Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): This bill is another example of the Government playing fast and loose with New Zealand's electoral laws. The only good thing that can be said about this bill is that it is the least offensive of the other three electoral bills that this Government and this Minister have rammed through our Parliament.New Zealand is unique in that we don't have a constitution and we do not have a second Chamber. We've had a long convention that electoral law is developed on a cross-party basis. This matters because New Zealand should not be one of those countries where the Government of the day screws the rules of the scrum to make it easier to be able to win the next election. That's not the Kiwi way.National has consistently adopted that practice in Government. Take the nine years in the 1990s when we completely rewrote the electoral law for MMP. Every single one of those 468 provisions of the Electoral Act 1993 were agreed on a cross-party basis. Equally so from 2008 to 2017 under the Prime Ministers John Key and Bill English—nine bills—every Government electoral bill was developed in consultation and compromise with the Labour Opposition of the time.Yet this is the fourth bill of which Labour has ridden roughshod over that convention. The first bill we had wasn't even supported by a majority of this Parliament. It gives Draconian powers to party leaders to be able to fire members of Parliament that don't do what they're told. Little wonder New Zealand First MPs are silent on the skulduggery going on with the New Zealand First Foundation when any one of them knows that if they call out the truth—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Dr Smith back to the bill please. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —they could be fired by New Zealand First. We also have—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Back to the bill please.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well this is the fourth bill Madam Speaker and it's important to give context.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): And this is the one that I'd like you to address please.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: And we had the Government riding roughshod with its changes around referendum taking away the power of Parliament to determine the questions at referendum and that now being determined by Cabinet. We've also had the other appalling practice—never seen in my 30 years—of an electoral bill being announced introduced and passed all on the same day.Now the context of this bill is that the electoral laws are reviewed after every single election and that's occurred since 1946—every Parliament. When that inquiry concludes then there is a bill. Every one of the issues in this bill was part of that inquiry. This Minister—Hon Andrew Little: Why did it take two years?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —and Government ride roughshod over that process by absolutely overriding it. Now the Minister asks Why did it take two years?" I'll tell you why. Firstly they did not start it until nine months the latest inquiry was started and that was something controlled completely by Labour. Secondly—and here's another good one. I'd love Mr Little to explain this. The biggest concern from the 2017 election was the shenanigans of the New Zealand First Foundation. I would love Mr Little to explain why Labour members blocked the former president and treasurer of New Zealand First's writing to the select committee and wanting to give evidence on the inquiry. Is there a single member of the Government that will say why they blocked that? Is there an answer? Where's Mr Little now? Does Mr Little support the former president of New Zealand First and treasurer who has been—Darroch Ball: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —terrified by lawsuits—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The member will resume his seat. I'd just like to remind members that the microphones are live so they do amplify your voice.Darroch Ball: For the last four minutes of the last five that member has not been addressing the bill; he has been speaking about everything else other than that. He needs to get back to the bill or needs to be told to sit down.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Speaking to the point of order.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I'm not sure that I need much help. Let me have a go and I'll take your assistance if you're not satisfied with where I go to on this. Mr Ball the member was speaking—could the member please resume his seat. Thank you. The member was referring to the inquiry which generally leads to the electoral bill and he made that point. The point he was making was that this bill was introduced prior to the inquiry reporting back. So in my view he was referring to the bill.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My point of order was going to be—in fact Mr Little asked why there were delays—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): We've dealt with that.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —and one of the delays was because Labour members refused to allow the inquiry to look at the most significant issue of the 2017 election where the New Zealand First Party determined the final outcome of that election but is now being shown to have hidden against the electoral law hundreds of thousands of donations from some of the richest people in New Zealand. We on this side of the House say that's wrong. Members on that side of the House are prepared to be apologists for electoral law breaches and we will not have—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Dr Smith please return to the bill.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —a bar of that. The shenanigans on this bill began with the Minister's announcement of its content. Here's my question for the Minister: when he issued the press release—when the Minister announced this bill—why was he silent over the provision that delays the election outcome being announced by 10 days?Hon Andrew Little: The member's wrong. It doesn't delay the election outcome at all.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The press release—the Minister says I'm wrong. I seek leave of the House to table the Minister's press release that made no mention of that sneaky dirty little provision in this bill. I seek the leave.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Dr Smith I think you've been here even longer than me—which feels like quite a long time on a Thursday afternoon I'll tell you. You know that you can't seek leave to table something that's already public. You have three minutes 47 left. If you don't start addressing the bill directly your time will be terminated.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government's pretty sensitive about it eh? They don't like a bit of criticism—shut down the Opposition! Typical of your approach around electoral law when you test this Government on its dodgy carryings-on whether it be the New Zealand First Foundation or whether it be the provisions of this bill.Here's the issue: the Electoral Commission recommended against same-day enrolment for the 2020 election. The Electoral Commission recommended against the 2020 election providing for same-day enrolment and voting because—Hon Member: Why are we doing it?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: We're doing it—my colleague asks—for one reason: Labour wants to cheat the rules to make it easier to get elected later this year. That is why it is going against the advice of the Electoral Commission. That is why it does not understand the principle that just as candidates are entitled to have to disclose who they are before election day so too should voters. The Electoral Commission rightly expressed concern to the committee that if we allow same-day enrolment why would we bother having people enrol at all? That is a legitimate concern and that is a flaw in the bill.I do want to make note of a very important statement that was made by the Deputy Prime Minister during the first reading of this bill. Mr Peters said that on the issues and allegations that surround the foundation the proper authority for determining whether the law was broken was the Electoral Commission. That's pretty interesting. This week the Electoral Commission has concluded he did breach the law. What does Mr Peters say now? Well now he attacks the Electoral Commission and says that their judgments are wrong and not based on evidence and fact.What is most telling about this bill is what's not in this bill because the real issues and the laws that have been rorted by this Government around hiding hundreds of thousands of donations through the New Zealand First Foundation are not being touched in this bill. They are not being touched and Mr Little has become an apologist for New Zealand First and their illegal dealings. I say to members of this House and I particularly say to New Zealand First this is déjà vu. This is what happened in 2008. Every member of this House will recall—Ron Mark will recall—the famous "No" sign about the $100000 donation from Owen Glenn that Winston Peters swore never occurred. It's happening all over again and the saddest part is that New Zealand First is not accepting any responsibility and Labour has learnt nothing from that experience.If there's anything that New Zealanders out there love about this country it's that we are the most transparent and least corrupt country in the world. National is proud that in 2017 we ranked number one in the world. Members opposite will pay a very dear price for being an apologist for the shenanigans and goings on within New Zealand First and the sooner we tie up the electoral law and prevent those things the better for this country."