Prebble Richard: Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill — First Reading 
Prebble Richard: Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9270] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I believe that the Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill is misconceived constitutionally wrong and we should reject it. Why is that? Because we are not part of the Government. Yes it is right and proper that Cabinet Ministers who are part of the Government should declare their interests. But we are here as legislators and here to help make part of the House of Representatives. If members believe as I do that we should see ourselves as citizen politicians the fact that we have private interests is of no concern of the House unless those interests are in conflict. How do we rely on that? We rely on people to declare and the declaration has to be made. As I have just said I am willing to do that if I have to under Standing Order 166. 
It is over to those who are promoting this bill to show why members of Parliament should make those declarations. There are some good reasons why they should not. Just because it is interesting to the public to know what members of Parliament may or may not own that does not mean to say that it is in the public interest. A second reason is that this House is finding it harder and harder to attract people to become members of Parliament who have themselves been—how would I put it—reasonably successful in commerce. 
It may be and maybe this is the point of the bill that members think that such people—captains of industry—should not be members of Parliament. I beg to differ. I would not want to see a Parliament that was made up all of Philip Burdons John Bankses and John Luxtons. I have cited three people who are by New Zealand counts very wealthy. Did having such MPs add to our House? It most certainly did. No doubt it would be interesting that it might take them a few pages to register all of their interests. Is that of any value? No it is not. However I make this other point about the bill and I say this as a lawyer. Without any difficulty—it would cost me some money but I could do it—I could rearrange all of my affairs between now and 4 October so that I could stand in this House and say that I have nothing. What would be the point of that? 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: That could take a while. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: It would. And for some of the things I would have to do I ask the member why should I? For example—[ 
Interruption 
] The member may never have done this—and I would like him to listen. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: You could just declare it. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Why does Mr Cunliffe not just listen and I will tell him something? I have lent people more than $5000. They were friends of mine who had been in trouble needed some help and I have given them the money. Under this bill I have to declare their names. Mr Cunliffe will come and ask why Richard Prebble lent Joe Brown $7000 6 years ago. That would be none of his business. I shall tell that member something. There is no way in the world that I would ever put those people through that embarrassment. So if this bill goes through I will wipe all those debts. 
But why should I have to do that just because Mr Cunliffe thinks that the public ought to know about loans that I have made in a private capacity and that they should be declared to the House because somehow that could possibly be bribery or corruption? What a load of rubbish! What a load of nonsense! He may never have thought of lending money to anyone in his life. I assure members that other people have done so and I ask why a member of Parliament should have to declare that. That is one example. 
But I then look at another interesting aspect of this bill:it states that one has to declare overseas travel. That is pretty shocking. I wonder why people would want to know to where I might have travelled. Then I see that there is an exemption. If the travel is paid for in full by for example the Crown or any combination of the categories listed in the bill we do not have to declare it. So if I go overseas as a senior MP which I am and use my overseas travel concession I do not have to declare it. I can go anywhere I like. I can go to Bali or Cuba and I do not have to declare it. However if I decide to pay for it myself—shock horror probe—I would have to declare it. What is the point of that? 
Let me tell the House that I do travel overseas but I would never think of charging the Crown. I do it in my own capacity. But why do I have to declare it so that Mr Cunliffe can read about it? It has nothing to do with him nothing to do with Parliament and nothing to do with any bill that appears in this House. This is just nosy parker legislation. 
I suspect that the real purpose behind this bill is the ugly side of New Zealand politics and sometimes the ugly side of this country—the politics of envy. There are people who have it in their mind that somehow or other there are some wealthy people who are having an undue influence on this House. That is a load of rubbish. I will tell the House what will happen when this bill is passed if it is. It will expose that New Zealand MPs are impoverished. The vast majority of New Zealand members of Parliament could not balance their chequebook. They own no assets. When we look through the Cabinet register for this Government we see that over 80 percent of MPs own nothing apart from their house which they owe to the bank. Maybe they want us to declare that for everybody else. Well so what! 
I think this is the politics of envy but I also point out unless I have misread it that as far as I can work out MPs do not have to declare what their spouse has. Let me tell members that a very quick way of getting around this bill and keeping their money is just to transfer it to their wife. Under the Family Proceedings Act they still keep half. They may think it is their money but it is not—half of it is their wife’s. MPs can transfer it to their wife their partner or their husband and under this bill they would not have to declare a dollar. They have not lost a thing and they do not have to declare anything. 
What is the point at that point? I guess it is so that people like Mr Rod Donald can get up and say that somehow or other we are introducing transparency into the New Zealand Parliament. No we are not. I say that we are introducing hypocrisy into the New Zealand Parliament but we are also telling the public that we are just a House of professional politicians. Unfortunately I guess that is the way we are going. I would prefer to think that we are a Parliament of citizen politicians. I would like to think that New Zealand MPs are not completely out of touch that they are still involved in the community and that they are still doing activities within it so that when they come here they can speak with some authority rather than from ideology and ignorance. 
Let me make this point though to poor Mr Brown. If we read about the Auditor-General’s powers we will find that under this bill the Auditor-General has the power now to go to any MP’s bank accounts come and search his or her house put the member under oath and if the member does not answer the questions he or she will be committing a criminal offence. The Auditor-General is being turned from being an officer of Parliament to being part of our Gestapo. 
I make this prediction. The people who will fall foul of this bill will be some Labour MPs; not because they intend to but because just as happened in Britain and all the other countries cited they make a mistake. They forget to put something down and then they are pilloried by the media. They are put through the gauntlet by the Auditor-General and their political careers are destroyed not because they were corrupt but because as we all know half of them—perhaps I should not say half but a substantial number—could not fill out a form of this sort. This is the one place where we do not have to have any qualificaations except to be over the age of 18.