Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill

I move, That the Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill be now read a first time. The bill requires members of Parliament to disclose their pecuniary interests, in order to highlight and avoid possible conflicts of interest between members’ public duties and their private interests. It is designed to strengthen public trust and confidence in the parliamentary process by promoting greater transparency, openness, and accountability. At the conclusion of the debate I shall propose that the bill be referred to the Standing Orders Committee, on which all parties are represented.

The register is not a register of wealth; only the nature of the interest will be registered, and not the actual monetary value. Members will be required to disclose 12 types of interest, including interests in companies, trusts, and property, travel undertaken, donations and gifts, and debtors and creditors. In determining the various categories of interest to be disclosed, a balance was struck between the need for some form of regulation on the one hand, and the preference for a straightforward scheme on the other. For example, the bill as drafted does not require the disclosure of family interests. While requiring the interests of close family members to be listed would provide some safeguard against members avoiding the disclosure requirements, it would also be an intrusion on the privacy of the families of members of Parliament. The Standing Orders Committee may want to consider that issue and the appropriate balance to be struck between those matters.

The register is to be collated annually, and a summary of returns is to be presented to the House and published. Once the bill is enacted it is intended that the first disclosure of interests will be required as at 31 January 2005. Thereafter, the disclosure of interests will be required following election and on an annual basis. The office of registrar will be held by the Clerk of the House of Representatives. He will administer the register and provide guidance to members of Parliament.

It will be the responsibility of each member of Parliament to ensure that he or she complies with the registration requirements set out in the bill. Publicity and public expectations will supplement that voluntary compliance. The Controller and Auditor-General will also have a role in compliance, by reviewing the returns and having the power to conduct an inquiry into individual returns on the Auditor-General’s own initiative or in response to a complaint. Sanctions for an actual conflict of interest will continue to be dealt with under the Standing Orders.

The establishment of such a register in New Zealand will bring us into line with jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and Ireland. The register will also complement our existing arrangements for the disclosure of interests. In accordance with the provisions of the Cabinet Office Manual, Ministers have been required to declare their interests in an annual register of Ministers’ interests and assets since 1991. Once the register for members of Parliament is in place the register of Ministers’ interests and assets will be reviewed and amended, if appropriate. The members’ register, with its annual disclosure requirement, also complements the existing requirement that ad hoc declarations of interest be made by members of Parliament before they participate in House business, if they have an interest. The failure to disclose such an interest is a contempt of the House.

Consideration, of course, was given to providing for the scheme through the Standing Orders, but this proposal was not supported by all parties. Given that the scheme, which is inherently parliamentary in nature, is to be set up through legislation, concerns have been raised about the risk of judicial intervention. In order to reduce the risk of judicial intervention a provision could be added to the bill to state expressly that the register and the administration of it is a proceeding in Parliament. The Standing Orders Committee is clearly the most appropriate body to consider and make recommendations on whether to amend the bill as introduced, to include a proceeding-in-Parliament clause. I expect the committee will focus on that matter.

The bill establishes a rule-making power for the House of Representatives in order for it to make rules about fees, forms of returns, and any other matters contemplated by the legislation that will be necessary for its administration or necessary to give it full effect. It is intended that the House of Representatives will make such rules by consensus. The publication of the summary of members’ interests will be a public register under the second schedule of the Privacy Act. That means that the Privacy Commissioner will be able to investigate to ensure the administration of the register complies with the information privacy and public register principles.

I commend the bill to the House.

National supports this bill and its reference to a committee for further consideration. We believe that transparency and accountability in all processes of the Government, including the parliamentary process, are critical. I am bound to say that I was somewhat unimpressed by the cat-like smile that spread across the face of the Deputy Prime Minister the other day when he announced the introduction of this bill, as if somehow the National Party would oppose those concepts of transparency and accountability. Why should we not support the bill? We fully accept the proposition that is advanced in the explanatory note that comparable regimes already in place in the United Kingdom, Australia, and Ireland should be followed.

The Cabinet Office Manual, as the previous speaker has already said, contains some provisions for the disclosure of Ministers’ interests. I would like to start by briefly looking at that issue because there are significant differences between the disclosure obligations in the Cabinet Office Manual and what is now proposed to be required. In general terms the Cabinet Office Manual hits five particular classes. They include remunerated directorships or employment, substantial minority or controlling interests in business enterprises or professional practice, minority ownership of company shares or beneficial interests in trusts, ownership of all real property, and holdings of mortgage or debt instruments.

Presumably, if this legislation is passed it will be planned to amend the Cabinet Office Manual requirements in line with it. For why should there be one law for Cabinet Ministers and another law for other members of Parliament? There are significant differences between the scheme of the bill and the provisions of the Cabinet Office Manual. For example, members are required to disclose the name of each company in which the member holds or controls more than 5 percent of the voting rights, whereas Ministers are required to disclose only substantial minority or controlling interests.

Another change is that members are required to declare debts over $500 discharged by a third party, and Ministers are not. Members, but not Ministers, are required to declare interests in trusts or other organisations that receive Government funding. Under the bill, members are required to declare creditors to whom a member owes more than $5,000. No similar requirement is imposed on Ministers. A member is required to declare debtors who owe the member more than $5,000, and Ministers must declare without limit on amounts, mortgage, or debt instruments. Finally, members are required to declare the interest rate for creditors and debtors if that credit rate is below the rate for fringe benefit tax. Ministers are not required to do so.

