Copeland Gordon: Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill — First Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9274] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 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! 
GORDON COPELAND 
: 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? 
GORDON COPELAND 
: 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? 
GORDON COPELAND 
: 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.