Worth Richard: Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill — First Reading 
Worth Richard: Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9267] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 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 $5000. No similar requirement is imposed on Ministers. A member is required to declare debtors who owe the member more than $5000 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.