The flip side, of course, of regimes requiring disclosure is the possibility of unchecked corruption and bribery. When we look at the reality of corrupting members of Parliament, we need to bear in mind that that is an event that can occur only in the rarest of circumstances. In fact, if one were to look at the possibilities, they probably would be in only three areas of Government activity. First is this whole area of capital procurement—perhaps defence procurement might be an area that would lend itself to that possibility. The second area is bribery in immigration services. There is always anecdotal comment that that occurs, albeit to a limited extent. Finally, there is perhaps the reference of work to associates.

I would just ask members to reflect on the fact that the reality is that if such bribery and corrupt practice occurred it would likely occur within the domain of decision-making Ministers or officials. That is why I hope that if this regime is to be applied to members of Parliament, then it should appropriately be applied to judicial officers, chief executives, and all those in the civil service holding middle-management positions but exercising significant powers conferring benefits on third parties. There is some basis for the proposition that behind this legislation is a “politics of envy” argument. I hope that if this legislation is to be applied to members of Parliament, it will, in a matter of a short time only, be applied to a broad range of individuals in the Government’s service.

There are perhaps deficiencies in the bill. Quite clearly, the current provisions relating to trusts in the Cabinet Office Manual can be subverted without any difficulty at all. I know, and we all know, that a number of Ministers of this particular Government have interests in trusts that are cloaked by anonymity.

The last issue I would like to briefly refer to is that Standing Orders 165 to 167 already deal in a comprehensive way with the disclosure of pecuniary interests, and require in respect of any particular piece of Government business that disclosure of relevant pecuniary interests be made. In fact, the provisions in the Standing Orders are widely worded in a way that would catch not only the pecuniary interests of the member but the pecuniary interests of those related and linked to that member. I am referring in particular to Standing Order 165(2), which states: “A pecuniary interest—(a) includes a pecuniary interest held by a member’s spouse or domestic partner or by any child of the member who is wholly or mainly dependent on the member for support,”.

So in summary, where does National stand? We support the bill, although we consider that the pecuniary provisions in the Standing Orders are well worded and adequately serve an appropriate purpose.

I am pleased to rise in support of this bill, and I would like to congratulate the previous speaker on the reasoned and sensible approach his party is taking towards this matter. I would also like to congratulate Dr Cullen on presenting this measure to the House. I am sure it will be widely welcomed by the New Zealand community, which expects the degree of transparency and disclosure of the whole of the Parliament that is currently at a reduced level, made by the executive. I look forward, as the community does, to the unanimous support by members of this House for this measure. I cannot imagine any reason why any member of this New Zealand Parliament would not whole-heartedly support a measure of this kind.

Let me make the case clear for New Zealand First right from the onset. We do not support this. This is absolutely—

💬 David Benson-Pope: What are you going to hide?

I have absolutely nothing to hide at all. I resent Richard Worth standing up here and saying that we need this bill because we are possibly corrupt. One thing I will say about the politicians of this country is that basically they are corruption-free, and we do not need this to—

💬 Richard Worth: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My speech has been misrepresented. I can take exception to that within the Standing Order. I was talking about the need for regimes of accountability and disclosure, not saying that there are corruptions in Parliament.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I wish to rule on that point of order and tell the member that he will raise that at the end of the speech. He should not interrupt a member’s speech.

That is a typical comment from someone who does not know what he is talking about.

💬 Rod Donald: Your coalition partner!

My coalition partner? The purpose of this bill is outlined in the explanatory note: “The Bill will strengthen public trust and confidence in the parliamentary process by promoting greater transparency, openness, and accountability.” Whoever wrote that, or anybody who believes that, is living in cloud cuckoo land. The explanatory note goes on to state towards the end: “The Bill provides for a summary of members’ interests to be published and available for public inspection.” I would suggest to members that there would be no purpose for that. There will be people nosing into what others own, what they do, and what their assets are, for nosy-parker reasons in total.

The main area of concern as regards MPs is conflict of interest, and I believe the Standing Orders deal with that quite adequately now. Standing Orders 165 to 167 are adequate to deal with conflict of interest by MPs. I have no problem with that. Equally, New Zealand First has no problem in divulging if we are employed in some other venture. Any employer would like to know if an individual is employed anywhere else. But what I own has nothing to do with Mr Benson-Pope, or indeed, anybody else in this House. It is to do with myself and my family. What I owe has nothing to do with anybody else whatsoever. What somebody owes me has nothing to do with anybody else but myself and my family. Indeed, how much I have in the bank, or anything else, has nothing to do with those folk over there. They should stick their noses in their own business and leave me and my colleagues to run our own affairs.

It is ironical that this Government that wants every MP to be transparent is producing a bill—the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill—that allows criminal records to be concealed. Where the dickens is this Government taking this country? The word “conceal” in that bill is stated as meaning: “to protect the criminal record or information about the criminal record of an eligible individual from disclosure to a person, body, or agency (including, without limitation, a government department or law enforcement agency) for which there is no lawful authority under this Act to disclose the criminal record or any information about the criminal record”. Protect the criminal and open the doors to the law-abiding person who wants to become an MP! This is absolute rubbish. We will be opposing this bill all the way.

I notice in this bill that from time to time, as he sees fit, the Auditor-General may investigate. I have to say that the way I feel now, if this bill should pass, I will not be disclosing a damn thing. That is the way I feel right now. If Labour members want to tie up the Auditor-General checking into me, and probably my colleagues and one or two others, then so be it. If they want to waste taxpayers’ money checking into my personal affairs, then so be it. I am of the mind now not to cooperate at all should this bill pass.

