentary privilege—because they are so fearful of the legal action that has been threatened by Mr Peters and by Mr Brian Henry for them disclosing the moral issues that have gone on within New Zealand First. I would ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Andrew Little whether the motivation for the change in clause 16 being done in a rush is because New Zealand First wants to be able to ensure it can sue and take legal action against those former New Zealand First office holders the president and the treasurer who have recently resigned because of financial mismanagement within that party. [Interruption] I'm sorry?Darroch Ball: I said get your facts straight.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well the president of the New Zealand First Party has resigned. You had to elect a new one at the election. He resigned because he says there were moral issues over the finances of New Zealand First. He said he could not explain the secret $500000 of donations that went to the foundation. He has said on the public record that he was unaware of the $340000 of anonymous donations to New Zealand First at the last election—Darroch Ball: When did he say that?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —10 times than any other—Darroch Ball: When did he say that?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: And he has also said in response to the interjections from the New Zealand First member that he resigned because he could not for moral reasons sign off on the financial accounts of New Zealand First. I draw to that member's attention that the New Zealand First Party was the only party not to declare any donations at the 2017 election—extraordinary for a party that played the pivotal role in determining the outcome of that election. I'd invite the member who's interjecting to get to his feet. I know the country would love to know whether he disagrees with the former party president. I know the country would love to know whether—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I would like to know how that relates to Part 2.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well this clause here is all about the party secretary and about party office holders.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That's right. I understand that. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: And it is about changing them and saying they must live in New Zealand. My concern: I'd like to hear from the Minister as to whether the reason for requiring them to live in New Zealand is so that Brian Henry and Winston Peters can carry out their threat of suing those office holders whereas if they lived outside the new jurisdiction—and I'd love to know from the Minister why on earth it's necessary to rush under urgency in 24 hours in what has been described as terrible lawmaking a provision around that provision.The second provision in Part 2 of this bill deals with the issues of electoral advertisements and modern media and it's quite a sensible provision. What it is saying is that the rules that apply to a newspaper or a television or a newspaper advertisement should equally apply to social media. It is quite appropriate that we update our electoral law to bring it into the social media and internet environment of advertising. But the problem I have with it is this: why is it necessary to ram this through in just 24 hours? What opportunity has there been for people to submit on that? My bigger concern is that there are many other provisions within the Electoral Act that are not up to date with the internet age with the age of social media; why are we solely picking out this particular provision and rushing it through under urgency? Why do we not in fact ensure that we make all of the changes that are necessary to our Electoral Act to take into account the internet and social media advertising provisions? I'd love the Minister to respond to those two points.