McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. How good is it to be in the House yet again where the House comes together on a piece of legislation like this and it's nights like this as we debate the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill that I refer to. Whenever I go around the Wairarapa electorate be it in the Wairarapa or the Tararua district or Central Hawke's Bay and speak to groups like Probus or Grey Power where they don't want a political statement and frankly I don't really want to give one either they just want to hear about the job—the job of being an MP and the job of representing their region—and I talk about moments like this. It might seem at the time to be a bit dreary and all of that sort of stuff and we hear jokes about offering other members virtual chocolate fishes because they spoke the longest. But actually I think these moments are quite important because what they demonstrate is that more often than people realise the House can come together and put politics to the side and say to something as is proposed by this bill This makes sense—this makes sense." I thought we were going to be there on the previous bill where I thought it made sense and the vast majority of the members of the House thought it made sense but this one—the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill—does. It's a very straightforward and simple bill but it makes sense. You may have noticed Madam Speaker and colleagues in the House here that just like my good friend and colleague Glen Bennett I struggle to say "remuneration". It's just one of those words but I always say "renumeration" and Dr Deborah Russell always points out much to my embarrassment that I have said it wrong. But this bill the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill introduced earlier this month does a pretty simple thing: it transfers responsibility for determining the remuneration of certain judicial and statutory officers to the Remuneration Authority to recognise the judicial nature of those positions and that makes sense to me. I was a little bit worried. I did ponder as to what we were discussing earlier. Glen Bennett—again I'll mention him. He was accused by the Hon Scott Simpson of using the purple products from the Coromandel. Hon Member: Disgusting—awful. KIERAN McANULTY: Well I didn't know—was it awful or was it disgusting? I didn't know. What on earth is a purple product? I don't know. I thought perhaps he was talking about cannabis but perhaps it was one of those old man's sayings. It was like when you're talking to your grandfather and he tells you about the time you could get a gallon of gas for a threepence. You know I just thought it was one of these old-fashioned sayings. So I googled it. I googled "purple products" and I couldn't find anything except the Green Elephant lavender shop in Coromandel. So perhaps that's what Scott Simpson was referring to. I imagine—just referring to the comments of previous speakers—and I would like to say that he is a well-kempt man is our Glen Bennett and it would not surprise me if he went to the Green Elephant lavender shop in the Coromandel. This bill will enhance public confidence because ultimately we are in a unique position in that New Zealand stands at the top of the world ranked at No. 1 in the corruption index. That is because we have structures in place to avoid situations where there might be some form of gerrymandering of such public and judicial systems and ultimately it shouldn't be up to those that set the law to set the pay for those that administer it. That is a very simple principle and it's actually quite surprising—and that's not a dig. It's not a political statement but it's quite surprising that it's not until now that we're considering this and I imagine that it's probably just one of those things that hasn't really been brought up. It's worked OK because of the nature of New Zealanders and the way that we operate. We are on the whole a trustworthy bunch. But it's been picked up it's been identified and as a result of a review it was recommended by the reviewer MartinJenkins back in 2018 that an independent principles-based review should take place. The question was pretty simple: should it be determined by the Cabinet Fees Framework or by the Remuneration Authority? Ultimately it was deemed that the mechanisms for setting the Remuneration Authority for these positions should be set by the Remuneration Authority. That makes sense. They're the organisation that sets the pay of members of Parliament and Ministers and that's as it should be. We've all heard the stories haven't we—particularly overseas—of members of Parliament voting for a salary increase for themselves whilst also doing things like voting down the minimum wage and feathering their own nest if you like. As a result of those sorts of things we've seen a lack of trust develop amongst elected officials in countries including New Zealand. We've all heard it I'm sure—that old myth that if you serve three terms of Parliament you get a pension for life. I hear it all the time. I hear it all the time and that may have been the case—I don't know for sure actually. That may have been the case back in 1977 when my good friend Glen Bennett was two apparently. That may have been the case then—I don't know—but it 100 percent certainly is not the case now and nor should it be. Why should serving nine years in a job get you a pension for life? My old man has served 44 years in his job. He's not going to get a pension for life—well actually he is because he was on the old Government superannuation scheme. But yeah that's good and it should never have been scrapped actually—while I'm on the subject. He's only been able to use that because he's stayed in the same job that he had all those years ago for all this time. He's approaching his retirement and I wish him well in that–and they've bought a caravan God help the South Island! So the review noted that "Community Magistrates Disputes Tribunal Referees Environment Commissioners and Deputy Environment Commissioners are judicial decision makers"—now I just wanted to read that one little bit because there are quite big words in there—"and their remuneration should be determined independently of Government by the Remuneration Authority." The Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill "amends the Remuneration Authority Act 1977 and 6 other Acts to transfer responsibility for determining the remuneration for the following judicial officers" and there's three in particular—because they've all been named already tonight but there are three I want to point out. They are the disputes tribunal referees and the Tenancy Tribunal adjudicators. It's unglamorous work but it is such vital work for our justice system and the fact that those two in particular have no lawyers. No lawyers are involved no fancy words; just people that have a dispute over a particular topic coming together and they hear the case of the both of them and they make a decision. It's not something I've thought about much at all but I was once involved in a Tenancy Tribunal process and I didn't realise that the person that was the adjudicator there was actually doing so in a way that relieved the justice system of the strain of these relatively smaller—not insignificant but smaller—cases. Of course I wouldn't have thought that at the time. I was only a young man only a student—unfairly charged. I got away with it because I had a strong case. But I thank those that do these sorts of jobs because they are so important. The other one too is the community magistrates of the District Court—those members of the public that are performing such a crucial public role. Much like the previous National speaker the Hon Scott Simpson I too would like to acknowledge the role that justices of the peace play in our electorates. Of course as members of Parliament it is on us to put forward recommendations for new justices of the peace in our areas and I would put a call out there to people that are interested in doing this. It is a crucial role and I'm sure that all of us at various points in time have needed a justice of the peace at some point. But in some areas in the country their numbers are considerably lower than is desired and unfortunately many of them are towards the autumn years of their career and it would be good to have people of strong standing in diverse communities across our districts and regions in this country to put themselves forward. So on behalf of everyone here I think it's fair to say that if you're listening and you're interested contact your local MP have a yarn about it and then we can go through that process of putting your name forward because those that I have spoken to get a lot out of it. They aren't included in this bill. They do it voluntarily and I think we all come from regions and communities that are reliant on the generosity of others. I think it's only appropriate to acknowledge them tonight given that I think they fall into this category. Ultimately this bill is based on a very simple principle and I think that whilst it might seem insignificant it will only increase New Zealand's standing when compared to overseas countries and other countries that we compare ourselves to particularly in the OECD. But ultimately we are bringing in a very simple provision that will maintain the integrity of the system. I'd like to just finish by reiterating the point that I started on which is that I think tonight will be something that when I go and visit these groups in my electorate I will refer to because yet again it's actually all 120 members of this House coming together to support something. It could have come from any previous Government of any previous colour. It was identified it was fixed and good on everybody for getting behind it."