This Government would be well advised to look into its own areas of activity such as paying lobby groups to lobby MPs.

That is where its priorities should be. That is where the possible corruption lies—paying lobbyists to lobby MPs for a smoke-free bill and the prostitution bill, and paying the Prostitutes Collective $50,000 to $60,000 a month for goodness knows what. That is where the corruption could be.

We are not impressed by this bill. It is absolutely ridiculous, totally worthless, and it will create more problems than it will solve. Every nosey parker under the sun who wants to get stuck into an MP will be investigating his or her background assets, and what have you, and generally making life difficult. Frankly, I have nothing to hide, my colleagues have nothing to hide, but we do not have to disclose the detail to Mr Hawkins, or indeed, anyone else. [Interruption] That member thinks we should. What purpose would it achieve for me to tell that member what I own? What would he do with that information? It would just make it damn awkward to go about our—

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Throw it around.

They would throw it around. They could say that that guy has this and that guy has that. This House is meant to be filled with honourable people. If we say something a little bit titzy-witzy, or what have you, we have to stand and apologise, because we are all people of honour. Let us start from that premise. We do not have to disclose what we own, our assets, how much we owe, what is on our credit card, or goodness know what. That is absolutely ridiculous and unacceptable. New Zealand First will be opposing this bill all the way.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether the House could have some guidance from you about this bill and Standing Order 166, whereby a member must, before participating in the consideration of any item of business, declare any pecuniary interest that the member has in that business. As I do have interests in most of the categories mentioned in this bill, I would like a ruling from you as to whether members who have already participated under this bill should have declared those interests. I am quite willing to do so if that is what the Standing Order requires.

I understand that no member stands to gain any pecuniary interest by the passing of this bill.

I believe that the Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill is misconceived, constitutionally wrong, and we should reject it. Why is that? Because we are not part of the Government. Yes, it is right and proper that Cabinet Ministers who are part of the Government should declare their interests. But we are here as legislators and here to help make part of the House of Representatives. If members believe, as I do, that we should see ourselves as citizen politicians, the fact that we have private interests is of no concern of the House, unless those interests are in conflict. How do we rely on that? We rely on people to declare, and the declaration has to be made. As I have just said, I am willing to do that if I have to under Standing Order 166.

It is over to those who are promoting this bill to show why members of Parliament should make those declarations. There are some good reasons why they should not. Just because it is interesting to the public to know what members of Parliament may or may not own, that does not mean to say that it is in the public interest. A second reason is that this House is finding it harder and harder to attract people to become members of Parliament who have themselves been—how would I put it—reasonably successful in commerce.

It may be, and maybe this is the point of the bill, that members think that such people—captains of industry—should not be members of Parliament. I beg to differ. I would not want to see a Parliament that was made up all of Philip Burdons, John Bankses, and John Luxtons. I have cited three people who are by New Zealand counts very wealthy. Did having such MPs add to our House? It most certainly did. No doubt it would be interesting that it might take them a few pages to register all of their interests. Is that of any value? No, it is not. However, I make this other point about the bill, and I say this as a lawyer. Without any difficulty—it would cost me some money, but I could do it—I could rearrange all of my affairs between now and 4 October so that I could stand in this House and say that I have nothing. What would be the point of that?

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: That could take a while.

It would. And for some of the things I would have to do, I ask the member, why should I? For example—[Interruption] The member may never have done this—and I would like him to listen.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: You could just declare it.

Why does Mr Cunliffe not just listen, and I will tell him something? I have lent people more than $5,000. They were friends of mine who had been in trouble, needed some help, and I have given them the money. Under this bill I have to declare their names. Mr Cunliffe will come and ask why Richard Prebble lent Joe Brown $7,000, 6 years ago. That would be none of his business. I shall tell that member something. There is no way in the world that I would ever put those people through that embarrassment. So if this bill goes through I will wipe all those debts.

But why should I have to do that just because Mr Cunliffe thinks that the public ought to know about loans that I have made in a private capacity, and that they should be declared to the House because somehow that could possibly be bribery or corruption? What a load of rubbish! What a load of nonsense! He may never have thought of lending money to anyone in his life. I assure members that other people have done so and I ask why a member of Parliament should have to declare that. That is one example.

But I then look at another interesting aspect of this bill: it states that one has to declare overseas travel. That is pretty shocking. I wonder why people would want to know to where I might have travelled. Then I see that there is an exemption. If the travel is paid for in full by, for example, the Crown or any combination of the categories listed in the bill, we do not have to declare it. So if I go overseas as a senior MP, which I am, and use my overseas travel concession, I do not have to declare it. I can go anywhere I like. I can go to Bali or Cuba, and I do not have to declare it. However, if I decide to pay for it myself—shock, horror, probe—I would have to declare it. What is the point of that?

Let me tell the House that I do travel overseas, but I would never think of charging the Crown. I do it in my own capacity. But why do I have to declare it, so that Mr Cunliffe can read about it? It has nothing to do with him, nothing to do with Parliament, and nothing to do with any bill that appears in this House. This is just nosy parker legislation.

I suspect that the real purpose behind this bill is the ugly side of New Zealand politics, and sometimes the ugly side of this country—the politics of envy. There are people who have it in their mind that somehow or other there are some wealthy people who are having an undue influence on this House. That is a load of rubbish. I will tell the House what will happen when this bill is passed, if it is. It will expose that New Zealand MPs are impoverished. The vast majority of New Zealand members of Parliament could not balance their chequebook. They own no assets. When we look through the Cabinet register for this Government, we see that over 80 percent of MPs own nothing apart from their house, which they owe to the bank. Maybe they want us to declare that, for everybody else. Well, so what!

