Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMembers of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 14 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14717. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) BillThird ReadingHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of thePrime Minister: I moveThat the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill be now read a third time. The Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill represents a significant improvement in modernising the law relating to members’ remuneration and entitlement to services. The bill establishes a new framework for setting entitlements for members of Parliament and the executive. In doing so it implements subject to some modifications many of the recommendations in the Law Commission’s report Review of the Civil List Act 1979: Members of Parliament and Ministers. The bill repeals the Civil List Act 1979—[Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member. It is a longstanding convention that members should not conduct conversations in the House unless it is necessary to do so and then only so as to not disturb the proceedings. Would members leaving the Chamber please do so and show some courtesy to the member who is trying to address the House. It is good conduct and it is being considerate of others.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Thank you. I will not name and shame Mr Twyford on this occasion. The bill modernises and modifies the law relating to the salaries and allowances of MPs; support services provided for MPs Ministers and certain electoral candidates; annuities and other benefits and privileges for former Prime Ministers; and benefits and privileges for former members of Parliament.As members know the bill makes the Remuneration Authority rather than the Speaker responsible for determining accommodation services for MPs and Ministers and also travel services for family members of MPs. It makes the Speaker responsible for setting directions on travel and communication services for MPs and party and member support funding. Thirdly it makes the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services responsible for determining any additional travel services for Ministers over and above those set by the Speaker for MPs. This division of responsibility reflects what are intersecting interests here one interest being that of having entitlements determined independently from those who receive them and the other being the democratic interest in the proper operation of the House and the ability of its members to carry out their functions.The bill also updates the legislative framework for the setting of salaries and allowances for MPs and Ministers. It addresses the current gap in the law relating to authorisation of the starting date for payment of salaries to MPs who enter Parliament mid-term following the vacancy of a seat held by a list member of Parliament. The proposed amendment will allow these members to be paid lawfully. The bill validates the commencement of salaries paid to mid-term list MPs since 1996 and it is a measure that will not incur further costs to the Crown.The bill also substantially increases the financial penalty for MPs who are absent from the House without permission with deductions starting after 3 days’ absence and the amount deducted reflecting the member’s actual salary rather than the salary of an ordinary MP. The financial penalty for absent members used to be based on an ordinary MP’s salary. Now in the bill it is based on the actual salary of the member and as I said it commences after 3 days of absence rather than 9 days’ absence in the original proposal.The bill introduces a financial penalty for members who are suspended from the House. The clauses covering financial penalties for members suspended from the House are new and reflect a recommendation made by the Standing Orders Committee.The bill also provides for entitlements to services to be determined in a way that takes into account the particular requirements of members with physical or sensory impairments. As all MPs are aware in recent years there have been a number of moves to improve transparency around the costs of the House and this bill codifies those moves. It imposes a statutory obligation on the general manager of Parliamentary Service and the Department of Internal Affairs to publish quarterly reports on travel and accommodation costs for both MPs and Ministers. It also imposes a statutory obligation on the Clerk of the House to publish quarterly reports on MPs’ and parties’ use of the interparliamentary relations programme.The bill also addresses the operation of the scheme providing certain former members with entitlements. As recommended by the Law Commission the bill legislates for the former member travel entitlements of MPs elected before—take note Mr Assistant Speaker—1999 thereby making those entitlements transparent and able to be changed only by legislative amendment. It introduces a statutory regime that sets out how these travel entitlements can be lost including for various offences. It also imposes a statutory obligation on Parliamentary Service to publish on an annual basis the travel expenses of former MPs.In conclusion this bill makes a number of very sensible changes and these are done to ensure that the House and its members are properly supported in a way that maintains confidence in the integrity of Parliament. I commend the bill to the House.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I commend the Minister Chris Finlayson for his words in the third reading of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill and also acknowledge the members of the Government Administration Committee who have worked pretty hard on this bill. I think we asked for two extensions in order to get the agreement of all members of the select committee. There are three parties in the Government Administration Committee—National Labour and the Greens—and all parties agreed completely in the end. Actually during the process we had quite a lot of differing opinions even within each party because some of these issues are not as black and white or as straightforward as some matters are. We also had pretty impressive contributions to our deliberation including from the former Speaker of the House the Rt Hon Sir Lockwood Smith now resident in London who made a very considered and robust contribution to the thinking of the committee. I want to acknowledge his contribution as well as the contribution of the Clerk of the House and others who also made very considered contributions.The primary driver of this legislation is to modernise the regime under which members of Parliament’s remuneration and services are provided and not only to address what are some clear anomalies or gaps in the system but also to improve transparency. I think without doubt that that was an issue on which all members of the Government Administration Committee which I am privileged to chair reached agreement immediately. We understand from our own constituents that when publicmoney is used when taxpayers’ money is funding the operation of Parliament there has to be the highest level of transparency in the use of that money. I am very pleased that this legislation has progressed that transparency even further than the original proposals. It certainly has been the case in the last 10 or 15 years particularly I suppose that