NATION NEWS: Franklyn objects to revised Integrity Bill – Published 22nd July 2023
Franklyn objects to revised Integrity Bill
Despite several changes made, Government’s second attempt at bringing the long-awaited Integrity in Public Life legislation is not going over well with one of those instrumental in blocking its passage two years ago.
Former Opposition Senator Caswell Franklyn told the Saturday Sun the inclusion of a blind trust remains a non-starter for him.
“I cannot get behind that legislation once it still contains the blind trust aspect; it defeats the very purpose. That provision is an invitation for people in public life to hide the assets; the legislation will be no use with that allowance.
“As far as I am concerned . . . the law is just fluff once you keep that provision in. It does nothing for transparency, and it is only window dressing and just gives the impression that the politicians are doing something,” Franklyn said.
A blind trust
A blind trust is defined as a financial arrangement in which a person in public office gives the administration of private business interests to an independent trust in order to prevent conflict of interest. Under the trust, the owner does not know how the assets are managed.
Tabling the Integrity in Public Life Bill, 2023, in the House of Assembly yesterday, Attorney General Dale Marshall outlined the changes made to that which failed in the Senate in 2020, when Government could not earn the required two-thirds majority.
The main change is that only newly appointed judges, along with their spouses and children, will have to complete declarations
of their assets and liabilities before taking office. The same applies to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Auditor General.
Marshall noted that when the substantive bill was rejected, two areas had been of major concern, that of High Court judges being excluded, and that some reports, if published, could make public the declarations of those involved.
However, Franklyn said he does not see these changes as reaching middle ground with those who had serious reservations.
“Why stop at judges? Why not say that only new permanent secretaries will have to go through this process? In fact, every existing officer for whom the legislation is intended should be exempted.
“I don’t see how filing a return on a person’s assets could be seen as an alteration in the condition of service. Are we saying that there are a certain group of people who are above the possibilities of corruption? There is no detriment to someone who has to declare their assets and to suggest otherwise is nonsense,” he said.
Efforts to reach Democratic Labour Party president Dr Ronnie Yearwood for a response were unsuccessful. (CLM)