I think this is the politics of envy, but I also point out, unless I have misread it, that as far as I can work out, MPs do not have to declare what their spouse has. Let me tell members that a very quick way of getting around this bill and keeping their money is just to transfer it to their wife. Under the Family Proceedings Act they still keep half. They may think it is their money, but it is not—half of it is their wife’s. MPs can transfer it to their wife, their partner, or their husband, and under this bill they would not have to declare a dollar. They have not lost a thing, and they do not have to declare anything.

What is the point, at that point? I guess it is so that people like Mr Rod Donald can get up and say that somehow or other we are introducing transparency into the New Zealand Parliament. No, we are not. I say that we are introducing hypocrisy into the New Zealand Parliament, but we are also telling the public that we are just a House of professional politicians. Unfortunately, I guess that is the way we are going. I would prefer to think that we are a Parliament of citizen politicians. I would like to think that New Zealand MPs are not completely out of touch, that they are still involved in the community, and that they are still doing activities within it, so that when they come here they can speak with some authority, rather than from ideology and ignorance.

Let me make this point, though, to poor Mr Brown. If we read about the Auditor-General’s powers, we will find that under this bill the Auditor-General has the power now to go to any MP’s bank accounts, come and search his or her house, put the member under oath, and if the member does not answer the questions, he or she will be committing a criminal offence. The Auditor-General is being turned from being an officer of Parliament, to being part of our Gestapo.

I make this prediction. The people who will fall foul of this bill will be some Labour MPs; not because they intend to, but because, just as happened in Britain and all the other countries cited, they make a mistake. They forget to put something down, and then they are pilloried by the media. They are put through the gauntlet by the Auditor-General, and their political careers are destroyed, not because they were corrupt but because, as we all know, half of them—perhaps I should not say half, but a substantial number—could not fill out a form of this sort. This is the one place where we do not have to have any qualificaations, except to be over the age of 18.

Mr Prebble is right. We can come here without having any formal qualifications, and I certainly declare that I do not have any tertiary qualifications. But he is entirely wrong when he claims that this is the politics of envy. This legislation is the politics of transparency—as he predicted I was going to say—and also the politics of accountability, and it is long overdue. The Green Party will be supporting this bill to the Standing Orders Committee, and we look forward to making a constructive contribution to the consideration of the bill, in the same way that we have appreciated the opportunity to make a constructive contribution to its drafting.

New Zealand has been left behind because it has not had legislation like this. Certainly, our Ministers have been subject to declaring their interests since 1991. I guess Mr Prebble missed out on that opportunity, because he left Cabinet before then. But since then all Ministers have had to make an annual declaration, and I do not think they have found that too arduous. Obviously, the Government at the time—and I guess it must have been a National Government that brought in the requirement for Ministers to make a declaration—recognised the value of moving from an ad hoc disclosure regime to a deliberate disclosure regime. That was an important step forward for our Parliament, and one of the reasons why I believe that in the Transparency International schedule of countries, New Zealand is rated the third-least corrupt in the world. I believe that by passing this legislation we will continue to maintain that position. Indeed, I hope it will give some real substance to our reputation.

I return to the issue of us coming rather late to a proper pecuniary-interests disclosure regime for members of Parliament. We are well behind our colleagues in Australia. The state of Victoria has had such legislation since 1978, South Australia since 1983, and their Senate since 1984. The mother of all Westminster Parliaments, the British House of Commons, has had this type of legislation since 1974, so it really has taken rather a long time for New Zealand to get to the point where we should be—which is, as the bill says, finding the right balance between greater transparency and avoiding undue intrusion into MPs’ privacy.

That is where the Green Party hopes to promote a couple of changes at the select committee stage. We think it is unnecessary for members to have to declare very small shareholdings. We will be seeking a consistent threshold for shareholding so that it lines up with gifts and debts. At the moment, absolutely every share owned has to be declared, whereas gifts and debts have a threshold of $500. It makes sense to us that the three are lined up—otherwise, as Mr Prebble said, the schedule will run to some pages when some members of Parliament have to declare all of their small shareholdings. The other clause I have picked up on that might warrant amending is clause 10, “Debts owed by family members do not have to be disclosed”. I think there is an equal argument that debts owed to family members, or loans from family members, could be excluded from the bill in the context of ensuring that we do have that balance between transparency and avoiding undue intrusion.

But I have to say to Mr Prebble that this bill does not require him, as he implied, to have to declare any overseas trips he takes at his own personal expense. That is not what this bill is seeking to achieve. What this legislation is looking for is members having to declare any overseas travel they have made at someone else’s expense. I would certainly declare that that has been the case for me. The American Government invited me to go to Indonesia a couple of years ago to advise on the electoral system, the Electoral Reform Society has invited me to go to England to assist it in its campaign for proportional representation, and the Green Party of British Columbia has invited me to go there to do exactly the same thing in that territory.

I have no problems in making those sorts of declarations, and I do not think any members in this House should—in the same way that I hope that no members would have any problems making declarations, for example, under clause 8(1)(e), where a member would have to declare an interest in an organisation or trust that receives Government funding. I like to call that the “ACT clause”, because we were keen to put that in because of Donna Awatere Huata. I think is absolutely important that people have to make that declaration upfront, because if nothing else, it might help parties like ACT, when they go about the selection process, to know who not to put high on their party list.