there has been more transparency in the use of public money. I do not know whether the public is yet at a time when they can say: “Yes this feels right and we understand what the money is used for.” but I certainly hope that after the passing of this legislation that transparency will increase the public confidence in the operation of Parliament because that is pretty important.The next round of decisions that we considered were who made determinations about remuneration and support services that members of Parliament and their parliamentary staff and out-of-Parliament staff may receive—whether that determination should be made by the Speaker of the House or whether that determination should be made by the Remuneration Authority. We changed by unanimous agreement of the select committee the provision in regard to the travel for members of Parliament. We agreed that that would remain the responsibility of the Speaker and this is for a very simple reason. It is because we view the travel that members of Parliament undertake as being a fundamental part of the work of a member of Parliament. For those of us who live outside Wellington—thankfully—and indeed outside this island we know that it is our responsibility to come to Parliament every week. That is part of the travel that we undertake as part of our job.It was our view that the work-related requirement of a member of Parliament to be able to travel to perform their duties—not just travelling from home to Parliament but also travelling from home or Parliament to other duties either as a Minister as a spokesperson as a National Party backbencher or as an Opposition spokesperson—is really critical to not only fulfilling your job as a member of Parliament but also ensuring that we have a healthy democracy. We cannot have a democracy that flourishes in Wellington and ignores the rest of the country. So it was our view that the proper place in which that determination should be made was with the Speaker. We did not however feel the same in regard to the travel that family members are able to access. We agree that it is a very important supporting part of being a member of Parliament to have family members able to travel to provide support on various occasions but we did not agree that it was fundamental to your job. Therefore we agreed that the determination of travel for family members should properly go to the Remuneration Authority.With the provision of support services we believe that that is again a core role of fulfilling your duties as a member of Parliament and it should therefore be a determination of the Speaker. I am really delighted that this bill clarifies that the funding of support services for any member of Parliament is the responsibility of Parliament and not the responsibility of the individual party to which the member who needs those support services belongs. We have had instances—over the last well perhaps since Invercargill was held by a Labour member of Parliament so it goes back quite a long way—where members of Parliament have a physical or sensory impairment and may require different support services in order that they can perform their full function as a member of Parliament compared with other members. There has been a debate in recent times about whether those support services for a member with a physical or sensory impairment should be funded by the party that that member belongs to or whether it is the responsibility of Parliament. We have kicked that out the door and said that without doubt this is the responsibility of Parliament. I hope that this gives a really clear message to all disabled New Zealanders that they would be welcome in this Parliament as contributing members regardless of what party they were elected torepresent and that Parliament would consider it our responsibility to provide proper support services so that they are able to perform their duties.There are a couple of other points that I just want to draw to the attention of the House. I mentioned right at the beginning our very quick and unanimous agreement on the point of recognising how the public feels about their taxpayers’ money being used for these purposes—to fund the operation of Parliament including not only the salaries of members of Parliament and their support services but also the allowances that former members of Parliament get. That is often an issue of contention. It was our view that this was a very important area in terms of improving transparency of the use of those funds. So the travel of former members of Parliament will now become part of the public record. Again I do hope that members of the public see that as a good thing. It is their money not our money and how it is used should be a matter of public record so that people can then make their contribution known in a debate about whether that is a fair use or a good use.I am sure that many people in our constituencies quite often wonder what we do when we come to Parliament as indeed will the thousands and thousands of people who will be watching this debate on television. They will look around the room and they will see many seats that do not have a member sitting on them. They will wonder whether the person has knocked off early and gone home or whether they have gone down Lambton Quay to do some shopping. What are they doing if they are not sitting in the House? Well we know as members of Parliament that the commitments outside the Chamber are real. We have other meetings that we all attend and they are meetings that are important to us for various reasons. But for a member of Parliament just to go AWOL and not turn up at all is not acceptable to any of us so we have increased the penalties that those AWOL members will have to pay. We have linked it directly to their salary so if a Minister goes AWOL they will not be penalised on the basis of their salary being a backbencher’s salary; they will be penalised as a percentage of the ministerial salary they receive. That should give a very clear message that when members of Parliament are elected to be representatives they should turn up and do their job.The same applies for members of Parliament who are suspended for bad behaviour. Fortunately we do not get that very often. I did think during question time today that there might be a bit of a clear-out but in the end there was not; the Speaker dropped his focus on removing some members. But if a member is suspended from the House then we think there should be a financial penalty attached to that and that is included in the provisions here. Clause 14A in the bill came directly from a recommendation of the Standing Orders Committee.I think that the work that we have done has been pretty rigorous. It was not always black and white. There were some differences in consideration but I think we got quality submissions. I think that we all worked really hard to make sure that the public funds that are used to support our democracy in New Zealand have not only a fair process but also a transparent process. Thank you.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): It is a pleasure to stand for the third reading of this particular bill the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill. I felt that the Attorney-General Mr Finlayson gave a wonderful introduction to the third reading—Chris Hipkins: He thought so too.