Integrity in "Public Life Act"

The fear of public embarrassment and possible prosecution has made many people who are required to file declarations with the Integrity Commission very concerned about the impact of the Integrity in Public Life Act.

And this led parliamentarians to ask many questions at the seminar organised by the Integrity Commission in the Parliament Chamber yesterday.

The seminar, closed to the media, was fairly well attended by mixed group of government and opposition MPs as well as independent senators.

One source stated that many MPs left more confused than they were before they arrived. Some MPs gave the commission a rough time as many were not always satisfied with the explanations and advice given by the commission’s representatives during the three hour session.

“If you look at the forms it could be a little bit confusing,” said Labour Minister Danny Montano, who is an accountant by profession. He was speaking to reporters before yesterday’s sitting of the Senate.

He noted that one source of confusion was the different interpretations of the word ‘land.’ On both form A and form B a person is asked to state what lands they own. The commission explained yesterday that on form B, land meant land and, or, buildings, said Montano. However, form A is more explicit and provides one heading for land and one for buildings and property.

“So naturally the assumption is (based on form A) that on form B when they (the commission) asks about land, they mean land by itself. And this is where a lot of people, not just MPs, but a lot of other people (covered by the act), have been confused by the form as to what they are really looking for,” he said.

Montano stated that there were other common problems, such as the repetition of the same information on both forms.

Did the seminar examine what constitutes a false declaration?

“We didn’t go there,” Montano said. He said, however, there was discussion on how to treat ministerial trips. He noted that when ministers went overseas on government business or MPs attended conferences, the State paid for the airfare and provided an allowance to pay for hotel, meals and other expenses. He said the last administration made this advance non-accountable which meant that persons did not have to substantiate their expenditure with receipts and bills.

“The commission is saying that that non-accountable advance is something you must report as income. The instructions are less than clear,” he said.

Montano gave another instance of where many made the error of not declaring this information.

“If you had paid a deposit on a motor car in December and you get the car in January. That deposit must be treated as interest on property you are about to get.

Now you might not think about that,” he said. He added half-jokingly: “And ...the next thing you know is jail because you didn’t think about it”.

On the issue of whether judges and magistrates fell under the act, Montano said there was a question for the commission to answer.

“I was in Opposition when the act was passed and I thought that that issue was fairly clear. But I am no legal luminary,” he said.