I particularly look forward to Rodney Hide voting for this bill. As Parliament’s self-appointed perk-buster, he should support any move towards greater transparency and accountability. I look forward to finding out who pays for his overseas trips, and for those of his colleagues, in the same way—

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings say that members may not make the sorts of disparaging remarks that the member—

It wasn’t disparaging.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: No, the member has picked out another MP and is making statements that imply there is something peculiarly interesting about that member, while he illustrates what is wrong with this bill. That is out of order.

Under Speaker’s ruling 35/5, a statement can be ruled out only if it is objectionable on the face of it, and it is actually up to the member against whom any allegations are being made to ask for a retraction or apology under Standing Order 117. The honourable member Rodney Hide is not here, and I can rule only if a statement is objectionable on the face of it, but I have not heard it to that extent at this stage.

💬 John Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw to your attention that as recently as last week we had a discussion around these sorts of issues in the Committee of the whole House. Indeed, the Speaker was brought back, and he made a very clear ruling. It was a general ruling that no member of Parliament was entitled to make disparaging remarks about any other member. It is a recent ruling, but we had a debate about it, because we were worried that it would take some of the humour and other matters out of debating. But the Speaker was very clear and decisive in his ruling. I think you might find that the comment that has been made would fit well within that ruling.

I thank the honourable member. Debate in the Chamber is always robust and always has been. In the immortal words of Tana Umaga: “This isn’t tiddlywinks, ref.” However, members should be careful to be temperate in their language and not bring the House into disrepute, impugn members, or behave in a way that will incite disorder.

💬 ROD DONALD: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, but I am also prepared to withdraw and apologise, because no offence was intended.

I do not agree with Mr Brown’s comment that this is the politics of envy. I think it is just important that members know, as the public should know, who pays for any member’s overseas travel, or any other gift of a substantial value that a member receives. When this House is debating issues like the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill, gambling legislation, or the drinking age and where alcohol should be sold, it is absolutely, vitally important that members are clean and not in receipt of any money from tobacco companies, casinos, or booze barons. I think the public have a right to know that, and we have an obligation to tell the public that sort of information. I am looking forward to the passage of this bill, and I will be looking forward to declaring any gifts I get that will come under the ambit of the bill.

I did forget one other trip before: the French Government paid for me to go on a trip to France, as well. It said it gave one to Rodney Hide 3 years before, so it thought it should give a trip to another Rodney in the last term of Parliament. I think that is just about my list for the moment, except for my shareholdings and other assets, which Mr Prebble will have to wait for. It is vital for the credibility of Parliament and the integrity of members that we all disclose any interest that could possibly influence our work as members of Parliament.

United Future will be voting in support of the first reading of the Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill in order that it can be referred to the Standing Orders Committee for much more detailed consideration. I say at the beginning that I am very glad it is going to that committee, and I will be trying to ensure at that committee that the terms of the bill are looked at very, very rigorously indeed.

The knowledge that I had of the bill prior to it being introduced to the House was simply that it was going to happen. We had a very broad outline, and we were asked as a caucus whether we had any initial comment. I immediately commented that, in my view, it would be completely wrong for a member of Parliament to have to disclose publicly that he or she had loaned money to family members, which was originally a provision. I am delighted to see that it has been dropped, because it would be quite ridiculous, and it would also lead to a great deal of disharmony within families. There are many, many parents who may choose, for example—and this would include some MPs—to lend some money to one of their kids, and may not want the other kids to know about it. There are all sorts of confidentiality—

💬 Hon Mark Gosche: Ha, ha!

When one has five children, as I do, I say to Mark Gosche, if they find out I have lent some money to one child, the other children will all be in with their hands out, too. Quite obviously, it is ridiculous to involve those kinds of family relationships.

The Hon Richard Prebble also made a very valid point in his speech. How can a decision by myself, Gordon Copeland—for example, to lend some money to a missionary colleague at St Gerard’s Monastery—have anything to do with the possibility of corruption? That is ridiculous. I can understand that if I have borrowed money from the chief executive officer of the Prostitutes Collective and I vote in favour of the Prostitution Reform Bill, the public have a right to know about that. But when I am the one lending the money, how on earth can it be construed that I am in some way compromising my position with regard to legislation coming before the House?

I want to make this broad comment, too. We talk about our great standing in the world in terms of being honest and relatively free of corruption—our country is No. 3 in the entire globe, which we can all be very proud of. If that is the goal we are trying to achieve, I think there are some other things we need to look at. For example, what about the pecuniary interests of the chief executive officers of State-owned enterprises and Crown departments—organs of State—and of other officials, such as the Governor of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand? Is it not possible that they, being mere mortals, as we are, could also be open to corruption in some circumstances? Should we not, therefore, be looking more widely and saying that maybe they should be declaring their interests?

I go one step further than that. If we really want to get rid of corruption in this country, how can we stand by and watch 800 teenagers falsely apply for drivers’ licences—making the claim that they have lost their licences? Members of the Government say that those people cannot be prosecuted, because of the stupid law we have about young people and criminal proceedings. Those young people have deliberately lied and falsified documents, which is fraud, misuse of a document, and so on. There are some far bigger issues in terms of corruption that we as a nation should be focusing on. I agree with Trevor Mallard, who at a conference in Wellington last year, in his capacity as Minister of Education, asked when we New Zealanders were going to start to say “No” to some of our young people, and when we were going to insist on applying the rule of law to everybody. That is the way to stop creeping corruption in this country.

