Horan Brendan: Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHoran Brendan: Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 12 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14573. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): Thank you for the call. In addressing the important preliminary provisions in Part 1 of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill which determines remuneration for MPs I would like to indicate my intention to seek a couple of calls on this part to discuss the purposes outlined in clause 3 and also the changes to clause 4 proposed by Metiria Turei’s Supplementary Order Paper. Clauses 3 and 4 set out the purposes of the Act and provide an overview a road map of the substance of the bill. In clause 3(1) we are told: “The primary purpose of this Act is to ensure that the House of Representatives and its members are properly supported in a way that maintains confidence in the integrity of Parliament.” That is a bit of a masterpiece of drafting but it does not reflect what a difficult task it is to achieve that in the real world.I live in Mount Maunganui and speaking to the people of Mount Maunganui and Tauranga I can tell you that everybody thinks that MPs are well paid—that is well paidby the standards of the average Kiwi. I know there are many MPs who could be earning more in other jobs and other businesses and who view their work here as a service to their country. Be that as it may Kiwis think that MPs are well paid. What is not realised by a lot of people in New Zealand is that MPs do not set their wages. A few people who take an interest know that there is an independent body called the Remuneration Authority which sets wages for MPs. We can make submissions as indeed this House did in 2009 when it supported the motion of Jeanette Fitzsimons for a nil wage order but the Remuneration Authority makes its decisions independently and tells MPs what their wages will be.I will have a little more to say on this in the debate on Part 2 and the Supplementary Order Paper in my name proposing to have MPs’ pay determined before the election and to apply for the 3-year term. I must say that I hope that parties in this Committee will support that when we come to it although I was quite surprised today when I was interviewed by a reporter who said that she had spoken to some MPs who were not going to vote for my Supplementary Order Paper because they did not like me. I would just say that I am sorry for their poor judge of character but also it would really surprise me if an MP in this House ever voted on something because they did not like somebody rather than based on the content or the merit of that particular Supplementary Order Paper.To return to clause 3 it is not easy to preserve confidence in the integrity of Parliament. Indeed some actions by some MPs may be said to directly attack that confidence. However the second leg of the clause is to ensure members are properly supported. In other words we have to have the tools to do the job. If we were plumbers—David Bennett: Who wrote this speech? Did Winston write it?BRENDAN HORAN: Nah he is down in Christchurch at the racing.David Bennett: Is he? Oh good on him.BRENDAN HORAN: Yes. If we were plumbers we would need the tools to do the job. If we were builders we would need tools also. I would like to acknowledge the Hon Maurice Williamson for clarity on this point. We would each need a cellphone a ute and a dog. But we are members of Parliament. We need information. I would like to acknowledge the important role that the Parliamentary Library undertakes for all MPs and the wonderful job that it does. We also need access to internet and email and also the skills and competencies required as we have emerging technologies and a rise in those technologies. We need to be able to communicate. Communication is No. 1. We need to be able to travel around New Zealand. Recently in the last week MPs have travelled everywhere for important work. Last weekend I travelled to Auckland and then I travelled to Rotorua to help some of the Tachikawa Forest Products (NZ) workers. MPs need to travel.Recently I travelled to Foxton. I had a phone call when we were debating the Psychoactive Substances Bill. The concerned members of Foxton rang me and said they had two dairies that were selling these substances. I was able to come to Wellington and then drive to Foxton. I was able to talk to those dairy owners. The dairy owners were unaware of some of the effects and some of the extremely harmful substances that are in the psychoactive substances and some of those synthetic cannabinoids. It is going to be very interesting. I wonder about some of the side effects that we might have there—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Order! That is well outside the scope.BRENDAN HORAN: Thank you—back to the bill. I was talking about travel because sometimes MPs need to travel for devastatingly sorrowful reasons. I would like to pay homage to Parekura Horomia’s tangi.I know that there are people who talk about access to telephones the ability to travel and our access to a bed to sleep in. Some people view those as perks. A number of those people are in the gallery and I will neither attack them for their view nor try to dissuade them from their folly. I respect their right to be wrong; indeed I will defend their right. But the fact of the matter is that I do not travel for fun. When I get on an aircraft it is business. When I check into a hotel or motel it is because I am away from my home away from my family because of my work as a member of Parliament. When MPs want to relax it is generally with their families at home. When I am using communication and information when I am travelling and when I am using accommodation I am simply using the tools of our trade that are necessary—indeed essential—for us to do our jobs as members of Parliament.I note that in clause 4(4) it says that Part 4 provides legislative authority for former members of Parliament. That is something I do not support. If it were in my gift we would strike this out. Thankfully the entitlement is being grandfathered out; it will not apply to any MP first elected at or after the 1999 election. I believe it is inappropriate because these people were well paid when they were in Parliament. They have done their job and there is really no reason they should get discounts of up to 90 percent on international travel for life and substantial numbers of domestic flights. I ask members to tell me whether there is any other job that provides benefits for life long after the job has been finished. Certainly the people of Mount Maunganui and Tauranga do not know of any jobs like that and I do not know anybody at the beach who even has a job like that.I want to turn to Metiria Turei’s Supplementary Order Paper 369 which would give to the Remuneration Authority the task of determining what travel and accommodation services are to be provided for MPs. I acknowledge that the member believes this is important to bolster confidence in the integrity of Parliament—public confidence that is—and I would like to thank her for taking the time to talk with me about this Supplementary Order Paper to explain her reasoning and to argue her case. I would like to repeat my appreciation for her party’s support for democracy that they cast my proxy vote. I repeat my thanks to the Greens’ caucus but I will have to disagree on this amendment. I believe that it is important that the authority and responsibility for determining what travel MPs can undertake and what accommodation they can access remain with the Speaker. The Speaker understands the demands of the job and the importance of family. I support Part 1 of the bill.