Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I want to reinforce that in debating Part 1 of this bill we are dealing with a bill that National members hadn't even seen 24 hours ago and the extraordinary situation we have where Parliament is being asked to ram through over 17 detailed changes to electoral law without the experience without the expertise of either the Electoral Commission or officials.I want to highlight particularly the seriousness of the issues that we are dealing with. Professor Andrew Geddis who I think is widely respected across the Parliament as one of New Zealand's electoral law experts said the conduct of the Government has been such that it is putting at risk New Zealand's ranking as one of the most transparent and least corrupt nations.Hon Damien O'Connor: This from The Hollow Men—this from The Hollow Men.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That's exactly—Mr O'Connor—the words of what Andrew Geddis said in reference to the issues of the New Zealand First Foundation.Here's the part that is unexplainable. We know from the figures in the regulatory impact statement that the level of foreign donations covered by this bill amount to $5000 per year across all the political parties. We equally know that New Zealand First that did not declare a single donation at the last election received $500000 in donations to a foundation that was kept secret and it received 10 times more anonymous donations than any other party at $340000. So here's my question: if we're concerned about the integrity of our democracy should we be more worried about the $840000 anonymously going to New Zealand First or should we be concerned about the $5000 of average donations across the board to all political parties covered by this bill? Eight hundred and forty thousand or $5000: which do you think has had the greater level of influence?Here's what New Zealanders know: the outcome of the 2017 election was determined by New Zealand First. New Zealand First was the only political party—Kieran McAnulty: We've heard this before—repetition.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —that did not declare a single donation. New Zealand First was the—well the Labour member is concerned that I'm repeating it because it's important and I would challenge that Labour member to get to his feet and defend it. I'll tell you how important it is: it determined who was the Government of New Zealand. Do New Zealanders—Hon Damien O'Connor: We're waiting for the Serious Fraud Office report.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: And I challenge Mr O'Connor: does he believe New Zealanders have a right to know who the funders were that determined the outcome of election 2017? Absolute silence. I know what New Zealanders think. New Zealanders heard that they were going to be the most open transparent Government ever but on the crucial issue of who funded New Zealand First who decided the outcome of election 2017 the Green Party and the Labour Party are apologists for the skulduggery that has gone on within New Zealand First that is absent from this bill.It is appalling that we are now almost an hour into the debate and not one Government member has been prepared to comment on this crucial part of this bill—not one. Not one Labour member on a bill that is being rushed through in 24 hours that the Opposition didn't even know was on the Government programme—not a single Labour member has been prepared to take a call. I just ask them a very simple question: why would we not include in the definition of a political donation that which is made to a foundation or a trust associated with a political party? If we're really serious about transparency about openness and about integrity of our electoral system why would we not address the issue that's been on the front page of the Dominion Post for four days out of the last two weeks? Why are we like ostriches sticking our heads in the sand and saying Hear no evil see no evil." around the issue of foundations? Why are we taking an approach of seeing no evil and hearing no evil?Let's not talk about New Zealand First and its foundation but by the way we've got this big problem because we have an average of 60 donations a year of an average value of $66 each from foreign sources over the last seven years. I'll say it again: this bill deals with the situation of an average of—I'll give the exact number—69 donations per year of an average of $66 each. This bill deals with those by putting a limit of $50 on them. Why would we deal with that and turn a blind eye to the issue of foundations and incorporated societies deliberately designed—as the papers have revealed—to get around the declaration requirements of our electoral law?The next question I'd love the Minister in the chair to answer is this: how are political parties to reasonably meet the enforcement requirements of what will become an illegal practice on 1 January 2020? That is I looked on the web and every one of the political parties in this Parliament has a website for donations. Everybody knows that the web is internationally accessible. If a person in Aussie or the UK or America jumps on the web on 1 January and says "Hey I happen to love this particular political party and I want to make a donation." and they donate a hundred bucks they are committing an illegal practice under this bill.So my view and my question to the Minister is: when we have the requirement in the bill that a party must engage in reasonable steps to prevent it what is required on 1 January? For the bulk of donations these days that are made over the net what level of due diligence is required? If somebody sends a $100 donation in on the internet on 1 January to any one of the registered political parties in New Zealand what practical requirement do they need to make? This is a serious issue; I don't want my political party being slurred with a view that it's involved in an illegal activity.I'd be particularly worried if I were the Greens. They've had 20 times more foreign donations according to the regulatory impact statement than any other party and so—Marama Davidson: We're not worried.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well I'm simply saying: what is the Minister and the Government's expectation of political parties? Isn't it interesting? I challenge the Green Party on their simple numbers. How is it possible that the Green Party has championed banning foreign donations for the last five years but has got 50 times more foreign donations according to the regulatory impact statement than any other party? This sounds like preaching one thing and doing exactly the opposite. Now I'm not arguing that the average donation was about 60 bucks a pop. I'm not arguing that the Green Party's policy was necessarily affected by those donations. But what I do say to the Green Party is this: I'm not worried about the person in the UK who provides a donation to the Green Party or for that matter to the National Party of 60 bucks. I'll tell you what I am worried about: I'm worried about the party that determined the outcome of the last election receiving $500000 in secret donations to a foundation. I'm concerned that they received 10 times more anonymous donations than any other party—a total of $340000. My view is that $840000 represents far more mischief than the 20-odd donations of about 60 bucks each on average that are covered by this bill.That's why I say to members opposite: if you are serious about improving the integrity of our democracy why would you not support my amendment to include foundations and incorporated societies associated with candidates or political parties to make sure that we do actually have sunlight and disclosure in this area? The honest truth is this: it is only a matter of political convenience that Labour and the Greens are turning a blind eye to the scandal enveloping New Zealand First. They are only in the chair as Minister only the Government because of New Zealand First's illegal activity around election donations. They don't want to close that loophole. They want—[Time expired]"