I need not labour the point in this House that, surely, the Prime Minister of this country should come out immediately with a clear statement that, from now on, no taxpayers’ funding will be spent, in any shape or form, that allows civil servants and others to lobby members of Parliament on specific legislation. That would be much, much more important in terms of our overall reputation. In the 1990s I spent 3 weeks in the Philippines, which is one of the most corrupt countries in the world. When corruption gets a hold on a nation, I do not know how it ever gets back out of it. So it is tremendously important that we maintain high standards in every aspect of our national life. We should not single out MPs.

The other point I would like to make is that I read the Bills Digest on this bill, and found there is a section called “Differences between the Bill’s scheme and the Ministers’ scheme”. It states that the proposals in respect of members of Parliament are far more onerous than those that apply currently to Ministers of the Crown. Can anybody explain to me how that can possibly make any sense? Ministers of the Crown obviously are in a unique position in determining legislation and other matters in this country. Many MPs, particularly those in parties that are not in Government at the time, basically have no influence when it comes to major pieces of legislation. They certainly do not have enough influence to get the Government to change its mind. Why on earth should they be held to a higher standard of accountability and public disclosure than Ministers of the Crown?

💬 Peter Brown: So why are you voting for it, then?

We are voting for it so that it can go to the Standing Orders Committee, I say to Peter Brown, in order that we can look at some of the anomalies. I hope we will be able to take the knife to some of the provisions of this bill and come up with something that is far less draconian, more sensible, and more tightly focused on what we are trying to achieve. What we are trying to achieve, it seems to me, is transparency in terms of whether we may or may not be seen to have a conflict of interest in relation to matters coming before the House. That is the goal. United Future agrees with that goal, but we have to come up with a good, common-sense, balanced bill that, while addressing that goal, goes no further than is necessary, and certainly does not go as far as some parts of this bill go.

Finally, I would like to make the point that the bill makes some very curious statements about all MPs filling out these forms. Every single year we will have to do it again, and I can understand that.

💬 Peter Brown: What happens if they don’t?

I say to Peter Brown that the bill then states that a summary of this information is to be published. I have no idea what a “summary” of this information actually means. Will it identify individual MPs and what they declared? In which case, it does not seem to fit the definition of a summary. On the other hand, if it is a summary that just states, for example, that 40 MPs have mortgages from the Bank of New Zealand, maybe I could live with that. I think that what we really mean by these so-called summaries is a very important issue. I do not think we should leave it in the hands of an unelected civil servant to determine what goes in the summary. I think the Standing Orders Committee needs to decide very clearly what does and does not go in the summary and how the information is to be summarised, and to keep in mind all the way through the goal that we are trying to achieve with this legislation.

With those remarks, as I say, United Future will support the first reading.

I rise to support the Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill. As has been highlighted by Dr Cullen, the bill’s objectives are to highlight and avoid possible conflicts of interest in terms of the public duties and private affairs of members of Parliament. Having been in the House for 4 years and seen it operate, I think it is evident to all members of Parliament that we, as legislators, are privy to all sorts of information. Even those of us who are back-benchers attend select committees, see departmental reports, see draft legislation—which can be of exceptional commercial value—engage in inquiries, and receive a whole raft of information that to certain parties outside this place could be of extreme value. Therefore, I think this bill sets out not only to avoid possible conflicts of interest but also to protect us as members of Parliament from the perception that—as some from outside may say—we are on the take. I am not saying that anybody is on the take in this place, but those sorts of accusations are levelled by people outside. The bill provides protection, and I think it will provide a boost to the openness, confidence, and trust that the constituency has in us as members of Parliament.

I say to those members who oppose the bill that if they do not like it they should get out. If they do not want to be open, if they have something to hide, if they do not want to be transparent—but they want to preach transparency to every other member in the House—if they want, on the one hand, as some do, to muckrake and dredge up scandals in an attempt, so they say, to get accountability out of Government departments, members, and Ministers, yet, on the other hand, are not prepared to front, then I say there is an inconsistency.

It is very interesting that Mr Prebble from the ACT party was, I think, the first cab off the rank to say “No way!”. He said in the New Zealand Herald: “It is a nosy parker’s bill, it’s the politics of envy”. He is quoted in the Dominion Post as saying it is “constitutionally unsound. I think the bill is motivated by the politics of envy.” Well, I say this bill is motivated by the politics of good sense, for we know that we are well behind the eight ball in terms of embarking on legislation with protective mechanisms like this. For instance, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Ireland have had this type of legislation for some time. I found it most interesting that Mr Prebble was the first cab off the rank to bag this bill, to bag transparency, and to bag accountability.

When we look at the constitution and rules of the ACT party, the objectives and the powers, we see that the principal objective of the party is to promote an open, progressive, and benevolent society. If those are the principles Mr Prebble believes in, where is the consistency in his opposing this bill? Where is the consistency in his opposing openness? Mr Prebble says this bill is about the politics of envy, and that people want to know how much he is worth. Well, this bill is not about knowing how much an MP’s assets are worth, the value of the assets; it is about knowing that an MP has them. It is also about—and I think this is more important than knowing what an MP has—knowing what an MP owes. Perception is the truth around this place. It could be levelled at members at any time, quite falsely, that because they owe money to third parties outside this Parliament, and because they, say, sit on select committees considering issues in which those third parties have a loose interest, somehow those third parties have leverage over those members.

