Standing Orders

I seek leave for the amendments to the Standing Orders set out in Appendix B to the report of the Standing Orders Committee entitled Review of Standing Orders to be deemed to be amended by Supplementary Order Paper 387, dealing with split party votes, and by the typescript amendments in my name amending Standing Order 79 and Standing Order 240A, for the purpose of the consideration of Government motion No. 2. The typeset amendments relate to a technical amendment, adding the term “expiration” after the term “dissolution” in the relevant Standing Orders.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The Minister is seeking leave. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.

I move, That the amendments to the Standing Orders set out in Appendix B to the report of the Standing Orders Committee entitled Review of Standing Orders, as amended by Supplementary Order Paper No 387 (dealing with split party votes) and the typescript amendment in the name of Hon Dr Michael Cullen (amending Standing Order 79 and Standing Order 240A), be adopted and take effect on the day following the dissolution or expiration of this Parliament. These are nearly all, I think, very minor changes. They primarily relate in the first instance to changes that arise from the Public Finance Act in a purely technical sense, in terms of the language used—the definitions used—to line up the Standing Orders with the new definitions used in the Public Finance Act; otherwise, the Standing Orders are no longer appropriate in that respect.

Secondly, in terms of proceedings relating to the opening of Parliament, the changes deal with an amendment to the Constitution Act that has been passed, which provides that instead of having a motion—which we would normally, in the past, have dealt with tonight—to carry forward business, the new Parliament deals with a motion for the reinstatement of business. That is constitutionally more appropriate, because it is really a matter for the new Parliament to determine what business it wishes to pick up, rather than for the old Parliament to tell the new Parliament what business it might wish to pick up.

And we have a Standing Order amendment relating to what happens at the end of a sitting of the House, particularly in terms of the House being in Committee. If we are interrupted 5 minutes from the end time, it provides quite clearly that the House is adjourned at that point and does not move on to any other business. Again, the reinstatement of business is dealt with in those Standing Orders.

The new matter dealt with—and I thank the House for the leave granted—is a matter raised by Mr Peter Brown, and quite properly I think. The habit has developed of leave being granted for split votes to be taken. Mr Brown raised the issue of, whereas where there is a party vote it is normally clear that everybody has voted in favour or against—people can be assumed to be voting in favour or against, according to the party vote—in a split party vote where, say, Labour votes 44 for and seven against, it is not clear who the “fors” are and who the “againsts” are, and the public should have the right to know which way members have actually voted in that respect. That, therefore, raises the further issue that at the moment split party votes are taken by leave. It seemed appropriate, with that change, for split party votes simply to be a norm within Parliament.

I think that actually covers the changes that are dealt with in this first motion, as opposed to the second motion that I will be moving, in relation to members’ pecuniary interests.

I endorse the comments made by the Leader of the House. These matters were ironed out in the Standing Orders Committee. Far more time was spent on the next Government notice of motion than on the first one, but we will come to that shortly. It is easy, when looking at reviews of the Standing Orders and reports to the House such as this one, to simply fob them off as being technical amendments, and to say that some tidying-up is needed in order for the Standing Orders to operate more smoothly. But one or two things are worth saying about these changes, particularly those in part 2 of the report of the Standing Orders Committee. The Leader of the House has covered the changes that follow from the enactment of the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill. That is not my area of expertise, and I do not intend to spend a lot of time talking about that. However, the second part of the report does raise one or two interesting points.

Firstly, I would endorse the Leader of the House’s view that a reinstatement of business motion is appropriate, because the business for a new Parliament should be a matter for that new Parliament to determine. The motion should not be left to the Parliament that sat prior to an adjournment or, I suspect, a prorogue before a general election. So the amendment to the Standing Orders regarding the reinstatement of business is appropriate. Secondly, although somewhat sadly, we will see—or we have probably had—the last vote on a part by part motion heading into the Committee stage of the debate on a bill. Although I understand the common sense in doing that—and it is not a partisan issue, because one would hope that whichever party was in Government would think that that was a particularly good provision to change in the Standing Orders—it does deprive the Opposition of a small tool under an MMP environment. It is a small tool to use on the odd occasion on a procedural issue—rare though it may be, and I confess I have not come across it in my 5½ years in this Parliament—when the Government is unable to muster the numbers to deal with a bill in the Committee in the way it wishes, even though its voting partner may agree with the substantive matter. But the change makes sense, so the National Party will be supporting it.

