A new method of keeping politics out of public commissions, which is being tested under the new Integrity Commission Act, has met opposition in the joint select committee appointed to review the provisions of the Bill.

The first real test came yesterday after Contractor General Dirk Harrison made a submission to the committee, which included a proposal that no “politically exposed person” should be appointed to the proposed commission.

But Government member KD Knight took exception to the description, while informing the committee that he is not supportive of the proposal to merge three bodies — the Office of the Contractor General (OCG), the Corruption Prevention Commission, and Parliament’s Integrity Commission — to establish a single anti-corruption agency, the Integrity Commission.

Knight said that he had a problem with the suggestion that “politically exposed” persons should not sit on the commission, and asked for an explanation of the meaning of the term as used by the contractor general.

“In the 1970s, we had a politically exposed person who became, with acclaim, president of the court of appeal; and in the 1990s, we had another politically exposed person who was welcomed by the society, as the president of the court of appeal. I don’t understand what is meant by politically exposed person,” Knight stated.

Justice Minister Senator Mark Golding, who also chairs the joint select committee, explained that the concept of politically exposed persons is related to money laundering legislation.

He said it originated from the concept that people in positions of political power and influence are more vulnerable to being approached by people with their private agenda and the money to fund it.

He said that the contractor general’s point seemed to be that it would be a bad thing for the commissioners or directors of the Integrity Commission to be seen as being “politically partisan persons”.

However, Senator Knight asked that the committee be cautious in how it dealt with that issue.

“I think that we have to tread carefully, because there are persons who were never in, but are tainted. I don’t want it to be ever believed that because someone has had an affiliation with a political party that that person loses all sense of objectivity; and that persons who, on the surface, have not shown any political colouration cannot bring political influence to bear on how they carry out their functions,” Knight said.

He said that the system is replete with examples of apolitical people who are far more political than the person actually involved.

In his submission to the committee, Harrison said that he disagreed with the suggested composition of the commission and that it needed further consideration.

He said that the selection of members should be in keeping with the “wide skills set of a functional commission”, and that there must be a balance of individuals forming the commission.

He also suggested that the auditor general should not be a member of the commission, as this conflicts with the fact that the department is a procuring body and would normally be subject to the scrutiny of the commission.

The Bill will repeal the Parliament (Integrity of Members) Act when it is passed into law.

Opposition Senator Alexander Williams said that the contractor general could put forward a definition of a “politically exposed person” which would meet his objective, and which could be considered by the committee at a future meeting.

Harrison said he would provide the chairman with the definition today.