Donald Rod: Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill — First Reading 
Donald Rod: Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9272] 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Mr Prebble is right. We can come here without having any formal qualifications and I certainly declare that I do not have any tertiary qualifications. But he is entirely wrong when he claims that this is the politics of envy. This legislation is the politics of transparency—as he predicted I was going to say—and also the politics of accountability and it is long overdue. The Green Party will be supporting this bill to the Standing Orders Committee and we look forward to making a constructive contribution to the consideration of the bill in the same way that we have appreciated the opportunity to make a constructive contribution to its drafting. 
New Zealand has been left behind because it has not had legislation like this. Certainly our Ministers have been subject to declaring their interests since 1991. I guess Mr Prebble missed out on that opportunity because he left Cabinet before then. But since then all Ministers have had to make an annual declaration and I do not think they have found that too arduous. Obviously the Government at the time—and I guess it must have been a National Government that brought in the requirement for Ministers to make a declaration—recognised the value of moving from an ad hoc disclosure regime to a deliberate disclosure regime. That was an important step forward for our Parliament and one of the reasons why I believe that in the Transparency International schedule of countries New Zealand is rated the third-least corrupt in the world. I believe that by passing this legislation we will continue to maintain that position. Indeed I hope it will give some real substance to our reputation. 
I return to the issue of us coming rather late to a proper pecuniary-interests disclosure regime for members of Parliament. We are well behind our colleagues in Australia. The state of Victoria has had such legislation since 1978 South Australia since 1983 and their Senate since 1984. The mother of all Westminster Parliaments the British House of Commons has had this type of legislation since 1974 so it really has taken rather a long time for New Zealand to get to the point where we should be—which is as the bill says finding the right balance between greater transparency and avoiding undue intrusion into MPs’ privacy. 
That is where the Green Party hopes to promote a couple of changes at the select committee stage. We think it is unnecessary for members to have to declare very small shareholdings. We will be seeking a consistent threshold for shareholding so that it lines up with gifts and debts. At the moment absolutely every share owned has to be declared whereas gifts and debts have a threshold of $500. It makes sense to us that the three are lined up—otherwise as Mr Prebble said the schedule will run to some pages when some members of Parliament have to declare all of their small shareholdings. The other clause I have picked up on that might warrant amending is clause 10 “Debts owed by family members do not have to be disclosed”. I think there is an equal argument that debts owed to family members or loans from family members could be excluded from the bill in the context of ensuring that we do have that balance between transparency and avoiding undue intrusion. 
But I have to say to Mr Prebble that this bill does not require him as he implied to have to declare any overseas trips he takes at his own personal expense. That is not what this bill is seeking to achieve. What this legislation is looking for is members having to declare any overseas travel they have made at someone else’s expense. I would certainly declare that that has been the case for me. The American Government invited me to go to Indonesia a couple of years ago to advise on the electoral system the Electoral Reform Society has invited me to go to England to assist it in its campaign for proportional representation and the Green Party of British Columbia has invited me to go there to do exactly the same thing in that territory. 
I have no problems in making those sorts of declarations and I do not think any members in this House should—in the same way that I hope that no members would have any problems making declarations for example under clause 8(1)(e) where a member would have to declare an interest in an organisation or trust that receives Government funding. I like to call that the “ACT clause” because we were keen to put that in because of Donna Awatere Huata. I think is absolutely important that people have to make that declaration upfront because if nothing else it might help parties like ACT when they go about the selection process to know who not to put high on their party list. 
I particularly look forward to Rodney Hide voting for this bill. As Parliament’s self-appointed perk-buster he should support any move towards greater transparency and accountability. I look forward to finding out who pays for his overseas trips and for those of his colleagues in the same way— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings say that members may not make the sorts of disparaging remarks that the member— 
Rod Donald 
: It wasn’t disparaging. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: No the member has picked out another MP and is making statements that imply there is something peculiarly interesting about that member while he illustrates what is wrong with this bill. That is out of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Under Speaker’s ruling 35/5 a statement can be ruled out only if it is objectionable on the face of it and it is actually up to the member against whom any allegations are being made to ask for a retraction or apology under Standing Order 117. The honourable member Rodney Hide is not here and I can rule only if a statement is objectionable on the face of it but I have not heard it to that extent at this stage. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw to your attention that as recently as last week we had a discussion around these sorts of issues in the Committee of the whole House. Indeed the Speaker was brought back and he made a very clear ruling. It was a general ruling that no member of Parliament was entitled to make disparaging remarks about any other member. It is a recent ruling but we had a debate about it because we were worried that it would take some of the humour and other matters out of debating. But the Speaker was very clear and decisive in his ruling. I think you might find that the comment that has been made would fit well within that ruling. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. Debate in the Chamber is always robust and always has been. In the immortal words ofTana Umaga: “This isn’t tiddlywinks ref.” However members should be careful to be temperate in their language and not bring the House into disrepute impugn members or behave in a way that will incite disorder. 
ROD DONALD 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker but I am also prepared to withdraw and apologise because no offence was intended. 
I do not agree with Mr Brown’s comment that this is the politics of envy. I think it is just important that members know as the public should know who pays for any member’s overseas travel or any other gift of a substantial value that a member receives. When this House is debating issues like the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill gambling legislation or the drinking age and where alcohol should be sold it is absolutely vitally important that members are clean and not in receipt of any money from tobacco companies casinos or booze barons. I think the public have a right to know that and we have an obligation to tell the public that sort of information. I am looking forward to the passage of this bill and I will be looking forward to declaring any gifts I get that will come under the ambit of the bill. 
I did forget one other trip before: the French Government paid for me to go on a trip to France as well. It said it gave one to Rodney Hide 3 years before so it thought it should give a trip to another Rodney in the last term of Parliament. I think that is just about my list for the moment except for my shareholdings and other assets which Mr Prebble will have to wait for. It is vital for the credibility of Parliament and the integrity of members that we all disclose any interest that could possibly influence our work as members of Parliament.