The other issue the Leader of the House has raised, which the House has given leave to include tonight, is Supplementary Order Paper 387 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. It relates to Peter Brown’s move to see split party votes recorded and the names lodged in Hansard, to depict the way a split party vote occurred and how particular members voted. Although initially reluctant to move in this direction, we had an interesting conversation in our caucus whereby we formed the view that this particular issue was more about the public’s expectation of knowing how particular members of Parliament voted, rather than a mechanism that may or may not suit a larger party on issues where that party has some members voting against the majority—or, indeed, on the odd occasion the numbers may well be even. So I say to Mr Brown that that is a fair rule to change.

💬 Darren Hughes: The Brown amendment.

That is right; it is the Brown amendment. It will ensure that the public knows which way members vote on a split vote, and their names will be recorded in Hansard. That change strikes those of us who are in the National Party as being fair, to say the least.

We will not add any more to the debate on this particular motion, but we intend to support the Government in its passage.

I do not think I will take my full 10 minutes, because basically I want to talk on only two matters. New Zealand First will be supporting this motion, but the two matters I want to speak about—and I urge the Government members who are listening and paying attention to this and, indeed, my National Party colleagues who may or may not be in Government next time, depending on who we choose—

💬 Simon Power: And that’s the reason you won’t.

We are ending on a lighter note. Honourable members might like to look at page 15 of the report, where it refers to the part by part consideration of bills. There is a small, little sentence. We would have liked its wording to be stronger and more definitive, but it is there. It states: “The committee hopes that the new provision will result in more Government participation in debates.” Speaking seriously on this issue for a moment, I have to say that it really gets up New Zealand First’s nose—and that is putting it bluntly—when we pass legislation in this House and few, if any, Government members speak and, on many occasions, no members of small parties that support the Government speak, at all. This was highlighted to me when we passed the Electoral Amendment Act, I think it was, some 3 or 4 years ago. Then, no contribution was forthcoming from the Greens, who supported the bill, and there were very few contributions from Government members. Yet that night on TV, after the bill had passed through the Committee stage, we saw the young man from the Greens, whose name escapes me—the cannabis guy. What is his name?

💬 Hon Member: Ian Ewen-Street.

Is he the cannabis guy? No, it is Nandor—

💬 Rod Donald: Short-term memory loss—too much rum in your youth.

Oh, they are all cannabis users. Rod Donald has just told us that. Nandor Tanczos was on TV explaining why a clause in the bill should go through, yet in a sitting not long afterwards, the Hon Dr Cullen was embarrassed because Gavin Ellis, the editor of the New Zealand Herald, told the Prime Minister, I believe, or told the Labour Government, that if they pushed the bill through with that clause in it, his newspaper would not report the Government again—or some such language. So Dr Cullen was in the embarrassing position—he looks as though he does not remember it, but I know that he remembers it well—of reversing and bringing that bill back to the Committee stage so members could take that clause out. The Committee took the clause out pretty promptly, and then the bill proceeded. All that legislation went through with not one contribution coming from the supporting party in particular, and with very few contributions coming from the Labour Government. That told members of New Zealand First that the standard of debate in this House is not adequate.

Yesterday when I listened to the Hon Roger Sowry saying that the standard of debate under the first past the post system—which was before my time in this House—was much higher, I tended to believe him. I say to list MPs in particular that if they want to be told that the first past the post system produced a better standard of debate and a more comprehensive debate, then they should take note of this one little sentence: “The committee hopes that the new provision will result in more Government participation in debates.” That is what it says. That is an admission by the Government, and by Dr Cullen, who approved that little sentence, that Government members do not participate as fully in debates as the public would like. The public who are listening out there are entitled to know the Government’s view and the Opposition’s view. I tell Government members to take heed. We in New Zealand First have supported this part by part consideration of bills on the basis that we got that sentence in the report, because debates in this House leave a lot to be desired on many occasions.

