M.P.’s income register

Press, 12 February 1986, Page 20

M.P.’s income register

The Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Palmer, is hopeful that a system requiring members of Parliament to declare their assets and sources of income will be in force after the next General Election. Mr Palmer took exception to an editorial on the subject, published in “The Press" on Saturday, saying that the editorial was “an attempt to take a straightforward plank of Labour’s open government policy proposal and extend it beyond the point of rational discussion.” Mr Palmer said that “financial frisking” of members of Parliament — let alone of their families — was not the intention of the proposed Register of Pecuniary Interests. “If the New Zealand register were to follow the U.K. model, it would not require details of a member’s wealth — simply an indication of the source of those interests. Other disclosures could relate to sponsored overseas visits, the sources of election campaign funding and declarable shareholdings. This policy proposal is not unique, it merely follows the lead of other democratic countries all over the world,” he said. “The Australian Parliament is undertaking a similar exercise to the one I propose and a select committee is presently establishing such a register. “The British Parliament has had a-register for over a decade and'the fact that one welljknown Zmlverick?) member of their Parliament refuses to partici-

pate, while of itself significant, cannot detract from the fact that the overwhelming majority do. “As far as the United States is concerned, I understand that the post-Watergate system of disclosure is now far more rigorous than any likely to be instituted here,” Mr Palmer said. “Those who are elected to Parliament choose to become public figures and in doing so must expect to become the objects of public interest. That is part of the job. “As elected representatives of the people, members of Parliament are assumed to conduct their public lives in the public’s interest, not their own. "Indeed, the prayer which opens,each day’s parliamentary sitting \ includes the plea that each member will ‘lay aside all private and personal interests,’ and it seems to me to be fundamental to our desire for a fair and open society that some broad outline of each member’s financial interests be publicly available.

“At the same time, I should point out that the convention which precludes members from discussing each other’s personal affairs in the House would be quite adequate to prevent such a register becoming, in debate, the ‘great fun’ you appear to anticipate. “Far from implying a ‘lack of good faith and a lack of trust’ the sort of information provided by such a register should he a member of Parliament’s 'best defence against the sort of ill-

informed rumour and misunderstanding which can occasionally circulate regarding members’ alleged motivation and purpose. "I regard a well-informed public to be the basis of a healthy democracy and that is why I am hopeful that a system requiring M.P.s to declare their assets and sources of income will be operating after the next General Election,” he said. [Without trusting entirely to the power of Parliamentary prayer, we agree with its sentiment. It does not, yet, plead to lay open all private arid personal interest; nevertheless, a thorough exercise in this would go far beyond matters of income sources and sponsored visits abroad. We do not think it is irrational to compare the supposed need for legislation on a Parliamentary register with the more obvious area for disclosure in local government. The convention of not introducing personal matters into Parliamentary debate is a good one; if maintained, the conventio would appear to qualify the point of the register and leave conclusions to be drawn, often wrongly, elsewhere. As mentioned in our leading article, we do not accept that foreign models are always good examples. As for reporting the sources of campaign funds (not discussed in our article) the point of this, like the reporting of personal incomes, seems just as relevant for all candidates, not just those elected — and most significant before the election, not after. — Editor]