Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): One of the most precious and important parts of New Zealand that makes us such a successful nation is the strength of our democracy and we should be so proud that we are one of the oldest parliaments in the world and the very names of the battles on the walls of this Parliament respect the loss of life for the values of a liberal democracy. I'm equally proud that when National left Government in 2017 New Zealand was ranked as the least-corrupt nation in the world—No. 1 in the world in 2017—and that is something that we should jealously guard. Now when we come to this bill of electoral law it is highly exceptional for this Parliament to pass bills under urgency but it is even more extraordinarily exceptional that we would pass an electoral amendment bill under urgency and through all stages. Dr Duncan Webb: What did you do? You stood there and did nothing Nick Smith. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I've been back and checked the record and I see the new member for Christchurch Central—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Actually I haven't done anything. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —might be able to answer—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —this question for me. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! I haven't done anything. Thank you. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I challenge the member for Christchurch Central and ask him this: when was the last time that Parliament under urgency passed an electoral amendment bill? Well actually I have checked. The last time it occurred was in 1947—1947. Can I say something else about the Act we're amending? The new 1993 Electoral Act—it's a massive electoral Act of 800 clauses. The select committee was chaired by Murray McCully and the Government of the day took the view cross-party that electoral law was so important—some of my colleagues are chatting. It is to the huge credit of the chair of that select committee Murray McCully that Parliament on a cross-party basis was able to pass 600 pages of the current Electoral Act on a consensual basis. That reinforces the strong traditions that this Parliament has had that electoral law needs to be expressed and needs to be considered with real care and secondly that urgency is something that should not be accorded to electoral law. Now I understand that when we had the Canterbury earthquakes you could have had urgent issues that required an immediate response. I know the Government opposite during the global financial crisis under the Clark Government passed legislation under urgency. My question for some member of the Government is: where is the urgent crisis that requires these 20 pages of law to be passed under urgency through all stages within a single day? What is the crisis? What is the issue that requires it? Why can it not go to a select committee and give the public the opportunity to have a say? I've got to commend the speech I heard from David Seymour that really did reinforce the irony of this bill that somehow this bill has the intent of strengthening our democracy at the same time as it kneecaps one of our most important democratic institutions—our Parliament—that has a process for bills and changes in law. They go to a select committee and the public have an opportunity to have a say on them. Why is it that members opposite want to refuse New Zealand electoral law experts members of the public the Ministry of Justice the Electoral Commission and the Law Commission the opportunity to be able to scrutinise this legislation? Dr Duncan Webb: National did it—2009. You know it. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well the member opposite says National did it. I say on which electoral bill? Dr Duncan Webb: Do you yield Mr Smith? Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I simply ask the question: which electoral bill? DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do you yield for a question? Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No. DEPUTY SPEAKER: You don't yield? Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I'm simply asking if he wishes to interject with an answer what bill he is referring to. The member cannot answer it and he needs to answer. I challenge the member to answer this question: why is this bill not going to a select committee? Why is this bill not giving the opportunity for the public to have a say? Can any member of the Labour Government answer the question? Simply answer the question—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! A yield is for people to ask a question and the member has refused to yield. Dr Duncan Webb: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. He says he refuses to yield and then invites me to answer the question. I would suggest—DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. No well that's—Dr Duncan Webb: —that in fact he is yielding by asking me to answer. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well that's my point. The yielding would be done by him to answer a question that you asked not for you to answer a question that he is asking. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would be delighted for the next member from Labour's side to answer the question as to why for the first time since 1947 we are passing an electoral amendment bill under urgency through all stages. How does it help the democratic institution of our Parliament that we are denying the public a say on an area of law that is as important as electoral law that determines the rules under which our next general election is to be conducted? We only need look at the media commentary whether it be Stuff whether it be TVNZ whether it be TV3. All of the media have been highly critical of this awful process for passing electoral amendment law. They are saying rightly that there is no justification for the urgency and cutting out the public from a proper process. I see Tracey Martin is in the House. I suspect she is standing by her statements that she made on a previous electoral bill and that is that the Government doesn't trust the Parliament. They just think they can sit in Cabinet make the decisions and whack the legislation in in 24 hours. Well I've got a challenge for Tracey Martin in her interjection earlier. She says this bill has got nothing to do with the scandal of the New Zealand First Foundation. I say to that member that this bill has got everything to do with the scandal of the New Zealand First Foundation because the New Zealand First Party is the only party in the 2017 election that did not declare any donations. The New Zealand First Party had 10 times more anonymous donations than any other party in the Parliament. The New Zealand First Party pretends that it has got nothing to do with the New Zealand First Foundation that has been publicly revealed to be receiving large sums of corporate donations that have been hidden from the public. This bill is part of the Government's political management of that huge scandal. One political commentator after another has said that that scandal that is enveloping the New Zealand First Party has the capacity to bring down this Labour Government in exactly the same way that the scandal over Owen Glenn brought down the Helen Clark Government. So as part of the sort of reaction and protection from Labour they think they can get away with it by bringing this bill into the House a bill that does not address the issues robustly and a bill that follows bad process but is nothing more than window dressing to try and hide the scandal that will bring down Tracey Martin New Zealand First and her colleagues. This is an appalling bill. Stuart Smith: Bit quiet now. Bit quiet now Tracey. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: They're very quiet Stuart Smith because they know that I'm bang on the pulse—bang on the pulse of what's going on within this Government bang on the issue and the scandal that is enveloping them which is behind the drop in the polls and the reason that this Government is on the ropes. There is a very serious issue around the issue of foreign interference and members opposite have said Well where is National's policy?" At the beginning of this year I gave a speech as National's electoral law spokesperson and I proposed five areas of law that required improvement. The first of those was that actually we should require the entire Electoral Act to be entrenched so that it requires a super-majority. That was an approach that John Key adopted in the last National Government. That would stop the sorts of electoral amendment bills that we are continuously seeing from this Government that breach good process. Equally I said in that speech that we needed to tighten up on foreign donations. That is why National is supporting this bill because we do believe it is an area that needs to be tightened up. The problem with this bill is that it does not address any of the greatest risks. When we get to the committee stage we will be able to get into that detail. This bill is about window dressing. This bill is about trying to provide political cover for the Government over the New Zealand First Foundation scandal rather than a genuine attempt to improve our electoral laws and ensure that New Zealand retains the reputation as the very very best democracy in this world."