Key John: Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill — First Reading 
Key John: Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9279] 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 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? 
JOHN KEY 
: 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? 
JOHN KEY 
: 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. 
JOHN KEY 
: 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 $7000 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. 
JOHN KEY 
: 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.