I want to refer now to the Supplementary Order Paper that Dr Cullen has produced. He has very kindly given me credit for initiating the idea, and, indeed, Simon Power, the senior National whip, has concurred with that view. Well, it is not particularly my view; it is the view of New Zealand First. We are here because we believe we are serving democracy, and it is only right and proper that when we vote in this House the public knows who voted which way.

We have heard of occasions where MPs—not from my party, I might add—have gone out and said; “Well, we didn’t all support that.”, and curried favour with whoever they were talking to, and if it was in the individual’s interest to say he or she supported it, then he or she did, and if it was not in the individual’s interests, then he or she did not. I have to say that ACT has been as consistent as New Zealand First on this. When we have split our vote we have always declared quite openly who voted for and who voted against. We think it is only right and proper, again, in the interests of democracy, that when a party takes advantage of the split party vote it records who votes for, who votes against, and, if necessary, who abstains. We are accepting on that basis that it should not be by leave. It should be an automatic right for each party to say: “We want to split our vote.”, and go this way or that way, or part of the team this way and part of the team that way, and now that their names are going to be recorded in Hansard, we are more than happy.

I do not want to say any more on this. New Zealand First supports this motion. We have concerns about the motion coming up shortly, but we support this one.

I will miss Peter Brown, who always stands up and says: “I’m just going to take a short call on this.”—and 10 minutes later he is still going. I will just take just a short call on this motion to say that we support the amendments to the Standing Orders regarding the reinstatement of business, and also Supplementary Order Paper 387 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. I do appreciate the constitutional importance of one Parliament not being able to bind the next Parliament. Of course, one could argue that having the old Parliament prescribe what the business would be of the next Parliament does not actually bind it, but a lot of time is wasted, surely, in having to pick up something and run with it, when one knows that that is just in order to keep to the Standing Orders. So we do endorse that measure. I do also support Simon Power’s comments, though, about how easy it is to dismiss this sort of thing as being just housekeeping, when it is not.

The Supplementary Order Paper is the matter that I find most interesting, for two reasons. The first reason is that the issue of split voting came up with regard to the smoke-free legislation especially, when a number of parties had split votes. We were written to by a number of constituents who wanted to know who had voted against it and who had voted for it—for both sides of the argument. Of course, we found out from the Parliamentary Library that one could not actually give details of the names in split party votes. This provision will cause problems for members, because once one can give out that one voted against a bill, say the smoke-free legislation, one will have constituents writing to and emailing members, and demanding a reply. Second, Peter Brown said that some parties allow their members to split their votes. It is interesting, if one looks at the case that ACT took all the way to the Supreme Court to have Donna Awatere Huata evicted, to see that that finally almost rested on the fact that we had allowed split voting. Her argument that she still voted with the ACT party did not carry any weight in the court case in the end, because, of course, we have always allowed a split vote.

So we will be supporting this motion, but we will have more to say on the motion that is coming up next.

Well, I think that Deborah Coddington spoke for marginally longer than Peter Brown. I simply say that United Future supports this motion, including the split voting procedure set out in Supplementary Order Paper 387 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen.

Motion agreed to.

I move, That the amendments to the Standing Orders relating to pecuniary interests of members of Parliament and the transitional provision for the initial returns for the register, as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 381, be adopted and agreed to and take effect on the day following the dissolution or expiration of this Parliament.

This issue arose some little time ago. The Government made it clear that it was its desire to institute a register of pecuniary interests of members of Parliament. Ministers, of course, already have a register of pecuniary interests, and that has now dated back a very long time, indeed. I think the public has a right to know the nature of the pecuniary interests that members of Parliament have, and how that might relate to ways in which they cast their votes within the House. It is a matter of transparency in terms of the way we act within the Parliament.

There was an initial indication from a number of parties that there would not be support to address this by way of the Standing Orders, and therefore the Government determined to introduce a bill, which was introduced—the Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill—and was referred to a select committee. I then received approaches from some parties indicating that while they did not support the changes themselves, if they were to occur they would much prefer they were done by Standing Orders than by way of legislation.