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: —yes; indeed it is a very serious bill—and it was followed equally well by the speech made by the chair of the Government Administration Committee Ruth Dyson. It has been a pleasure to work with her as her deputy on this particular issue.I guess one could see this bill as a continuum—a continuum of change of updating of looking ahead and of bringing the services that we have in Parliament which are entirely for the nation to a level that is commensurate with modern travel modern working ethics and modern communications systems. Things change. In the past there have been all sorts of different ways of establishing processes procedures and entitlements for MPs.There used to be a time of course—and I am sure the Speaker can correct me if I am wrong; not that I am suggesting it is within his purview or memory—when MPs simply stayed here for a whole block of time during a year completed the business and then went back and worked in their electorates rather than the weekly business that we transact now. Who knows? With electronic communication we may well be able to change further in the future.This bill has been a refreshing bill to be part of and I am very pleased that we have addressed this during my time in Parliament and that I have been able to participate in the process. This Government is committed to having MPs’ and Ministers’ entitlements determined in a transparent independent and non-partisan manner. It is important that the public has confidence in the regime for setting entitlements. The bill puts more power in the hands of independent decision-makers appointed to do the job. The Speaker and the Government have already taken several steps to improve transparency around entitlements and this bill takes that a step further and sets it in legislation.One of the features that I think was particularly important was the select committee process. Members of the Government Administration Committee were particularly well advised during the process of this bill. The submissions came from a range of people with much experience in the matter of how Parliament runs and the officials available to the committee were drawn from several disciplines. I think I speak for all committee members when I say that the advice we received was uniformly of a very high calibre indeed.Changes were introduced to the bill as it progressed through the select committee. This is actually what select committees are there to do. There has been some criticism in some media that—gosh—the select committee has made changes. Well it would be of concern if the select committee did not make changes as a result of its consideration of the submissions it received. That is why we do not need two Houses of Parliament; we just have the one because select committees fulfil such an important part of the process.I might make the point that I think it is particularly important to have full involvement of all parties in the process that select committees go through. I am always a little concerned when everything seems to be completed in the select committee process which is the real place to have debate and parties then put forward Supplementary Order Papers. The select committee is the place to have the debate—when the committee is working together with the advisers and after the advisers have gone when the committee makes its own considerations. For parties to then come forward with Supplementary Order Papers that we have not had the opportunity to debate is a disappointment and it did occur with this bill. However the bill reaches its completion in the third reading and I am very very happy to give it my support. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Christopher Hipkins.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): That is what my mother called me normally when I had been very poorly behaved.I do have to disagree with something that Chris Auchinvole said when he said that he was delighted to speak on the third reading of this bill the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill. I do not feel quite the same level of joy. It would befair to say that there is not a huge number of MPs queuing up to speak on this particular topic because there is a fair degree of public cynicism I think when it comes to MPs talking about their own pay and rations if you like. I think potentially that if you look at the situation historically often with some good reason the public would look on us debating these matters and talking about how hard we work and how we need this and how we need that with a degree of cynicism.I think that if you look back over the history of this debate sometimes it has actually been fair and justified. I think that is absolutely right. I think that over time MPs have if you like responded to the public pressure and public criticism of those matters and have put in place steps to ensure that there is a degree of independence in how many of these issues are decided. We do not vote on our own salaries contrary I think to what many in the public would think. We do not determine our own salaries. We actually get very little say in how much we get paid. I do want to say however that I love being a member of Parliament. I feel incredibly privileged to have the honour of being a member of Parliament. I certainly do not think I am poorly recompensed for being a member of Parliament. All I ask for is that we are given the tools we need to do the job we are put here to do by the voters of New Zealand and that we are able to do that job effectively.I do not expect to get rich by being a member of Parliament but nor do I want to see a situation evolve where you have to be rich in order to become a member of Parliament. I think it is very very important that in this House of Representatives we do have a genuinely representative Parliament. I think that if we sort of erode a lot of the support that is available to members of Parliament to the extent that many in the public would like to see happen we will create a situation where somebody needs to be independently wealthy and able to support themselves before they can actually function effectively as a member of Parliament and a representative of the people. I would hate to see Parliament become that way. I do not expect to become hugely wealthy by being an MP but nor do I think I should have to go out and become wealthy before I can come here and represent the people who elect me.I think there have been some really important aspects to this debate that I do not want to overlook. Metiria Turei is here and I am sure she is going to be speaking after me. One of the points that Metiria Turei raised in the debate in the Committee stage earlier in the week was the need to distinguish between what is of personal benefit to members of Parliament and what is a work-related expense. In principle I want to say that I absolutely do agree with that. The reality though is that it is quite difficult in many instances to determine that particularly when it comes to travel. On the issue of accommodation and on the issue of salary where there is personal benefit that has been removed from parliamentarians’ hands and given to the Remuneration Authority which is independent and I think that is the right thing to do.The issue of travel is very difficult because members of Parliament travel not just to and from Parliament but to and from their homes to other parts of the country for work-related reasons and it is sometimes difficult to distinguish what is work-related travel and what is personal travel. For