Disclosure of interests by parliamentarians has touched off fierce debate — in some circles — and so it should. It is one of the issues with which the Select Committee on Elections is trying to come to grips, and for good reason. Modern practice today requires more disclosure, rather than less.The focus of the committee on the Hill is on interests in Government contracts. But one of the stumbling blocks here is in ascertaining exactly what is required by law. I was one of those who pitched up to one of their public hearings and told members the position isn’t as clear as it could be, and should be.The Bermuda Constitution Order 1968 is the starting point, and it is pretty clear that there ought to be disclosure by election candidates and sitting parliamentarians. The nature of the contract, and the interest therein, is meant to be published in a newspaper within seven days of nomination, or appointment in the case of a Senator, and thereafter, if seated in the Legislature, whenever any such interest is acquired again by newspaper publication within seven days.Trouble is — or at least this where the trouble begins — the requirement was qualified in that same year by the Legislature (Qualification and Disqualification) Act 1968 which appears to narrow down just what does, or does not, qualify for disclosure.I stress the word “appears”; and to re-work an old joke, depending on how many lawyers you consult you may find an equal number of conflicting and different opinions on what is, or is not, required.If you want an interpretation that will count take the matter to court (I know, I know, only a lawyer would say that, wouldn’t he?), although in all seriousness I was surprised that the Opposition PLP did not do that after the last election, given the concerns which they voiced about non-disclosure, coupled with the close result, and the fact that a successful challenge would have meant disqualification.Incidentally, any such challenges must be made promptly, and thus the opportunity to do so has been lost this time around.We could, of course, continue to quarrel until the cows come home over whether a challenge should have been made, and over what does, or does not, qualify as a qualifying interest under the Act. But, like I told the committee, I would prefer now to see time and effort, and money, spent on updating the requirements, and making them as precise and as clear as possible. And, as far as I am concerned, and for the record, any direct pecuniary interest in a Government contract should qualify for disclosure.As I also told the committee, under questioning, this was pretty much the approach that was taken by the UBP for its candidates for the 2007 election. We decided not to waste time and money arguing over what was required. We were a party campaigning earnestly on the need for government that is transparent, honest, open and accountable so we elected to put our mouths where our money was, so to speak, and we agreed on the disclosure of any, and all, interests candidates had in Government contracts.We saw it then as a no-brainer. I still do today.Nevertheless, the relevant legislation needs to be overhauled and updated. I mean, it has been more than 40 years and good governance benchmarks in most modern democracies have been set higher, much higher in recent years. While we are at it, although not part of the committee’s brief, the Register of Interests for parliamentarians needs to be given more teeth, and made mandatory.The question of enforcement and oversight needs to be taken up as well. It shouldn’t just be left to a defeated candidate, or aggrieved voter, to take a parliamentarian to court for non-disclosure. Neither is it reasonable to expect the Attorney General to make the challenge, now that the post has become a political appointment.This is where I believe the establishment of an independent electoral commission could be most useful — operating much along the lines of the Boundaries Commission which has worked well over the years with two appointees from each of the two political parties, and two independent members. They could also usefully take on oversight of campaign finance, and advertising, not to mention enforcement of political broadcast directions which has, I think, over the years, become a sham in practice.This bi-partisan committee on the Hill on elections may be on to something.* Share your views on The Royal Gazette website or write jbarritt@ibl.bm. We will happily pass them on to the elections committee.