The reason for that was very clear. If this is part of the Standing Orders, then the Parliament remains in charge of its own destiny in that respect; whereas if it is by way of legislation, then there is at least a potential risk of some form of judicial intervention in these matters. I think that would raise some rather interesting and difficult constitutional questions, which, in taking off my Leader of the House hat and putting my Attorney-General hat on, I would much rather we did not get into at some future point. It is far preferable, in my view, for this to be done by way of the review of Standing Orders.

I actually want to thank those parties such as ACT and New Zealand First, which opposed the changes, for accepting that that was still a sensible method of moving forward on the issue, given that the Government did have a majority to pass legislation.

I wish to thank the National Party for its support on this matter. I think we had some very useful discussions within the Standing Orders Committee about the particular nature of the interests to be included.

I do not think members of Parliament should be in the least alarmed about all of this. Indeed, one of the interesting issues that is going to arise, I think, for the incoming Government, whoever it may be—and I will dwell on that matter a little bit later on this evening—is whether a separate register of Ministers’ interests, in fact, will be required given that this particular register is at least as comprehensive as the register of Ministers’ interests. In the case of that register, for example, initially I put in the fact that I had shares within a collective investment fund—a BNZ managed fund—and was told I did not need to make that particular return. I must say I regard that as pretty strange, given that it is not an insignificant sum of money now that is contained within that fund. I think it is quite appropriate that if I am engaged in issues—as I am as Minister of Finance—that might have some tangential relationship to such funds, these people can clearly state, absolutely openly, that I do have an interest in that respect, which is one that, under our Standing Orders, does not preclude me from voting, because it is one share with a very large number of other people.

I would much rather that than suddenly have someone in the National Business Review discovering I had such shares and turning that into some kind of peculiar banner headline of no significance, which I must say is sort of standard business reporting in this country, by and large. I keep trying to persuade the publishers of the Australian Financial Review that they should set up a new weekly business newspaper within New Zealand that has roughly the same kind of standard that the Australian Financial Review has in terms of business reporting.

So members will be required to make a declaration of pecuniary interest that will cover a range of defined matters. The register will be published. The Auditor-General will review the returns and may inquire into matters if he or she thinks fit that that should be done. It will be published, and I think it is simply a quite straightforward measure, which has been done in a number of other Parliaments. And in a Parliament such as ours, which is very open and very transparent, this is simply another stage in that openness and transparency.

The National Party will be supporting this motion through Parliament this evening. This has not been a matter free of controversy, nor has it been a matter that has progressed smoothly and without hitches. As the Leader of the House pointed out, initially lack of support across Parliament meant that this matter was introduced by way of statute. It then became clear, as any Political Science 111 student would know, that a separation of powers argument was definitely going to enter into the fray, with the judiciary moving into areas concerning Parliament, which was not appropriate. All parties on the Standing Orders Committee, whether or not they agreed with the content of the bill, concluded that the delivery of this outcome was far and away more satisfactorily done by way of Standing Orders rather than statute.

There have been long discussions over the wording of these particular provisions and what they have meant—particularly, I have to say, around the timing of the lodging of an MP’s return, depending on whether an election was held, and on which side of July. I will acknowledge Rod Donald, because it is fair to say that that member put his back into this particular provision, and over a long period of time worked to convince the Standing Orders Committee of the merits of it or a variation thereof. Whilst Mr Donald did not always manage to achieve the result he wanted, I think it is probably fair to say that the intent behind the drafting of that particular provision was largely due to his efforts around that committee table.

Other amendments have been included, particularly around the definition of family members, in terms of debts owed to a member by those family members—how wide that definition should be. We had some interesting discussions about the width of the definition of family that would not have been out of place in some other select committees, but the Standing Orders Committee, which is not known for its emotional outbursts, worked its way through those definitions pretty carefully.

