8. Question No. 8—JusticeHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of JusticeQuestion No. 8—Justice8. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Justice: How many donations over $15000 were disclosed to the Electoral Commission in the 2017 electoral returns and of these how many were disclosed by each political party? Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I am advised that a total of 124 party donations were made at the 2017 general election above the $15000 threshold. This includes 59 donations to the National Party 28 to the Labour Party 12 to the Green Party and seven to ACT. I should point out that all of this information is available on elections.nz. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister confirm that New Zealand First declared no donations above the threshold? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I'm not responsible for New Zealand First. I am accountable to the House for the work of the Electoral Commission and the advice I've had from the Electoral Commission—indeed from their website—is as I have already adumbrated in my previous answer. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is he satisfied that the law and regulations of political donation is working as intended when at the 2017 election the party that was pivotal to the election outcome was able to avoid over $500000 of donations through a foundation? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I'm not aware of any discrepancies that have led to law enforcement action. I am however aware of one active law enforcement investigation in relation to the Electoral Act. That is a complaint to the Serious Fraud Office about the National Party. Rt Hon Winston Peters: So in respect to that last answer was a $100000 donation to the National Party disclosed? Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question's very specifically about the 2017 electoral returns—[Interruption]SPEAKER: Order! All round—that's enough. Hon Dr Nick Smith: You've been very strict that supplementary questions need to be within the scope of the primary question. The primary question was about the 2017 general election. The issues the member refers to were well after that. SPEAKER: The member might be more aware of the specific detail of that and the timing of that donation than I am and if I can have an assurance from the member that the donation that was so—I'm trying to think of the right word—received and disguised happened after the 2017 election—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Well I'm being asked to rule something out and I need a level of assurance before I do that that I can. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Speaking to the point of order I have no knowledge other than that which is in the public arena and the information in the public arena is quite clearly that it was not associated with the 2017 general election. SPEAKER: All right I accept the member's word. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he have any concerns in respect of the reports that anonymous donations at the 2017 election of $342000 or 85 percent of them were from one party and were more than 10 times the amount for any other party? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I rely—as indeed this House does and the country does—on the Electoral Commission which is the independent body charged with overseeing and applying and enforcing our electoral regulations. The last thing we want is politicians interfering in that process. I would no sooner do that as Minister of Justice than I would see the Minister of Police interfering in a Serious Fraud Office investigation into the National Party. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister aware of the distinction between anonymous donations and donations that are not required because they are below a certain limit to be declared? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes. The term anonymous donation" has two applications. One is where they don't meet a disclosure threshold and may well be known to the party but are not required to be disclosed in accordance with the disclosure requirements of the Electoral Act. The other definition is that they are genuinely anonymous in that the recipient doesn't know the origin of them. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he share the concerns of Professor Andrew Geddis that the lack of disclosure of electoral donations at election 2017 by the party that was pivotal to the election outcome is a serious risk to New Zealand's reputation as the second-least corrupt country in the world? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I would be concerned about anybody including a law professor who made conclusions without knowing what the facts were and tried to engender a public debate about something that is properly the province of our independent Electoral Commission. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Government believe that New Zealanders have a right to know who were the major financial backers of the party that was pivotal to the outcome of the 2017 election and which everybody—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It would be clear and it has been for some time that these questions verge on a responsibility that's not in the province of the Minister answering. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Speaking to the point of order—SPEAKER: No. I think in this case what I am going to ask the member asking the question is to ask a straight question without the phrase of embellishment in the middle of it because I think the responsibility for the Act and the responsibility to this House for the work of the Electoral Commission is a responsibility of this Minister. Please ask the question again without the embellishment. Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Government as a matter of policy believe that New Zealanders have a right to know who are the major financial donors and backers of the parties in Government and those that have been pivotal to the outcome of election 2017? Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I think the public has a right to know in accordance with the obligations on political parties in the Electoral Act who is financing them and at the moment there is serious doubt about who has backed the National Party which is why they're the subject of a Serious Fraud Office complaint. Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table the advice from the Parliamentary Library provided both yesterday and today on both anonymous and declared donations to the Electoral Commission. SPEAKER: Well I will put it to the House because it's a rather novel seeking of the leave. Is there any—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: No no no. I am going to put it. Is there any objection—Hon Dr Nick Smith: You have inferred that the information is not publicly available when I can assure the Speaker that it is not. SPEAKER: Well I am going to put it to the House on the basis that the information that is contained in the advice from the Parliamentary Library is not otherwise publicly available and we'll see whether the House wants to see it or not. Is there any objection to those two pieces of advice being tabled? There is objection. Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was going to seek leave to be able to give a legal explanation to Mr Smith about what the law says. SPEAKER: No that was not helpful. It was designed to disrupt and I'm not going to put it."