McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to start off my contribution first of all to thank the Minister for coming to the Justice Committee for a hearing and to answer questions. That was a new approach for us and one that managed to get us all through the Government's Supplementary Order Paper and to support it even though we don't support the bill itself. So I just wanted to thank you and acknowledge you for that.Minister within the bill in Part 1 there are a couple of things I'd just like to pick up on. One is where you've talked about the transparency and trust and confidence. You know we've had the Victoria University survey and Max Rashbrooke has written his article about it as well. One of the concerns that I've had—and my colleagues next to me have addressed this as well—is about whether or not it is about political donation monetary donation or whether it's actually about the trust and confidence of what's happening in the day not only in New Zealand but of course when we are looking at what's happening across the world and the way that other political parties have been operating especially in areas like the United States for example and whether or not that has discouraged the trust and confidence of Kiwis in the way that our own political system may work. And then I ask the Minister whether it's actually just about the political donations or just whether it's the way that Governments as a whole worldwide are working and operating at the moment that causes that decrease in trust and confidence. Minister when we're looking at the support that the parties need to be able to operate during an election year one of the issues that my colleague next to me raised is one that you may have missed because you were talking to an official. It was about that right of freedom of expression for those that do give political donations and being able to ensure that privacy is attained in some way for some people who just want to be able to express financial support for the political party of their choice and whether or not we actually cease people feeling that they are able to financially contribute because of the fear of being named and shamed for doing so and whether we have any ability to be able to protect some individuals—not necessarily companies but the individuals who wish to financially support a party's policies and then feel that they may be cancelled named or shamed because of that.Minister while I'm on my feet I'd also like to ask about the $40000 fine that could be attributed to those parties who fail within a reasonable time to comply with section 207B of the Act—$40000 is a lot of money Minister. When we're looking at the start-up of quite a few smaller parties that are wanting to come through this is actually big bucks for them. My concern Minister is that it will potentially stop new political parties from arising and wanting to represent others within their community as well because we are putting excessive rules and regulations upon them that they would have to comply with when they're just trying to start out.When I look at clause 4(3) Minister I can see some of the work that will be involved by volunteers in having to comply with these massive amounts of reporting. It's almost so bureaucratic it makes it untenable for some to be able to actually work their way through it all. I wonder Minister what your thoughts are this particular part especially clause 4(2) and (3) and whether it would have a detrimental effect on others wanting to come to this House and represent people of our community as well and whether we're actually just keeping this for the bigger parties and the bigger minority parties instead of allowing everyone in New Zealand to have the opportunity to be represented in this House. Thank you.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I thank the member from the ACT Party for her considered contribution. You are right; I did miss that question with respect to the balance between privacy and that freedom of expression to be able to contribute. So turning to that question first one of the things that we did closely through the development and evolution of the bill was to work with the Privacy Commissioner to ensure that we were striking the right balance. One of the caveats I guess or one of the safeguards that we also have available to us is that within the Electoral Act there is the donations protected from disclosures scheme to address exactly some of those issues where people can make donations up to $50000 if they have a reason or rationale for not wanting to be disclosed. Those contributions go to the Electoral Commission and then are filtered out to the requisite party. But there are some checks and balances on that and that's one of the ways that we've sought to be able to strike that balance.Turning to the second issue just around the $40000 fine if found guilty upon conviction. What we did there I looked at a range of different thresholds to find schemes within the Electoral Act. What I did is I essentially pulled over what was already the existing fines schemes within the Act noting that it cannot exceed that amount. It's not a base amount of $40000. We certainly wouldn't want that to be seen as a barrier for participation in our democratic institutions. I guess the only real risk there that one would come up against is if they weren't administering their affairs appropriately. A court would exercise their discretion if they were right at the egregious end of a breach that would warrant that type of magnitude of a penalty but that would certainly be at their discretion. But yeah I didn't want to introduce a new type of threshold into the Act given we already had thresholds that had been tested and proven.