I believe that members in this Parliament are honourable members. I think one of the flipsides of the bill is that it provides us with a bit of protection because we are exposed, warts and all, and it provides no protection to any third party, to anyone in the media, or to anyone who wants to get at members of Parliament by accusing them of being stood over because they owe money to a third party. I think that is something that should be focused on.

I find it ironic that Mr Prebble, from the ACT party, talked about why there would be a need to identify MPs’ overseas travel. Let us look at the history. Why would there be a need? If we had had this bill over a year ago, I would have received answers to the questions I put to Mr Prebble’s colleague Mr Hide, who admitted—and this is not an aspersion on Mr Hide, because he admitted it; and it was not covered in a personal explanation, [Interruption] and I am not questioning his word—that he had gone to Fiji and had participated in, and spoken at, an Investors International shonky investment conference, which was run and owned by a convicted US felon, Rudolph Van Lin. Mr Hide admitted that he went and spoke there. He also admitted that his accommodation, his massive food bill, his massive grog bill, and his first-class airfare were all paid for him. As a result of that conference—and I choose my words carefully—

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Hide is not here, so he cannot raise an objection. The member speaking claimed that another MP had admitted to having a massive grog bill, but that statement is a lie. He knows that it is untrue, and it is bringing the House into disrepute. What he is really doing is showing that the real purpose of the bill is about the politics of envy. He wants to use it to denigrate other MPs who he knows are not here.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the honourable member for his advice, and I ask the member on his feet to be temperate in his language.

Mr Assistant Speaker, I think you chose your words very well, if I may say. I go back to my point about what would have happened if we had had this legislation a year ago. Mr Hide has been repeatedly asked in this House who paid his expenses—first-class accommodation, food and beverage of whatever kind, and first-class airfares—to attend a conference that resulted in hundreds of New Zealanders losing millions of dollars. I have asked him in this House repeatedly. There is currently an inquiry before my committee, the Finance and Expenditure Committee, into shonky investment schemes, and I have received repeated inquiries from constituents and others right around the country who have lost money. It is a huge and serious issue to hunt down those people and nail them. I have asked Mr Hide repeatedly in this House who paid, who paid the conference fee, and on no occasion has Mr Hide fronted. On no occasion has he answered that accusation. An answer might have gone some way to assisting those hundreds of Kiwis who were done over. Millions of dollars were fraudulently taken from them. An answer might have assisted. And all of this has been from the great scam-buster!

That is an example, I say through you, Mr Assistant Speaker, to Mr Prebble, of why we should disclose who pays for those overseas trips. That is why. Even if there is nothing floating in the ether, no accusations, no smoke, no fire, for members of Parliament who choose legitimately, sometimes naively, to go to places, who have their trips paid for by third parties, and who have accusations put to them, I think this bill is a protection. I also refer to a case where a member of Parliament’s salary was topped up by a third party, or subsidised—not for a corrupt purpose, because that would be outside the Standing Orders. For instance, Mr Hide has been asked whether he has received any pecuniary gain—sorry, whether he is here also because his salary is being topped up—and he has never answered that.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is innuendo. I could be asking this member whether he is paid by the trade union movement to throw mud at Rodney Hide. I could ask him whether it is correct that he is getting bribes. Now he is making accusations and saying that, of course, he is doing it because it is a question. He should be brought back to the bill, rather than making a personal attack on someone who he knows is ill and is not in the House to protect himself.

Speaking to the point of order, I point out that I specifically said that I was not accusing anyone, in referring to a member’s salary being topped up or subsidised. I specifically said in my speech that I was not saying that the top-up was for corrupt practice. There is nothing in the Standing Orders—or legally, as I understand it—that prevents a member from coming in here, taking the salary, and having a third party add $10,000 or $20,000 a year to it because some people consider the salary is too low. That is not corruption.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank honourable members for their contributions. I will just say that a member cannot suggest corruption or illegality. That would be a personal reflection and out of order under Standing Order 117. It would also be in conflict with a personal statement that the member concerned made in 2000. It is in order for members to speculate on what interests members may have to disclose under the bill, as long as they do not do so in a way that is a personal reflection on any particular member. It would be out of order to suggest that a member takes payment to act in a certain way in the House. Members must be careful not to do so, and be temperate in their language.

💬 Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a point of clarification. I thank you for that ruling, but would it be in order for the good member speaking to tell us, for example, whether the Labour Party got a million dollars from Fay Richwhite in 1987, and whether it was spent on its candidates, as David Lange suggested? Is that the sort of thing that can be said?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is hypothetical and is not in order.

Mr Assistant Speaker, I endorse your ruling. Let us look at an example. We know that Mr Hide worked for an outside organisation, Gilt-Edged Securities, which was set up to establish the ACT party. He got paid for 3 years—we know that from Mr Gibbs and Mr Farmer. Then he came into Parliament. The question might be whether—not for corrupt purposes, not to do anything like that—Mr Hide considered a salary of about $100,000 a year too light for him, and whether Gilt-Edged Securities said it would top it up by 50 or 60 grand. When did he stop being paid by Gilt-Edged Securities and Mr Gibbs and Mr Farmer—not for any corrupt purpose, of course; I would never accuse Mr Hide of that.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I refer you to a string of Speakers’ rulings—for example, page 31 of Speakers’ Rulings. This type of personal reflection and sleazy statement is what brings Parliament into disrepute, and for the member to do so when he knows that the MP concerned is ill and is not here does not reflect well on that member, at all. He should be asked to desist.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member, and I ask the member on his feet to desist. This debate is not a debate on Rodney Hide. The member will come back to the bill.