example—I will give a nice easy one—a member of Parliament from Auckland flies to Wellington each week to be here as a parliamentarian and to be in the House. From time to time members of Parliament will need to go home during the week for family-related reasons. Is that personal travel or is that work-related travel? They are here for work but they have to return home for personal reasons. How would we classify that? If someone is at the other end of the country—say in Dunedin—on work-related business and then they might have a gap of a day where they go back home and then they return to Dunedin 2 days later to do some other work-related thing is that work-related travel or is that personal travel? They are returning to their home for personal reasons.It is sometimes very difficult to distinguish between what is work related and what is personal when it comes to travel. In many many other things it is very easy to distinguish. When it comes to our salaries it is a personal benefit. That is what we get paid back for the jobs we do.Tim Macindoe: I hope it’s work related.CHRIS HIPKINS: Well we are earning it but there is an element of personal benefit in earning money. I do not think anyone would disagree with that. So I think that it is fair that that be determined independently of us but I think that in the case of travel that can be quite difficult.The other thing about travel is that I agree with transparency in so far as MPs’ travel costs are concerned but I think we need to be careful about the extent to which we take that. I think that the transparency we have around travel now has already changed behaviour probably to what it was before I ever became an MP. I have been an MP for only 5 years. I think that prior to that MPs could have free unfettered travel anywhere around the country. There was no transparency and accountability around that. Now the total amount that MPs spend on travel each year is disclosed. I think that is probably the appropriate level for disclosure.If we got into the situation where every individual flight or every individual taxi fare had to be disclosed we would quickly find ourselves in the position where members of Parliament would become less accessible to the public because every individual visit a member of Parliament did would have to be justified publicly one at a time. People would stop doing things because they would not want to disclose the individual details of all the things they were doing. I think that would be unfortunate. So I think the disclosure level we have got now where we are disclosing how much is spent on travel is the appropriate level and it does encourage members of Parliament to be as efficient as possible in making their travel arrangements. I think we have got that balance about right.The other thing I also want to make clear is the safeguards that have been built in to this legislation for the taxpayer. If any one of the things that takes place under this bill does amount to a personal benefit to members of Parliament then the Remuneration Authority must take that into consideration in determining the salaries of members of Parliament. Basically what it says is that if parliamentarians appropriate for themselves something that has a personal benefit then the Remuneration Authority will take that personal benefit into account and offset that against the salary and the salary will be deducted accordingly. So it is a safeguard to stop—I am sure it would not happen in this Parliament—any future Parliaments from basically awarding themselves some personal benefit in addition to their salary because it will be offset against their salary. I think that is a good safeguard for the taxpayer to know that there are protections in place to stop that sort of thing from happening.There are a few things in this bill that I think are welcome and overdue and normally I guess in any other place would just be dealt with by an employer. But here because of the unusual employment relationships we have we do have to have legislation. The “AWOL” clause as I refer to it has been mentioned several times—members of Parliament being absent without leave for a period of time. There have been very few provisions that have been able to discourage that behaviour and penalise that behaviour and this bill deals with that. I mentioned my solution to that in the Committee stage of this debate which is that I believe speaking as a former whip that some form of microchipping or ankle bracelets would be an appropriate monitoring mechanism to ensure that members of Parliament were doing—electrified ankle bracelets would beeven better to incentivise the appropriate behaviour by members of Parliament. But I have yet to have widespread support for that idea from my colleagues unfortunately.I also believe that in the cases where members of Parliament are suspended from the House their salaries should be docked. I want to be clear though that that does not mean that they get turfed out of the Chamber for naughty behaviour and they go back to their offices and continue working. Suspension from Parliament means they are named and being named means there has to be a vote in the House. It happens rarely but I think it is important that when it happens there is some consequence for that because that encourages MPs to lift their behaviour and to avoid getting named by the Speaker. Now there is provision in this legislation to ensure that their salaries will be deducted accordingly if they find themselves in that position.The final clause that I want to mention which I think is long overdue is the ability now in this legislation to cancel under certain circumstances the travel and other entitlements for former members of Parliament. There is a lot of public disquiet about the fact that former members of Parliament actually get travel entitlements once they cease being members of Parliament. Again I want to make it clear that that has changed. The world has changed. It relates only to an ever-diminishing group of members of Parliament. Anyone who came in after 1996 I think it was does not qualify for that any more. We do not have the gold-plated superannuation scheme that they used to have. A lot of those things have gone now. There is a lot more transparency about it and I think that that is a welcome thing.This bill is a step in the right direction. I think we will continue to evolve continue to increase the level of transparency and accountability that members of Parliament have around these matters and I think that that is a very positive thing.