Late in the piece an issue arose around debts incurred in the course of business, and whether those debts should be included if they would be settled within a standard business time period of approximately 90 days or thereabouts. Amounts around quantum of debt in the original legislation were amended by the Standing Orders Committee. Interestingly, long discussions were held, particularly with the current Speaker’s predecessor, the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt, about members’ roles in organisations that apply for funding through Government agencies. This was quite a complex matter because a number of MPs are patrons of organisations in their electorates or in the areas they represent, and it took some time for members on the Standing Orders Committee to come across a formula that would work to prevent members who are simply patrons from having to declare interests, as opposed to members who were part of the management or the governing body of those committees, clubs, or institutions.

So quite a lot of thought went into these matters. I think the key, though, is that, to be consistent with other jurisdictions, an amount of transparency around members’ interests was always inevitable, in some shape or another. I think that using the mechanism of the Standing Orders is an appropriate way to do that.

I listened intently to my colleague who has just resumed his seat, because he usually gives us some substance in his speeches or outlines a reason why a bill or an amendment is required. But this time he did not do a thing. He just said he gave the credit to Rod Donald for the merits of this amendment to the Standing Orders. He did not outline what those merits are, and we cannot find them. This is a nosy parker amendment to the Standing Orders. It will encourage nosy parkers, and Rod Donald is the prima donna when it comes to nosy parkers. He knows everything about “nosy parker-ing”. He is the No. 1 nosy parker in this Parliament, so he welcomes this sort of amendment to the Standing Orders. It will discourage able, successful people from standing for Parliament.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: No danger for New Zealand First.

Oh, the Labour members do not know what such people are. They do not have any, so they do not have to worry about it. Nor do the Greens have any able, successful people standing for them. But New Zealand First has, and I have to say that from time to time one or two bob up in the National Party. So I wonder why it is supporting this sort of carry-on.

This is a case of much ado about nothing. There is little corruption in politics in this country, and the corruption that has occurred has been targeted, found out, and exposed. We do not have to have this sort of carry-on in order to declare a war on corruption. It has no relevance to that, at all. As I said, this is a nosy parker amendment to the Standing Orders. We would have preferred to see a bill. We would not have agreed with a bill—we would have opposed it—but we would have preferred to see a bill, for one honest reason: a bill, if and when it became an Act, could have been amended to embrace civil servants. Civil servants have greater influence on the Government than Opposition MPs—far greater influence. There is a higher risk of civil servants having a conflict of interest that will affect Government legislation than there is when it comes to Opposition MPs.

This measure is a sop to the Greens. I hope it is the only one, because they will disappear at the end of this Parliament, and we can forget all about them. This measure is unnecessary; it is a mistake. It will encourage nosy parkers, and in the longer term it will discourage able people from putting their names forward to stand for Parliament. New Zealand First opposes this measure vehemently.

I am delighted to say that the Green MPs give their wholehearted support to Supplementary Order Paper 381, because, notwithstanding what Mr Brown has just said, the adoption of a procedure for members of the New Zealand Parliament to declare their pecuniary interests is long overdue. Ministers have had to declare their interests since 1991. They have been making an annual declaration. I do not think it has been altogether too arduous for them, and, clearly, it is not just Labour Ministers who have made such a declaration; National Ministers have, as well. Perhaps even Winston Peters was in Cabinet long enough to have had to make a declaration—I am not sure.

But the point I want to make is that this is a very important step forward for our Parliament, and it is one that we should make, because organisations like Transparency International assess all the Parliaments in the world to determine whether Parliaments and the members of those Parliaments are corrupt, and I am pleased to see that New Zealand was rated the third least corrupt Parliament in the world. I am sure the fact that our Ministers—the people who are most likely to get some benefit from outside organisations providing them with air tickets, meals, or other gratuities—have had to declare those interests has given New Zealand the degree of transparency and accountability that it has, and such a good rating from Transparency International. By extending those provisions to all members of Parliament, I hope we will become No. 1 in the world according to Transparency International—the least-corrupt Parliament anywhere on this planet.

But we have to kick off the new system before that can take place. I have to note, as I did in my first reading speech when this matter was still a bill, rather than an amendment to the Standing Orders, that we are well behind our colleagues across the ditch, in Australia. The state of Victoria has had legislation since 1978, South Australia since 1983, and the Senate since 1984.

💬 Peter Brown: What’s that achieved?

