Ghahraman GolrizGOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise as another member of the Privileges Committee to speak in support of this report. There isn't much to say on the facts that hasn't already been traversed in the report and by others who've spoken this afternoon but I would like to thank you Mr Speaker for sending the matter to us and for sending us so many matters recently. We do appreciate as the Privileges Committee the highlighting of our role in this House's proceedings and also in the conduct of open democracy in Aotearoa New Zealand.It is the case that we have rules as members of Parliament that we abide by and some of those rules that this report touches upon are to do with open democracy. The interests that members may have in financial institutions and real property and in other aspects of their lives are of interest to the public and I think we all do agree that it's important that we uphold those rules in both open and efficient reporting that is required of us. But also and equally important for the public is to know that where there have been breaches of those rules where open democracy or any other of our rules have been breached where we have fallen short that there is recourse. That there is a committee a cross-party—cross-House committee that will take these matters seriously that will look into the facts and will make findings that are consistent with the intent of those rules which I think has been done in this case.There was no contempt of the House found but I do want to hold that in terms of the negative findings contained in this report that they were serious. That it may have been only negligence rather than contempt but it was negligence of undertaking a duty that's important for some time. So we did highlight that and it was appropriate that that finding that negative finding highlighted that breach and in a way a type of misconduct though be it not deliberate in terms of what we found. Looking back and updating those forms was important and it and it did amount to negligence that we wouldn't want to see repeated regularly by other members.Then we come to the trust issue and again like others have done without going into too much detail it is important to send a message I think to a future Standing Orders Committee that that is an area that we desperately need clarification on. If these rules in terms of declaring our interests are for the benefit of the public I think we can all agree that out there people would see a beneficiary of a trust that has financial interest and a profit that they may gain from being a beneficiary of a trust that holds shares in various institutions that that person would be seen as having an interest a financial interest that falls under the auspices of these declarations just as they would if they directly held shares or those interests in property. We in fact in the last Budget the Government rightly fixed what we what we might call a loophole in our tax system whereby if people hold interests financial interests that garner them in income in trust should in fact be taxed. So it's exactly along those lines that we say financial interests of beneficiaries of trusts come under the same category and should be open to inquiry by the public when they're held by MPs or when MPs are the beneficiaries of those trust interests.So that is something that surprised all of us. It was not something that Mr Wood was in breach of in any way but it concerns me that that still remains a hole in our system. So again I want to commend the work of our committee and I want to commend you Mr Speaker for taking matters of privilege seriously enough to busy our schedules in that committee. But I also want to give assurances to the public that we will continue to work together to take the rules that uphold our democracy in particular where transparency is concerned seriously and that this finding was in fact serious though contempt wasn't found. So I do commend the report.Motion agreed to.