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I want to thank Chris Hipkins and say that I agree with a great deal of what he has just said in the House on the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill. I think he is absolutely right that the process by which we are increasing the transparency and the independence in the setting of MPs’ allowances and expenses and salaries is a very good thing. It is continually evolving and we have had a great deal more change over the last 5 years than we probably had in the previous 30 years. So clearly Parliament is doing its best to respond to public issues respond to media scrutiny and respond to a modern environment. We are in the 21st century now. We operate in a different environment than we did last century.I agree absolutely about the concern of representation. This is a House of Representatives. Wealth is not a criterion for entry here and should never be. It has been in the past I think but it should never be ever again. Anyone from any walk of life should be able to come to this House based on their community support and on the nation’s support to represent their people and their interests here.I would disagree with Chris just on one issue really which is around the public view of MPs and MPs’ expenses. I have more optimism actually about the public view. Iain Lees-Galloway raises his eyebrows and understandably so. But I would just note for the House that we have been debating this legislation around MPs expenses and allowances which is of intense interest to a few and there has been very little public discourse or discussion about the debate that we are having and are about to conclude. We are doing so in a week where theNew Zealand Heraldhas run three stories on MPs’ expenses and other media have been doing rolling stories as well. There has been a little bit of heat around that but nothing like what we saw in 2009 and 2010. We also have the issue that people tell me about—that the Remuneration Authority is soon to announce what MPs’ pay will be for the next 12 months—and yet there has not been this great public fury. There has been a public discussion. There have been different viewsexpressed and expressed publicly—expressed on Twitter on social media and in the news and people are asked for their views. There is I agree some cynicism from the public about how all of our expenses and allowances and salaries are set and our involvement in all of that. But again it is nothing like the public backlash that we might have expected in earlier years and nothing like the public backlash that I think MPs are concerned about.I think that the public in the main understand that we need to be paid for our job and that we need financial resources to do our job and to do our job properly. What they expect from us in exchange is transparency on how we use those public resources that we do our jobs properly that we are a good workforce and do what is expected of us and that we do not take personal benefit from the use of that public money beyond our pay. It is a perfectly reasonable expectation and there has been a perfectly reasonable in my view debate about this. I am very surprised at how little heat there has been this week comparatively speaking. So I have a more optimistic view about the public and their view about how we are managing this issue and I do think that it signals very strongly that there will be further change.As the House knows the Green Party did not agree with the travel expenses for MPs remaining with the Speaker. We preferred the original bill that came to the House which said that the travel expenses would go to the Remuneration Authority along with the accommodation allowances and other issues. We talked about that at the Government Administration Committee. We came to an agreement that we had got as far as we could get with that committee. We have put those issues back to this House. The House decided not to support that view—such is the democratic process. But again there is no great heat in this discussion. It is simply about how we are managing to evolve in taking the steps as far as we can go.We are very pleased with the changes that the legislation has made—make no mistake. We are very pleased with the recognition of MPs being entitled to support when they have an impairment that prevents them from being able to use the same supports that MPs without impairment get. We think absolutely that a financial contribution to managing the barriers that those impairments place on MPs’ engagement should be the responsibility of the entire organisation and not just of an MP. We are very pleased that accommodation allowances are moving to the Remuneration Authority. That was raised this week. We are very pleased that the Green Party’s original proposal for the release of our expenses which we started in 2009 has now been put in legislation. Up until now it had been a policy. It had not been a legislative requirement and now it is. It is fantastic. That is the process of change. That is what progress is—the process of change. So that is all great work.There is still a question—and Chris Hipkins raised this—around how to deal with the issue of personal benefit from the travel allowance. Chris Hipkins is quite right. If we were to say that we would keep the travel allowance in-house under the Speaker but that we would restrict it to being used for parliamentary purposes only we would have to have a conversation a discussion about what constitutes parliamentary purposes and we would need to have that with the public because there is public interest in determining how that works. There may be the construction of rules—or guidelines; rules actually not guidelines—that we would develop to show that we could do our jobs do them effectively represent our communities and return to our homes which was the example that was given. All of those things would be within a set of rules that we largely agree to by consensus—by all members of the House and by the public. That is possible. We can have that conversation and I expect that we will. This is not the end point. There will be more change and those conversations will get easier over time just as this one has been much easier than the last time we talked about these issues.Increasing transparency is great. It is good to see that in the bill. MPs will always be under scrutiny.I would just note one thing of interest to the public—if it is of interest—which is of course that MPs are not employed. We are here by the operation of the law. We are removed from our role only by the operation of the law. So that is why our salaries for example and the other tools that we need for our jobs are incorporated into the law. We have no legal structure for our employment so we are in a very unique situation compared with any other group of employees anywhere else in the country and that is why so much of this is public. I do not know about other members but it seems to me that often we read about our salary increases in the newspaper. There are little small things like that that make our lives more interesting and it does bring some real public transparency into the work that we do.The Green Party will support this legislation. We see it as a great step. We are very pleased about the nature of the conversation that has been had over this legislation particularly given some of the political heat this week but we do remind members that there will be calls for more change. So the question then becomes: how do we want to respond to those calls and how do we express to the public that we do trust them to acknowledge the right that we have to do our job properly the right to the tools that we need to do our job and the right to fair remuneration for it?My final comment is that it will always be difficult for us particularly in terms of MPs’ pay for as long as there is severe inequity in this country for as long as the minimum wage is a political decision made by the Prime Minister and not made independently of the political environment and for as long as there continues to be an increase—a significant increase—in higher salaries which MPs also receive and very very small incremental increases if any in the lowest wages. That inequity will continue to bring more scrutiny on MPs. We are making decisions about other people’s pay and other people’s employment conditions—every year we go through cycles of making changes to their pay and changes to their employment conditions—and yet we squeal a little when those decisions are being made about our own pay and employment conditions. That is not fair and we will need to change that also. Thank you.