Seymour David; Rurawhe AdrianDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to this Electoral Amendment Bill. I'm afraid to say that what we've heard from the Green member and the Labour members confirms everything I was concerned about with this legislation. None of them have been able to answer the simple question: why is a $5000 declaration limit better than a $15000 declaration limit? Because apart from some mainly administrative matters that's what's at stake in this bill—besides one very important measure of allowing Kiwis trapped overseas due to COVID and our Government's closure of the border and various other inconveniences allowing them to cast a vote and not be caught under the clause of having been out of the country for three years when they may not have otherwise chosen to be. We think that those people should be given dispensation to vote but the question is: what kind of democracy are they coming back to vote in?This particular law is an absolute abomination. It is introduced by a Labour Party to be passed having won one election to change the rules for the next one. People at home may wonder what's wrong with that. Well what's wrong with that is that traditionally in New Zealand we have had both sides of the House come together and agree about what the electoral laws should be and for really big changes such as the shift to the MMP voting system ask the people in a referendum. Once this Parliament starts a tradition where one side comes in and changes the law without consulting or getting the agreement or consensus of the other then we find ourselves with a political system that would be a lot more familiar to Americans a lot more familiar to people who live in a political system where one side literally gets to change the electoral boundaries to their advantage when they win power. The other side when it gets in tries to change them back but often doesn't because the playing field is already tilted against them. That is how you have people losing faith in an electoral system.So if this Labour Party wants to grow people's faith in democracy if this Green Party is sincere about trust in our democracy then the first thing they should do is taihoa hang back and wait until they've got some consensus on this law. They're not going to do that. And some people might say Ah but this is so important. It's so evidently and clearly the right thing to do that it doesn't matter if there's consensus. It doesn't matter if half the Parliament disagrees. As long as it gets done it doesn't matter if it screws the scrum before the next election as long as it gets done that's in the public good."Well now I turn to whether or not this law change is in the public good. I refer to a letter—Hon Julie Anne Genter: Nothing to hide nothing to fear.DAVID SEYMOUR: —that I received from the Hon Kris Faafoi and that is preventing political donations. I just heard from Julie Anne Genter saying "Nothing to hide nothing to fear." Does she know that she's quoting Goebbels? Bet she didn't.Kris Faafoi said that regulation of political donations therefore needs to weigh up competing factors—needs to weigh up competing factors—such as preventing political donations from having an improper influence on electoral outcomes. Well that is something that we should all want. It then says another competing factor is preserving freedom of political expression; i.e. freedom to support any eligible candidate or party one chooses and in association donors' right to privacy. And another important issue is ensuring political parties can access financial support to play a robust role within an MMP system.So there you have it. You need to make sure there's no improper influence on political parties make sure that people have freedom of expression to give what they want to give so long as they're not improperly influencing it and ensure political parties are properly funded. That is the fundamental trade-off when setting a disclosure level when the Parliament decides how much you should be able to give a political party before you will be publicly named.What this bill is saying is that they would like to drop that to make sure that all people who give more than $5000 will be publicly named. No longer $15000; $5000 and you'll have to be publicly named. And why is that a problem? Well the problem is that nobody is currently getting any undue influence over a political party for $15000. Now there's some members in the Labour Party who think that's possible. The member in the Green Party thought that maybe someone was getting undue influence on a political party for $15000 but they don't think there'll be undue influence at $5000. Well there's two problems with that. Number one is what it reveals about their thinking. Measuring the minds of others by their own they think that there is a price you could be bought for—and pretty low by the sounds of it.Then the next question is that they actually think that price will apply at $15000 but not at $5000. Well I can tell you Mr Speaker I have been the chief fundraiser for the ACT Party for the last eight years—and pretty successful I've got to say.Chris Bishop: Ha! OK.DAVID SEYMOUR: And I have to say—well the National Party are guffawing. Well they copy my techniques.Chris Bishop: No no!DAVID SEYMOUR: That's right. Yeah he admits it.Now here's the thing: you don't buy undue influence over a political party for any amount in ACT's view and certainly not for $15000. So what will be the effect of dropping this disclosure threshold? Well I can tell you that people will not give or they will not give as much because the first question donors ask is "Will this be published? Will my name be put up in lights?" And people say "Look I support what you do. I agree with your party but my business has Government contracts and I think the guys in there right now are vindictive." Sorry to say it but the one-term wonders on the backbench who no amount of campaign contribution will save in 18 months' time should be thinking about it. That's what their Government stands for. That's how people feel under their Government. They fear retribution and vindictiveness from this Government; I hear it frequently. So they will not give over the disclosure limit. What it means is that if everyone who gave between $5000 and $15000 in 2020 dropped their donation to $5000 you know what would happen? There would be $1.2 million less donated to political parties.And that was that other objective: ensuring political parties can access financial support to play a robust role within an MMP system. Something interestingly that is not featured at all in the Ministry of Justice regulatory impact statement. I have to wonder who's writing these. Maybe someone in the Ministry of Justice is trying to get a list position in the Labour Party and is fudging it. You have to wonder don't you? I think that we need to ask ourselves: how is it possible that the Labour Party thinks this is a good idea? Why would they want less funding for political parties? Why would they want to make it harder for political parties to raise money so they can hold meetings and put out advertising and put videos on social media and do things to express to voters what they would like for this country so that more voters can choose? Why would they want to reduce that funding?Well the clue is in the composition of donations returned by each party. You see if you look at how much each party raised between $5000 and $15000 it's not a good picture for Labour and the Greens. You know people don't give them that much. What they want to do is hackle at donations attracted by ACT and National because of that $1.2 million of donations given between $5000 and $15000 that would be affected by this rule change $300000 was given to ACT about $575000 was given to National about $147000 to Labour and only $68000 to the Greens. Well the problem they have is that ACT actually raised more money in that category than the Greens and Labour combined. And that's not our problem; that's their problem. There's no undue influence. It's fund-raising. It's people freely expressing their political views in privacy without any undue influence whatsoever if these people knew anything about it. What this is is the Labour Party using the political mandate that they won at the last election to screw the scrum affect their opponents' funding and try and tip the balance of the next election in their favour.What I'll say to the one-term wonders on the backbenches of the Labour Party those ones that usually only get to speak for one minute because you know the Ministers have got lots of work to do—well I'll tell you what they ain't going to be here for much longer and no amount of donations is going to save them I'm sorry to say. This law won't save them. But they should ask themselves when they're gone "Did I stand up for sound public policy good problem definition and strengthening our democracy genuinely or was I a partisan hack?" And I think they know what the answer is. Thank you Mr Speaker.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 2 August 2022. Kia ora.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 5 p.m."