Salesa JennySIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to acknowledge the Minister in the chair the Hon Kiritapu Allan for her replies and firstly as well that she wrote to all parties—it's great. There's a bit of a habit of other Ministers of only writing to one side of the House. I really appreciate that. I think she's mostly answered my questions around why this is happening now. The initial questions are that bipartisanship has been a little bit broken in this regard. I am still not clear of the urgency and she has somewhat explained that. I suppose it's as much a rhetorical question as an actual question to her: is that lack of trust and transparency that's out in the community—which I'd probably actually agree with—actually related to donations or is it constitutional overreach and other activities of any political party or Government of the day?A second question is: why is this coming through now when there is also a review happening? If she wants to talk about trust and transparency is there any desire within her ministry to finally release the submissions of political parties? I know the National Party's position is already public. Is there any desire to release that from the likes of the Labour Party and others simply because we are talking about trust and transparency?She referenced in the plural that there's been surveys indicating the need for this legislation. I'm aware of one survey. Now it could just be a slip of a tongue a solecism but if there are surveys I wouldn't mind the Minister telling the committee what they are.The final two questions—because I don't want to waste the Minister's time—is: what consideration was given to the right to privacy? She's referenced at least once—perhaps twice—the right to the freedom of expression and I personally think that's being challenged here. But what extent was the right of privacy explored by her and her officials? Under clause 4 as we drop the threshold arbitrarily—I think everyone's agreeing with that; it is in an arbitrary drop—from $15000 to $5000 the right to privacy has been undermined.The last question is around the question that the Hon Michael Wood raised—he was talking about arbitrage and systems that might go around. I'm just wondering: is she aware of effectively groups of people who unite together? It often happens not just in the civil service but often people if I could use that as an example in the civil service paid by the Crown paid by taxpayers they in turn somewhat voluntarily give money over usually a yearly subscription to a group that they feel some unified understanding with. That group in turn often generously gives money—very generously gives money—every three years—whopping amounts of money actually. To people like myself it seems like a giant circle because often this group of people who unite together want a certain Government to remain in power. I'm just wondering in that line of what Michael Wood was referencing: has she come across any reports of such groups where people pool their money together into this group and that group over the years but often election time gives whopping donations? I think—and I'm happy to stand corrected—if I've got the word right they're called unions" but I'd be happy to be corrected on that.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): To the last question: no I haven't received any concerns because all of those donations are declared.To the second question that came before: look I know that there's been much reference to the Victoria University survey that was done that highlighted the issues that we were seeing play out both in this House in the courts in the media that affirmed the sentiment that there was a dis-ease amongst New Zealanders about the way in which the finances of political parties were managed in an environment where trust and confidence is always at the forefront of our minds when we should be seeking to ensure that Government support its legitimacy. This is one area that we knew that we could address it's not an issue that reared its head overnight and it was something that could be addressed and addressed relatively swiftly. That is why we are making these amendments. We're making these amendments because they are simply the right thing to do.You've also seen over the last few weeks that there's been the findings of research conducted over the past year. I've just forgotten the authors' names right now. Max—Hon Members: Rashbrooke.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: —Rashbrooke and others have been looking into political party donations for the period over the last couple of years. It's probably a crude synopsis but I think their findings and through their extensive engagement with parties up and down the country all political parties civil group societies etc. agree that this is a good first step but there is a lot more work that should be done to ensure that there is the requisite transparency that New Zealanders can rightly expect.So why are we doing this now? It's because New Zealanders deserve to know who is buttering our bread.Third there was one—I don't know whether to respond or not; maybe it's more in the realm of the political—comment about lack of trust and confidence as a consequence of constitutional overreach. Look I don't think that this is at all—Simon O'Connor: Take the bait!Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: "Take the bait!" Ha ha! I'm not in the mood. Look I genuinely think that if we are concerned about the state of our constitutional arrangements in New Zealand the biggest thing that we can do is take New Zealanders with us. They want to understand how we give our time our energy to stakeholders. They want to know whether money carries weight and buys access. We as a Government want to dissipate that perception and therefore as a consequence these amendments that we are making to the political donation scheme right now are the right thing to do.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I take the next caller I do want to say this—especially to the last member who made his comments before he sat down and the Minister took over—I want to remind everyone in this Chamber of the Speakers' ruling 52/4 "A member may not … (4) suggest domination by other bodies." I would like the member Simon O'Connor to withdraw and apologise because he did towards the end make a suggestion about domination and named a body which I'm not going to name again. Simon O'Connor: Well I withdraw and apologise."