What is more, I tell Mr Brown, given his ancestry, the mother of all Parliaments, Westminster—the House of Commons—has had pecuniary interest legislation since 1974. Maybe that is why he left and came out here—I am not sure.

💬 Ian Ewen-Street: Go back.

No, I am not suggesting he goes back. That is what Mr Peters suggests that immigrants do. Mr Brown is very welcome to stay in New Zealand when the Greens become part of the next Government.

The new Standing Orders contained in the Supplementary Order Paper represent the politics of transparency and accountability. They are not, as Mr Brown claimed in his first reading speech, the politics of envy. It is extraordinary, in fact, for the deputy leader of New Zealand First strongly to oppose MPs being required to be upfront with the public about the financial interests that they may have, so that the public can judge their subsequent behaviour in Parliament accordingly, when Mr Brown’s own leader is forever making false accusations about impropriety in the public service, in the business community, and amongst ethnic organisations. So, far from being nosy parker Standing Orders, and far from my being a prima donna on this issue, these are very common-sense amendments to the Standing Orders. The public of New Zealand expects us to meet high standards. We are, after all, public servants. We are the elected representatives of the people of New Zealand. We have a responsibility to set an example. Instead of New Zealand First accusing other people of not being honest, it is time that it practised what it preached.

The other party to oppose MPs disclosing their financial interests has been ACT. Mr Prebble’s speech during the first reading was breathtaking. It was fire and brimstone, despite, of course, his new leader, Rodney Hide, having branded ACT as the perk-busting party. Of course, these Standing Orders are all about ensuring that MPs do not take perks. We have to acknowledge that Mr Prebble certainly will not be taking any perks in the future from Parliament, because he is about to retire. I suspect that Mr Hide will be gone, too, so he will not have to make a declaration after the election, either.

Notwithstanding however, the opposition from ACT and New Zealand First to the Supplementary Order Paper before us, I join with Mr Power in acknowledging that the select committee process was constructive. Although it took us some time to work through the current Standing Orders, as a result of that due deliberation they are robust, they will stand the test of time, and they will, I hope, meet with the public’s approval and, I would also hope, the media’s approval. The absence of the media in the gallery suggests that they are very relaxed about the steps we are taking in this regard.

In closing, I look forward to declaring my pecuniary interests when I return to Parliament with an even larger Green team after the election.

I rise on behalf of the ACT party to oppose Government motion No. 3, which relates to the pecuniary interests of members of Parliament. What is the problem that this is trying to fix? All this will do is be a burden for the honest, who will agonise over it. It is so complicated and so badly drawn up that it is very difficult to see where to begin and where to end. It will build a climate of dishonesty. The crooks, who do not give a stuff, will just make it up anyway—and who will have the time and energy to trawl through everything and find out whether members have been honest? It is like taking the rich list at face value. The rich list does not even take into account people’s liabilities. All it can do is take into account their assets. The poor, diligent, honest MP who struggles to declare everything under this measure will possibly trip up, or by accident exclude something, and the media will pick it up, have a field day, and destroy him or her for no reason at all.

This measure would not have caught Donna Awatere Huata. We asked her time and again whether she had any interest, any personal gain, and she lied to us. She would not tell us the truth. It would not have picked her up. If this Parliament really wants to get down on corruption, why does it not take note of what Ian Ewen-Street said yesterday when he talked about the scampi inquiry and Mr Peters’ involvement with Simunovich Fisheries? That has never been fully explored. For instance, provision 4(1)(b) in new appendix B states: “the name of every other company or business entity in which the member has a pecuniary interest …”. Is that direct or indirect? What if a member had shares in something like the New Zealand Investment Trust? That is a very respectable trust. If a member had shares in it, he or she would not have a clue about all the things that trust does. How on earth would one list them? How would trusts like that be listed? Land holdings are mentioned further on in this measure. If we tried to get information from members on all the land and property they own they would probably tell us to go away and mind our own business.

