Hughes Gareth: Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill — First Reading 
Hughes Gareth: Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:1410] 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to take a call in support of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill. The Greens were not involved in the drafting of this legislation but I think the Greens can take some of the credit behind this bill. The Greens have been champions for transparency in this Parliament for more than 10 years. We have been leading the call. We have been putting our own expenses in the public arena well before the other parties have. We have dragged them kicking and screaming but it is great to see this whole Parliament come together now finally passing a bill like this that encourages transparency. I will not blow our own horn any more in this speech but I think it is important to say that we were championing this cause when it was not popular when we were the only people talking about it. I think in particular Metiria Turei our co-leader who is in Senegal I understand at the moment attending a global Greens conference would be giving this call has championed that lead.  
This bill does a number of basic things. I will focus on the important issues with this bill. The key issue is that every party I think has had its share of less-than-clear sometimes—[ 
Interruption 
] We have seen illegal activities by members in other parties so I think we do have to improve. The key lesson that we learn—whether it be in the UK with the members’ expense scandal there or scandals we have seen in New Zealand—is that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Having an open transparent regime where the public and the media can investigate is the best way to avoid those scandals occurring in the future. I guess coupled with that what we have to have is clarity. We have to have clear rules that all members understand and I will discuss that in a little more detail soon.  
The key points I have identified in this bill are the change to the decision making on travel and accommodation entitlements for MPs and Ministers. That is moving to the Remuneration Authority. Along with our salaries we now have our travel and accommodation there. The Speaker still has a huge number of determinations to make in Speaker’s rulings to do with our offices other services funding to parties qualifying for electoral candidates and travel services in respect of MPs participating in political exchanges. 
 Hopefully what we have also seen is this place change again with the election of Mojo Mathers and the debate that had to be had in this Parliament which is the principle that every MP be they disabled or not should get the same level of services as any other member. We know we have a million dollars worth of speaker systems above our heads but there was quibbling over $20000 to $30000 in expenditure for a single member who could not participate. So there is still a lot left up to the Speaker’s discretion and the Speaker’s rulings but moving the travel decisions will help.  
The member Chris Hipkins noted that MPs are likely to get the flack when salaries are raised if they are raised in the future and I think it is a fair comment. I think it is an accurate reflection of the truth but I think it is also the halfway house that this Parliament has tried to have. We have tried to take away responsibility for our salaries but considerable areas such as travel and accommodation are still left up to us. What the public I think most of all does not want to see is that principle that we are making our own decisions—that we have left the wolf in charge of the hen house in charge of the decisions. So hopefully clarifying this getting rid of that halfway house and having all of that given to the Remuneration Authority will help clear up the public’s misconceptions and we will see less of that backlash if there are salary rises in the future.  
The current voluntary disclosure regime for MPs’ travel and accommodation gets moved from voluntary to statutory. The Green Party was the first party in Parliament in 2009 to voluntarily release all of our expenses to the media and the public. I think it is a good thing and now we are seeing all the other parties follow suit and now we are putting it into legislation. We think that is good for our democracy good for transparency and good for the public’s perception of MPs which to be frank is not always the best.  
The “Chris Carter clause”—it was named by Chris Auchinvole; I think we will make him the creator of the said clause—is good. I mean $10 a day is laughable and it was hardly a sanction at all. I think again that it removes the respect that people have for this institution. It is a good modernisation.  
I guess in particular skipping through the bill we think that good changes have been made in relation to the impact of the unfortunate death of an MP on an MP’s spouse or dependent children. We think that makes sense and is a good call. So what we are seeing in summary is that sunlight is the best disinfectant. We are taking that approach throughout this bill. That is why we are supporting it. That is why we have called for these measures for a long time. We are very happy that we are seeing them finally.  
We think we can do a bit more. International travel for MPs is I think a big problem that this House is going to have to grapple with. We could have done it in this legislation. The public does not understand—I do not understand—why we are doing it. The fact that both our superannuation scheme and air travel perks—because they are seen as perks even though I am absolutely sick of airports and sick of flying and I do not see it as a perk—have been in lieu of remuneration in lieu of salary rises in the past is not very clear to the public. It is not very clear to MPs. We are sending the wrong message. I think the former Minister Pansy Wong did get caught up in that. There was obviously some impropriety as well but I think that the confusion did not help. So we have also got this perhaps “Pansy Wong clause”.  
I think it would be interesting to undertake a survey of MPs to find out how many MPs actually use the travel privilege for non-work purposes. I think you would find that a number of MPs do not use it. I do not use it. Ever since I entered this House I have never used it. I use it only for work purposes. Where else in the country in what other sector of the economy do people get unlimited domestic travel with no business requirement and no checking system? I think the public find it ridiculous. I think it is antiquated. It goes back to the age of steam when we used to arrive here on trains and sail ships. I think we should look at that and that will also clear up those Pansy Wong - type situations in the future.  
So the Green Party joins the other parties in this House voting for the bill. We look forward to the select committee process. We urge the public to have their say in the select committee process. We agree with the Labour Party that we should not be sending the message that we should have a constrained or shortened select committee period. What we need to be doing is sending the message that we are upfront that we are going to be transparent in terms of all elements of our remuneration our privileges and the passing of the laws to enact those. So we think a long select committee process is appropriate. It sends the right message to the public. We are very happy to be supporting this bill today. Kia ora.