Ghahraman GolrizGOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise today on this Thursday afternoon to talk about democracy. In particular for me it's a subject matter very close to my heart and I do have a bill on strengthening democracy that has been drawn from the ballot coming up before the House that does engage with exactly the issues that the Government bill today engages with. So I am proud and I congratulate the Minister the Hon Kiritapu Allan for picking up an important aspect of my bill in part which is the lowering of the anonymity threshold for political donations. As a previous member who's just resumed her seat Vanushi Walters pointed out this was something that surveys and studies repeatedly have shown New Zealanders are concerned about and their concerns should be taken seriously.I want to pick up on something that a member from the Opposition pointed out which is to say that electoral reform should be done in good faith and not through party politicking. The way that we do that is to listen to things like academic studies; recommendations of the Electoral Commission an expert body that regularly does consult writes reports and tells us what is missing from our democracy; and our Justice Committee that regularly reviews the experience and outcomes of general elections which was of course done after the 2020 general election. So I will answer the question that the Hon Paul Goldsmith put which is to say: where did this idea come from that lowering the anonymity threshold of political donations will address the issue of people bypassing our electoral laws by chopping up donations? It came from the Electoral Commission's recommendations repeatedly to different Justice Committees. It came from the Serious Fraud Office itself. It came from New Zealand Police. It came from those who are entrusted with investigating cases where people do chop up electoral donations to go below the thresholds that we as a Parliament and a public in a democratic society decided should be declared.So they've asked for the tools to investigate effectively and apply the existing law by making transparency more apparent in our electoral rules. I do note also that when I first put my strengthening democracy member's bill into the ballot last term I was told repeatedly that electoral reform wasn't a priority because we were all waiting for some consensus around all of that. What politicking looks like is the former Government and I think that was under the Hon Judith Collins as Justice Minister burying reports of the Electoral Commission on strengthening MMP ignoring findings of the Supreme Court and the Waitangi Tribunal on the need for electoral reform in specific issues. The Electoral Commission in its MMP review consulted with over 4000 New Zealanders and experts. If you're willing to bury the outcomes of inquiries like that and expert recommendations like that then that is the party playing politics with electoral reform. So it has become a priority because three of the five elected parliamentary parties in the previous Government last term did come into question in terms of the types of systems they had in place when they took electoral donations—and I'm using all of these words euphemistically because actually two of them came to be investigated by the Serious Fraud Office for criminal activity when it comes to electoral donations. And as others have said we don't comment on the outcomes of court cases in here. That is to say we don't say where the court case outcomes are good or bad but it would be remiss of us to ignore when issues are highlighted through the courts to prioritise addressing those issues and to open them for debate through a select committee process. So this bill does that with lowering the anonymity threshold. I would say that the Green Party states our position through my bill that the threshold should be lowered even further to $1000 rather than $5000 but this is a good start and that is something that will be heard in select committee.What I would say though is that the Government does now need to add to this bill the loopholes that have been recently uncovered through the New Zealand First Foundation case in court so that those issues can be rightly considered by this House and through select committee where donations can be made to entities other than political parties to bypass electoral law. That's an issue. It's an issue because we have as a nation decided on a one vote per person democracy. Democracy lends itself to equality inclusion and access. None of that works when our democracy our fundamental human rights are for sale on the free market. What we've heard from a former National Party leader—that was the Hon Simon Bridges last term when he was asked about political donations before that party got in trouble itself and was investigated by the Serious Fraud Office for its acts around accepting possibly foreign political donations in circumstances where that investigation was necessitated. Before that when he spoke about the need for limits on political donations limits to curtail interference by big money in our democracy he said Well that's a free speech issue." Imagine thinking that rights like the freedom of speech let alone democracy should be up for sale to the highest bidder. That is the ethos that has hindered electoral reform in this House through successive Governments because it favours the big parties. And we do know—we do know—that of the $1.4 million in donations that the National Party accepted last election 71 percent were done in secret.Who is taking a stake in our democracy? Who gets more of a vote than somebody else? We know that New Zealand First because that was leaked through emails they actually interfered with the Government's plan to put cameras on boats on commercial fishing boats to enforce our fisheries laws—a huge issue in combating the biodiversity crisis—because of their donations and their seen link in the favour they owed to major commercial fishery donors. What else has been sunk in this House and through successive Governments because of secret big money donations? What about the capital gains tax? What about rent controls? Who is hindering climate action? We know overseas that this happens. We've seen the gun lobby in the US. We've seen the big oil companies taking a stake in slowing climate action. And New Zealanders deserve better than that.I will say that one of the things that the Hon Paul Goldsmith got wrong and a few I've corrected in this was to say that the line taken that actually we need to limit political donations severely and look at public funding of political donations was the Green Party's. It was actually the former National Party Prime Minister Jim Bolger who came out with that idea. So this seems to be a different National Party it does seem to be one that's a bit more cynical.Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I've been listening very carefully to Miss Ghahraman's contribution and I do worry sir that she is running the risk of breaching Speaker's ruling 53/2 which is a ruling of Chairperson Robertson—out of order to suggest a member takes payment to act in a certain way—and the member must be careful not to do that. Some of the remarks by Miss Ghahraman have come very close to the line; in fact I would argue have crossed it in relation to alleging that particular actions by members of the past Parliament and the current Parliament have taken place because of payments or donations to political parties. I just ask you sir to warn her in relation to that because to impugn the motives of a member of this House is a very very serious allegation.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for the point of order. I too was listening very carefully. I have to say you know the difference between making comment about members and party—I actually think there was a moment there when the member did come very close. I'm going to ask the member to desist in taking those lines. The member's very close to being completely out of order. So I thank Chris Bishop for raising it and I warn the member about it.GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Thanks sir. To come back to the bill this is a good bill. It's a good start. It allows us to look at what we mean when we say that we have a fair equal and inclusive democracy. It allows a debate on the issue of anonymity of political donations in select committee as the public would expect. What I would call upon the Government to do is to look more carefully at all of the range of electoral reforms that are enumerated in my Electoral (Strengthening Democracy) Amendment Bill a member's bill. All of them have come from a place of having been already heard or commented upon or recommended strongly by either the Electoral Commission the Justice Committee the Supreme Court the Waitangi Tribunal or the Court of Appeal after vast consideration. It is time that while the Working Group on Democracy considers other new issues we address the delay in the issues that have hindered our democracy according to the independent experts without party politicking and allow the public to have its say allow them to regain trust in our already very strong democracy. So thank you."