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Sat sri akaal Mr Assistant Speaker. Thanks for the opportunity to speak on the third reading of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill. The bill before the House for its third reading today improves the legislation relating to elected members’ remuneration and entitlement to services. It provides a new framework towards providing entitlements for members of Parliament and the executive. The improvements to the legislation are based on the Law Commission’s reportReview of the Civil List Act 1979: Members of Parliament and Ministers.As a member of the Government Administration Committee I acknowledge the work that my colleagues the officials and the submitters have done on this bill. I agree with my colleague Chris Auchinvole that this bill is in line with the Government’s decision to bring transparency independence and non-partisanship into determining the entitlements of Ministers and members of Parliament.By way of this legislation the Remuneration Authority will decide on the entitlements of MPs and the executive. Also under the new legislation and by way of a statutory requirement all MPs whether present or former will need to disclose their travel and accommodation expenses on a periodic basis. Furthermore MPs can no longer skip Parliament with a token penalty for their non-attendance. The deduction from an MP’s salary for non-attendance will rise from $10 a day currently to 0.2 percent of the member’s salary. This equates to about $289 a day. No doubt this is a significantamount to pay and it will ensure that all of us are present here in the House doing our duties. With these words I commend this bill to the House.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): It is a pleasure to take a call in the third reading of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill. It is a good bill. It has got to be a good bill when for example the legislation is based on the recommendation of the Law Commission in December 2010 that the current sanctions for MPs who do not attend Parliament for long periods are grossly inadequate. For example when Labour MP Chris Carter was fined only $10 a day for his 14-day absence that was only $140 for that 14-day absence. Under the new law he could be fined about $289 a day as my colleague Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi just said or more than $4000. It has got to be a good bill. Thank you.JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): I commend the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill to the House.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I will have to write down that contribution from Jami-Lee Ross after I have finished mine. That was astonishingly short. I can understand members’ reticence to make a contribution on this bill but I think we do owe it to the public to at least discuss the contents of the bill and discuss what it is designed to do. It may be something that we as members feel a little uncomfortable discussing in front of the public but the fact that it makes us feel a little uncomfortable discussing it probably ought to be one of the reasons why we do actually have a proper debate about this Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill.The purpose of this bill is to establish a new framework for setting entitlements for members of Parliament and the executive. It repeals the Civil List Act 1979 and changes the law regarding the salaries and allowances of members of Parliament the support services provided for members of Parliament Ministers and certain electoral candidates the annuities and other benefits and privileges for former Prime Ministers and the benefits and privileges for former members of Parliament. Essentially what that all means is that it modernises the regime for giving members of Parliament and members of the executive the resources and tools we require to carry out the tasks of being a member of Parliament and being a representative of the people of New Zealand.A number of members have said—those who have contributed to the debate today—how these things have changed over time. One reason why the regime for pay and support services for MPs has changed is a desire for greater transparency—a desire expressed both by the public and by members of Parliament. But another reason is simply the fact that the environment in which members of Parliament operate now and the expectations of members of Parliament have changed over the years. There was a time when members of Parliament did not receive resources to open an office in their electorate. They did not receive resources to staff offices in their electorates and to provide services to their constituents although most members of Parliament did. They either funded it themselves or relied on volunteers—often members of their family—to provide those services to their constituents. A decision was made pleasingly some decades ago that that was not adequate and our constituents deserved better service than that so resources were provided to members of Parliament in order to provide those services.Likewise with the advent of air travel and other forms of travel it was deemed appropriate that members of Parliament should not only be able to travel to and from Wellington to carry out their functions here as legislators but also be able to travel around the country to carry out their functions as representatives. This is because we do not just represent the people of our constituencies—although for those of us who are electorate members of Parliament it is our primary function I believe to represent thoseconstituents—it is also incumbent on us to make sure that we are representing the interests of people across the country. Most of us hold portfolios of one type or another and it is a requirement that we travel around and actually speak to the people working in those areas so that we actually have a grasp of what is happening at the front line what is happening in reality and we do not get stuck in the ivory tower that is the parliamentary complex.Hon Maryan Street: Or in Nelson.