Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to speak to the Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill with a sense of déjà vu because the last time this legislation was amended in 2015 I was the Minister responsible for passaging it through the House. I recall actually that the bill was passed in the same manner as we are doing today on 17 March 2015 to which my colleague Jonathan Young quipped that it was appropriate to be passed on Saint Patrick's Day because it was a rather Irish" thing to do. But we will support it.I would also want to wish the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety all the very best actually in deliberating and I hope with something of a bipartisan nature on what the appropriate methodology for the setting of remuneration for members of Parliament will be. I say that in the spirit of goodwill because I and my Cabinet certainly grappled with this particular problem in 2015 when it became apparent that the Remuneration Authority independent of members of Parliament was going to increase remuneration by I think from memory 3.5 percent or 3.6 percent and there were some other changes on top of that which made it look like even more of an increase.But more than that—and without disrespecting any members of the Remuneration Authority at that time who do a very good job—there seemed to be a trajectory a momentum at that time in the wake of coming out of the global financial crisis of increasing the remuneration to a degree that I and my Cabinet and my Prime Minister were uncomfortable with. It's worth bearing in mind that that 3.6-odd percent increase was adjusted downwards using the formula that is presently in law to about 1.5 percent and that was deemed to be a much more appropriate comparator with general wage inflation at that time. It was lower than wage inflation but slightly higher than the Consumers Price Index.Now this is relevant in the sense that I think we have the model correct. I think it's appropriate that there be an independent remuneration-setting process; although I do also recall Mr Hipkins in his second reading speech saying something to the effect of "Well if it's possible for MPs to legislate to reduce their salaries what's to stop MPs from legislating to increase them?" And the answer I gave him was "Nothing."—except the normal tensions and disciplines that we have. Actually no single party has ever under MMP formed a majority so I think it is unlikely but he was technically correct that that is possible.That said I do think it is necessary—and hopefully we'll get there—to prevent the two- or three-yearly cycle of reflection review and downgrading of the recommendations of an independent body because I don't think that's helpful in the long run. In fact you Mr Speaker will have more knowledge than most of the framework prior to the 1990s when it was this House's prerogative to actually set its own remuneration and that was both highly inappropriate and highly problematic. When the Minister and I visited the United Kingdom on a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association trip in 2009 we arrived in Westminster—and the Minister will remember—in the middle of an absolute media firestorm because of the revelations in a daily paper of 30000-odd pieces of paper that reflected MPs' expenses including things like duck islands moats around castles and things like that which were being paid for by the British taxpayer which led to a furore and the first resignation of a Speaker in 400 years of parliamentary democracy. We were there when John Bercow was elected the Speaker of the House of Commons over there and he still is I believe.I raise that because it is a salient lesson in not going back to that kind of influence. We are kind of influencing it now by doing this but the reason that I think they got into such a tangle was that in this very financially deprecating manner they would stand in the House of Commons and say "No we can't possibly give ourselves a pay increase this year. It wouldn't be inappropriate." and yet through the back door of expense reimbursement a remuneration of sorts was being achieved and that is entirely inappropriate but understandable given the long period of time between pay increases.It is also I think important to make sure that we do have remuneration that encourages good people of high quality and calibre to stand in this place. I absolutely believe that we have that in the main and we want to make sure that we continue to attract people for the right reasons. The setting of remuneration that is neither attractive nor unattractive is going to be a bit like the search for truth or wisdom that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety will have. So in supporting this legislation I wish the Government all the best and I look forward to all parties in Parliament having a contribution to make to that because I do think it is important that we come to a formula that doesn't require the Government to continue to nip and tuck and tweak every two or three years."