Cosgrove Clayton: Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill — First Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9276] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 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. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: 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. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: 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 $10000 or $20000 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. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: 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 $100000 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. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: 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.