I was very interested in what Rod Donald, the co-leader of the Greens, said. A moment ago he said that the Green Party stood for high standards and that it was the cleanest party in Parliament. They would have no trouble declaring their pecuniary interests. Why does Rod Donald not start by reading what we already have under Standing Order 164, which states: “A pecuniary interest is a direct financial benefit that might accrue … as a result of the outcome of the House’s consideration of a particular item of business.” The Greens have a particular interest in high electricity prices. They opposed Project Aqua. They oppose any energy projects. Why is that? Because it is in their pecuniary interests to have high electricity prices, because of their financial interests, through their taxpayer-funded superannuation fund, in establishing the commercial viability of wind energy. They should tell us these things. If they do not tell us these things we have to go into Google to find them out. This statement is from a press release in May 2001: “the Green Party’s Superannuation Fund have joined the growing list of investors in local wind power company Windflow Technology. Windflow director … said ‘We’re delighted that the Greens are going to be part of our company. Windflow Technology is both environmentally and investor friendly,’ … Rod Donald, said ‘Our superannuation fund has a policy of ethical investing.’” Why do they not declare that when they come into this House to argue against any power project or development that anyone cares to put up, whether it be State-owned, or, heaven help us, one of the few private ones? Not only that, Jeanette Fitzsimons owns 30,000 shares in the Green Party superannuation fund. She is one of the top 10 shareholders. One of the biggest shareholders is UK millionaire, Sir James Goldsmith, and US billionaire Delane Wyeross also owns shares.

But they have directly benefited also from carbon credits. A subsidiary of Windflow Technology, New Zealand Windfarms, won Government backing of up to $10 million to set up a 60-turbine wind farm in the Manawatū. This was in December 2003. Members should listen to what the business development manager—[Interruption] It is not a scandal at all. I never said it was a scandal. I am just pointing out the—we are not allowed to use that word, but the term “conflict of interest” perhaps is a way to describe it when one stands up in this House and says that everyone has to declare their pecuniary interests, and everyone has to declare how much money they are owed over $50,000, and any debt over $50,000. I do not see the point in that. Why have it declared that someone owes a member of Parliament $50,000 or more?

Members will not have to declare it if it relates to a spouse, a partner, children, step-children, or foster children, so the dishonest ones will put all these things in the name of their spouses, partners, children, step-children, or foster children and get them to pay them. The very thing that should be declared, and the very thing we should be most suspicious of—that is, electoral campaign expenses that could be covered up—is excluded. The very thing we should be suspicious of—where someone wants to try to buy one’s vote—is the only thing that we should be declaring, and it is excluded.

But I go back to this Greens’ thing. The business development manager of the wind farm said that it would not have been viable without the Government’s award of carbon credits. It was one of the two firms named by the Minister of Energy, Pete Hodgson, to take a share of 4 million carbon credits designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions. I think the public should know these things. The public should know that the Greens stand up in this House and accuse every other party, except Labour, of being dishonest and bordering on the corrupt, yet the co-leader of the Greens did not declare all of these things, which anyone can get on the website. The Greens are strangely silent whenever anyone brings the matter up, and it is an example of how this legislation is just a nonsense. There is no problem here that we have to fix. In general, most people who come into this place are honest. If they are not, then the media are not doing their job properly, because it is the job of the fourth estate to find out what is going on and report it accurately. ACT will not be supporting this motion.

I rise to take a short call. I say two things to that member: she is leaving this place and she is moving to the fourth estate. I look forward to her exposés both on Investors International and on the questions I have asked Mr Hide for 3 years about who paid his air fares to Fiji. I say to Ms Coddington: “Ain’t that the pot calling the kettle black.” For 3 years I put to Mr Hide questions about his interests in travelling to Fiji and attending a conference there, where hundreds of New Zealanders subsequently lost millions of dollars. To date, there have been no answers. It is the ACT party, of course, that will not support the Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill. I acknowledge the National Party’s support for it. Anything that makes this Parliament more accountable and transparent is a good thing. But I just say to the ACT party—the party of transparency, the party of honesty, the party headed by Mr Hide, the self-confessed scambuster—that those things, transparency and accountability, must apply to our public service, our Parliament, our business people, etc. They must apply to everybody—except, of course, to Mr Hide when his feet are put to the fire and questions are asked about him!