I say this to finish. A certain party that opposes this bill—Mr Prebble’s party being the one—preaches openness, transparency, and public accountability with money. It is the first cab off the rank in opposing this bill. One has to ask, as we go through this debate, what indeed those members have to hide. If they are so straight, why on earth would they oppose a bill like this? Maybe it is because of the litany of incidents that have occurred—Fiji, Pipitea Street, Albania, and a few others. That provides the evidence for people in this House and those around the country.

National will be supporting the referral of the pecuniary interests bill to the select committee. May I say that, prior to my coming into Parliament, I was on the record publicly as supporting this legislation. But I think Richard Prebble has made some very good points. He said that if this bill ends up frightening good people off from entering Parliament, it will do a disservice to this House and to the people of New Zealand. I can say, from bitter personal experience, that when I ran for Parliament Television One showed my house on the evening news, at 6.30, and the New Zealand Herald ran an article on my personal family trust, listing every asset I had in it, on the front page of the paper. So anyone who does not think this is going to turn into a media circus is in la-la land, quite frankly.

💬 Peter Brown: So why is the member supporting the bill?

I am supporting it for the following reasons. I think it is a balancing act in terms of what happens in the commercial sector. I understand the issue that those in the commercial sector may make their declarations internally—with the exception of ownership of stocks in the company they are involved in, or are a director of, and of loans they may have to or from the company. Nevertheless, from the commercial point of view, it is now required that any office holder of a good company make a personal declaration. People are aware of it, and I will touch on the reasons in a few moments. Secondly, it is a balancing act between the reputation and the image of this Parliament and some uncomfortable situations that individuals may find themselves in. New Zealanders, by and large, have a great reputation and are ranked highly by international agencies for transparency and disclosure, and I think this measure can add to that. Finally, the bill is totally consistent with the practice of other jurisdictions, and there is no debate about that.

But let me say that when this document is declared, and when the media, no doubt, do what we assume they will do—parade the thing up and down and turn it into a wealth test—they themselves will have to take responsibility for doing a disservice to this House and to the people of New Zealand. But I, for one, will not be hiding my assets. If I were to hide my personal assets, and if any other member of this House were to hide his or her personal assets, then all that we would be doing is buying into the culture of envy. It is about time a few people stood up and said: “Do you know what? This country does not have too many rich people; it has too many poor people.” If a few people with a decent brain, some commercial experience, and a bit of nous are prepared to come into this House and earn a hang of a lot less than they can earn in the commercial sector, then that is a good thing. If a few people run through my balance sheet and take delight in it, I say “Good on them!”. I am not going to back away from it. I am proud of it, and I am going to stand up and defend it.

But there are some tremendous risks arising from this. I want to make a couple of comments. Mr Brown in his speech asked why it was of any interest what he is owed, or what he owes, or what he owns. Mr Brown may not be aware of a man called Allan Hawkins, and he may not know the facts of that case, but Allan Hawkins set up a loan—a loan of sorts—between himself and Elders IXL, then undertook a whole series of international foreign exchange transactions to divert that money to himself. I say it is relevant who owes me money and whom I owe money.

💬 Peter Brown: Why is it relevant? Why do I need to know whom you owe money to?

It is completely relevant, because whether or not parliamentarians want to accept it, in taking on this position we have a huge amount of influence in the change of public policy in this country. It might be a bit uncomfortable, but if I am a shareholder of Tranz Rail and I want to get up in this House and start talking about that company, then my shareholding is relevant.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: You have to declare that, anyway.

Yes, under Standing Order 165 I have to declare it; I accept that, but within that Standing Order is a whole lot of things for which that would not be the case. I simply say there are risks, and they are genuine risks. For example, if I lend $7,000 to Mary Lou Smith, who does not have a public profile, and if there is no reason for it to be anything other than a generous gesture on my part to help out a person who needs money for a particular reason, then why would it be dragged through the press, ultimately? Why would it be brought up?

💬 Peter Brown: Because you are going to vote for the bill.

Why would it be brought up, though? The sheer fact that the name is declared is nothing new. What is interesting is if I owe money to someone, or I am owed money by someone, and I then go on a public crusade to try either to help or hinder that person. There are reasons why that is of genuine interest.

I think there are matters that the select committee needs to take a serious look at. What is terribly relevant about the fact that I own a house somewhere? What is the point in listing the fact that I own a property in a particular location? I think there are certain things that are relevant—for example, whether I have a mortgage with a financial institution, or whether I do not—but why is that terribly relevant? So I think there are things that need to be looked at.

The second point we should note is that there are risks for members of Parliament. Someone in this House will make a technical breach. We had an incident a few months ago when a member made a technical breach—Harry Duynhoven. This House went into urgency and we had to pass some retrospective legislation to bail him out. As sure as God made little green apples, someone in this House will make a technically incorrect filing, and will put his or her job, constituency, and beliefs on the line. So there are a lot of risks, I think. There are risks for individuals, and we as members of Parliament run the risk that some very good people will see this as just another reason not to make a contribution to their country. If that is a result of this bill, then it will be a pretty sad day.

But, on balance, transparency is an important part of the society we live in. We, as members of Parliament, have a great deal of responsibility, and even if it is uncomfortable to do some things, we nevertheless sometimes have to do them.

I would like to record my support for this bill. I think transparency is important. I think the bill will build the trust of the public in this institution and in the members of this Parliament. I urge the House to pass it without delay.