In the case of Ghahraman's bill, Attorney-General David Parker's review found parts were inconsistent with the Bill of Rights, but only just. He wrote that the "minor" breach of the Bill of Rights could potentially be justified, but he would need to see more information.
Parker's advice on the bill was concerned the donation cap would breach the Bill of Rights' free speech protections. However, it added that it might be possible for this breach to be justified in a "free and democratic society" which would mean the bill would pass its Bill of Rights vet.
Parker wrote that any "non-anonymous" political donation was an "expressive act" and therefore protected by freedom of expression clauses in the Bill of Rights. He went on to say the size of a donation suggests different levels of support for any party: a small donation suggests less support than a large donation.
That means that while Ghahraman's bill does not breach people's right to expression by making a donation, it does breach their right to amplify that expression by making large donations.
This alone did not mean it failed its section 7 report.
Parker wrote that the cap was "certainly capable of being justified", however an "absence of information" before him addressing whether it was "proportionate" meant he had to conclude the bill was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights.
Ghahraman said she was surprised by Parker's response, but she took a different view on whether donations fell under the definition of speech.
She called on Labour to support the bill to select committee so that the report would not be the final word on whether donation rules breached the Bill of Rights.
"My main concern is that we hear from a range of independent rights experts like the Human Rights Commission who would have to apply and define these rights about both the amount and whether Crown Law's advice is correct about freedom of speech and donations," she said.
Ghahraman said she believed Parker was also surprised by the advice, given he made it clear in his report that donation caps could in theory be justified, he just needed to see more information.
"He specifically said he doesn't believe any limitation to donations would constitute a breach of the Bill of Rights Act, so he has been very careful," she said.
Ghahraman said the episode highlighted the discrepancy in resources given to Government Bills and Members' Bills. She said the officials could have the "information" they had requested
Officials putting together section 7 reports have plenty of information in Cabinet papers and official documents to draw on - this is not the case for Members' Bills.
She described the process as "lopsided".
"Crown Law literally points out they don't have evidence, and obviously they're not going to investigate the evidence, that's not their job, [but] we don't have any access to them in terms of putting forward our justification," Ghahraman said.
Many countries that fall into the "free and democratic" camp, Canada, Ireland, Japan and the Australian state of New South Wales, all have caps lower than the $35,000 proposed by Ghahraman - Canada's cap is just C$1675 ($2080).
When asked whether section 7 reports of Members' Bills should be conducted in dialogue with the member, Parker said he did not think a report that "raises questions that need to be addressed before a bill is finally passed should necessarily be seen as a criticism of the bill".
"It is information for the House, and sometimes the House will choose to still support the bill and then those issues would be before a select committee," Parker said.
He said it was "not practical" to devote significant resource to Members' Bills given there were so many in the ballot.