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes—Ms Street suggested Nelson might also be an ivory tower. So these resources are very much made available to members of Parliament so that we can provide the services that are expected of us.Other more recent innovations are the internet and email. I am sure all MPs—just like probably most other people in New Zealand and workers in New Zealand—have a love-hate relationship with emails. They certainly give constituents far better access to us. It is certainly much faster—usually—to email your member of Parliament and hopefully get a timely response from them rather than relying on old-fashioned mail. But that of course means that we have to be resourced in order to provide that service; we have to be accessible and available to our constituents. That ultimately is what the resources side of this is about.Of course it is also about ensuring that members of Parliament are reasonably recompensed for the work that they do. As Chris Hipkins rightly pointed out I think it is about striking a balance and ensuring that someone does not need to be independently wealthy—they do not need to be a rich person—in order to enter Parliament because it is a House of Representatives. We ought to represent the whole diversity of our nation—rich poor old young ethnicities of all varieties backgrounds of all varieties careers of all varieties. If we were to overly restrict the remuneration of members of Parliament that would limit the different kinds of people who could come into this place. Nor should you come to Parliament in order to become rich. That is not a reason to seek election and to seek to represent the people whom you purport to represent. I think we have over the years come up with systems that do strike that balance appropriately. However members of Parliament are well remunerated when compared with most people in New Zealand. I think we have to acknowledge that although we think it is a fair remuneration we are amongst the top income earners in New Zealand. It is understandable that there is scrutiny and an expectation that we will be absolutely transparent about what we earn and the way we use the resources that are available to us.So the key changes in this legislation are around improving transparency and are around ensuring that we have the right matters dealt with by the Remuneration Authority and the right matters dealt with by the Speaker. Particularly I think it is important that members of Parliament acknowledge that our primary function when the House is sitting is to be here in the House legislating. That is our job. That is not to say that there are not good valid reasons why some of us for some of the time need to be away from the House but our primary role is to pass legislation. That is actually what we are sent here to do. That is what people elect us to do.One of the key changes that this legislation allows for is to the penalties for being away from Parliament without good reason without the authority of the party whips or the Speaker depending on the different regimes for different people whether they be independent small parties or part of a larger party. It is true that the penalty system that was in place before really had no impact. There was no incentive to carry out our primary functions and be here in the House under the old system. The new system certainly does create an incentive for members of Parliament to be here. With it will come a new regime where we are now all going to be checked off to make sure that weare here in Parliament to ensure that at least at some point in time in the day we make an appearance here in the debating chamber and/or that we make an appearance at a select committee and if we do not do that that there is a good explanation for that that the Speaker or the whips are aware of. I think that does create the right incentives and that members of the public will appreciate that that expectation has been built into the legislation.I think that this is good legislation. It strikes the right balance both in terms of the remuneration of MPs and also placing the correct responsibilities with the correct authorities so that the right decisions are made. It grants members of Parliament the tools they require to carry out the functions of this role to an adequate level and ensures that the constituents that we serve get the services that they expect from their members of Parliament. I commend this bill to the House.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I think members have traversed the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill very well and have articulated very well the main points. In the spirit of this bill I do not wish to waste any more taxpayers’ money by taking up Parliament’s time. I commend the bill to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Is this going to be a split call?GARETH HUGHES (Green): That is up to Labour. No I understand that it will not be. Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I do not think I will take my full 10 minutes for this call. What we are discussing are MPs’ remuneration and expenses. I think the important thing to put on the public record is what an incredible privilege it is for each and every one of us to be able to sit in this Chamber at the public’s pleasure because of their direct democracy and their votes. It is an incredible privilege and one that we must remind ourselves of every day. We get budgets to employ staff and to travel the country as part of our work and a very very fair remuneration package. I think it is important to remember that each and every one of those dollars is paid by a New Zealand taxpayer. It is incredibly critical that we are reminded of the privilege and reminded that we are not spending our money; we are spending the public’s money.I believe that every single member in this Parliament has entered this Chamber with a desire to do what is right for this country to do what is behind their vision and I do not believe that any MP has come to this Parliament to get wealthy. Obviously though there is a huge discrepancy between the average wage the median wage the minimum wage and the wage that MPs and Ministers get in New Zealand.It is right that the public should scrutinise MPs’ expenses and remuneration. It is right that the public should question the entitlements and the perks. It is also right that the cartoonists and people at barbecues can poke a bit of fun at MPs as well because what we know is that sunlight is the best disinfectant. It is important that we have a public conversation out in the open when it comes to MPs’ entitlements remuneration and other aspects of our financial accountability. For too long it was held behind closed doors. MPs were seen to be the ones setting their own pay rates setting their own entitlements and setting their own superannuation. Obviously the public was against that because it is not right. It goes against the principles of appropriate decision making. Those affected should not be the ones setting the decisions. That is why you see cartoons of pigs in the trough and the like.So I am quite proud to say that the Green Party for a long time has been the champion of greater transparency and openness when it comes to MPs’ remuneration and expenses. It was the Green Party members who in 2009 publicly and voluntarily disclosed our expenses and then we saw the commendable decision by Speaker Lockwood Smith to apply that across Parliament. We believe in transparency. We have championed it for a long time and although the Members of Parliament (Remunerationand Services) Bill is a step in the right direction and we will be supporting it we still think that there is some way to go.So what we see with this bill are basically a few minor changes. We are seeing the so-called Chris Carter clause clause 14 which is increasing the daily penalty rate for MPs who are not present on the precinct or doing parliamentary work. We are seeing changes around the Remuneration Authority’s role. What we did originally see in the first reading of the bill was that MPs’ travel expenses were also going to be moved from the Speaker to the Remuneration Authority. That was taken out of the bill. It is something the Green Party attempted to put back in through an amendment to the legislation but it was not successful.Just to go through a bit of history it is not just about the recent allegations from theNew Zealand Herald and in particular the staggeringly high number of private superannuation schemes of the