I close by saying that the bill is a good bill. It is an exceptional bill. It brings us in line with many Parliaments around the world. Sadly, of course, this bill will not do one thing: once it is passed we will still not gain the answers from Mr Hide about why he went to the said conference, about who paid his air fares, about who paid his accommodation, and about who paid the hospitality bill. This bill will apply only to members of Parliament who are re-elected. After the election we will not have the answers to those questions, because Mr Hide will not be a member of this Chamber; neither will any of those so-called honest, accountable, and hugely transparent members of the ACT party. I support the bill.

I want to draw the attention of the House to a very important part of the Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill. I have listened tonight to members from different parties reflecting on their interest and non-interest. But the amendment to the Standing Order reflects a very important part of the bill. The Standing Orders Committee received and considered four submissions from interested groups and individuals. We heard three submissions. Hearing the evidence took 1 hour and 32 minutes, and consideration took 6 hours and 52 minutes. If that is the priority New Zealanders put on the bill, then it makes me wonder why it is even going through. Next minute, nosy-parker parties like the Greens will want to how many damn cats we have at home. This is a ridiculous bill. A nosy party like the Greens should look at their own backyard. I just wanted to bring that particular part to the House’s attention.

I signal United Future’s support for the motion. We also support the issue of members’ pecuniary interests being dealt with via an amendment to the Standing Orders rather than by way of legislation. That follows the United Kingdom model, and ensures that the question of MPs’ pecuniary interests is a proceeding of Parliament and, therefore, an obligation on members of Parliament. They are then accountable to Parliament instead of to the courts, and that, as Dr Michael Cullen mentioned, is entirely appropriate. United Future is pleased with the amendments that are to be made, and especially that debts owed by family members do not have to be disclosed. That was a point raised by United Future, the family party. It was not in the earlier drafts of the bill; it was introduced at our suggestion. That measure is very important, because compulsory disclosure of loans made by MPs to spouses, partners, parents, a child, a stepchild, a foster child, or a grandchild would be an embarrassment, not to the MP but to the family member concerned.

I was grateful to be part of the Standing Orders Committee, which very patiently and painstakingly worked its way through the issues. I was privileged, once again, to represent United Future in those deliberations. I am disappointed, however, that New Zealand First and ACT opposed the notion of a register of members’ pecuniary interests. They gave two reasons for that. The first was that there was no evidence yet of any real or perceived corruption amongst parliamentarians, so they asked why the Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill had been introduced. But I ask why we should wait until we do have an instance of corruption involving MPs before we move. We would be wise to do so in advance, and to learn from other Parliaments around the world that have introduced registers of members’ pecuniary interests in various forms. Registers have been adopted, for example, by Westminster and by other Parliaments. They have not, in fact, stopped well-qualified people from coming into Parliament. In Britain, everybody knows that William Hague, for example, a former leader of the Conservative Party, now makes several million pounds a year as an after-dinner speaker, while remaining an MP. He has to declare all that income. People actually think that is not a bad career path, so it has had the perverse effect of making the career of a member of Parliament seem more attractive to many people.

The second objection is the one I have mentioned: that it would stop well-qualified people from coming into Parliament. I thought a bit about that, and asked myself this: what is meant by a “well-qualified person”? By “good people”, do we mean “rich people”? Rich people are not necessarily good people. I know some good people who are also rich, and I also know some rich people who are rogues. The same applies, by the way, to poor people—some are good, and some are bad. Nor are well-qualified people necessarily those with a string of degrees. So what kind of people do we want to have in Parliament? My answer is that they need to be people who love this beautiful country of Aotearoa New Zealand, of which we are blessed to be citizens, and who wish to serve it as members of Parliament. Such people may want to see New Zealand prosper, as I do. They may want, as members of Parliament, to protect the environment, as I do. But most important, I believe, they should be people who want to ensure that relationships in this country between men and women, including those within marriage, between parents and children, and also between peoples of different races, languages, and religions—and believe you me, everyone has a belief system, whether or not he or she calls it a religion—are marked by charity and goodwill. Those are the kinds of people whom I think we want to see in this Parliament. So I have pleasure in supporting the Standing Orders that will give effect to that.

This will be my last speech in this Parliament. I hope to see most members back here again shortly.