When public office holders are screened from being involved in discussions or making decisions on matters that put them in a conflict that could benefit their own financial interests, should there be public reporting that this has occurred, so there is visibility for the sake of public confidence that the system is working? The concept of it sounds fine, but the public doesn't have visibility on whether and when it's used. It might strain most people's trust if they hear that it's going to be employees or appointees of that public office holder who are protecting them from that involvement and the decisions.
The current Prime Minister is the example I will use. He has extensive holdings in a company that's invested in transportation, infrastructure, military and power generation—all things that certainly the head of government would touch on in that role.
Do you think there should be public reporting when the screen is used?