National Party members; this has been an issue for a long time. It is not just about moats and UK parliamentarians rorting the system there; this has been an issue for a long time. I take your minds back to some of the superannuation schemes and travel allowances that I believe led to Metiria Turei putting a motion some years ago to the Parliamentary Service Commission. That stimulated I understand the Law Commission investigation that is the genesis of this bill which we should be passing today. It has had some history. It is good to be seeing progress on it.A point of debate and controversy through the second reading and the Committee stage of the bill was what should happen with MPs’ travel and accommodation expenses. We supported the original inclusion that it should be an independent body that decides because if MPs through the Speaker of this Parliament are the ones deciding the travel and accommodation entitlements quite rightfully the public can question whether MPs are making decisions in their own interests.It is much more desirable to have an independent authority such as the Remuneration Authority setting this entitlement. I also note that Sir Geoffrey Palmer said it was incredibly sad that this recommendation from the Law Commission was not adopted. We put the amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 369 to the Committee. Unfortunately it was not successful but I think that this is where we are ultimately going to see it because the principle is consistent. Those making decisions and benefiting from them should not be making those decisions.I would also like to acknowledge the amendment put up by the member Brendan Horan on Supplementary Order Paper 368 which was to have a 3-year freeze on remuneration entitlements. I think that from the public’s perspective it is absolutely galling that they are struggling to pay the power bills they are struggling to purchase healthy food and housing costs are going through the roof but what we see every Christmas it seems is MPs getting another pay rise. Despite their being set by an independent authority we also know that those pay rises only ever go in one direction.So we think having a 3-year freeze could help the public have some more confidence in it. Obviously we have now got to a state where there is a media frenzy before every Christmas about what the pay rise will be for MPs and how far it will be backdated. We support the proposal that it should be set at a 3-year period so we would not be getting those constant increases. So we put up some proposals and we supported some other proposals. They did not pass but ultimately I think this is the start of a process for greater transparency and openness for our Parliament.We would like to celebrate the inclusion of greater support for members with disabilities. I think Mojo Mathers has made history by being the first deaf MP in our Parliament. What we saw in the early days of her taking her seat in this House were some wrangles over who was going to pay for her support. What this legislation does issay very clearly that every MP has the right to fully participate in the House and if additional services are needed they will be provided whether they be for a member in wheelchair which may mean we have to modify the Chamber and the precincts through to providing a TV screen and translation services so Mojo can participate fully in this House. I think it is critical that this Parliament sends a message to all New Zealanders no matter what their disability that their views and opinions are respected they are valued and we want to hear them. What we do not want to be doing is sending the signal either consciously or subconsciously explicitly or implicitly that disabled members because of the extra needs should feel guilty about taking extra resources.Thirdly in this bill we are seeing the attendance register for MPs being created in statute. I know the Standing Orders Committee is looking at how we are going to deal with this in practice. I think what we are going to see is an extra workload for the whips and the Speaker of Parliament but I believe what we saw with the member Chris Carter was that the $10 a day fee was simply laughable. Increasing that figure will give the public greater confidence. Ultimately this is what this legislation is all about. It is about the public being able to have confidence in their elected officials—all of us who have the privilege to sit in this House—to represent the people of New Zealand. To represent our electorates and constituencies we need them to have confidence. If MPs are seen to be rorting the system we are lessening the respect for this institution.Four quick points I want to say going forward are firstly obviously we need to set travel allowances independently. Secondly I think we need to remove the personal travel perk. I know it is seen with a great deal of scorn by the public that MPs can go on a holiday on the taxpayer’s dime through their travel entitlements. I understand this is a historical remuneration package but I do not think that the public understands it. I do not think the public sees the rationale behind it. It is something that I do not use and have never used. I think in the future this has to go.Obviously travel for professional parliamentary business is most appropriate. But every time you are at the airport—and I am sure that many members have this—most likely on parliamentary purpose the public are looking at you questioning whether you are off to Great Barrier Island or Queenstown for a weekend. So I think for the public to have greater confidence in the system this must be removed. Thirdly I think we need to have greater transparency and increase the ability of the Official Information Act to include how parties spend their public money.I think there is a lot more we can do. This is just the beginning. It is not the end. I think the public and this Parliament should celebrate greater openness and transparency when it comes to financial accountability for our elected members of Parliament. Kia ora.TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): When the member for Palmerston North spoke a few moments ago he expressed some surprise—and in fact he was quite critical—at the fact that some of the latter speakers from the National side in this debate made very short contributions. This is a matter of genuine public interest so I just want to put it on the record for anybody who may be listening that there are actually only two National MPs on the Government Administration Committee who are eligible to speak in debates in this House. That is actually the reason for that. In fact I should also point out since the chair of the committee Ruth Dyson is interjecting at the moment that not all the Labour speakers have taken their calls in this debate either. So I think they just need to be mindful of the fact that it cuts both ways.The Government Administration Committee nevertheless has done very good work on this Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill. I was not involved in their work at all. I did not hear the submissions but by all accounts they did give them due consideration. They have paid sufficient respect to the sensitivities of the membersof the public on this issue so I thank them for that. I acknowledge the very thoughtful and intelligent contributions of all members of the House in this third reading debate and I too support this bill.Bill read a third time.