Mallard Trevor: Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill — First Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:678;Page:1404] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 The Labour Party will be supporting the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill’s referral to the select committee and unless something surprising happens we will be supporting it through. Before the Attorney-General leaves—gone.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Sorry I did not want to draw attention to that but I do have a—is there a Minister in the House who is currently in charge of the bill or who can answer questions?  
Hon Member 
: Is there a Minister in the House? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There is; I think Mr Tremain is a Minister. There are a couple of Ministers. Are any of the Ministers in the House able to answer questions at the moment on the bill? 
Louise Upston 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a first reading; this is not a Committee stage. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No it is not but the member of course is allowed to ask questions. Whether they are answered or not is another matter. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The point I would make—and I will make it to the Government whip if there is not a Minister who has got an understanding of the legislation available—is that there has been an undertaking including with the Business Committee to consider this bill carefully and properly at the Government Administration Committee. My personal view is that it should not take anything like the period up to August to deal with it. I just do not think it looks good for the House to be putting a limited time on the hearings of the select committee around this bill which does involve the remuneration and other allowances of members of Parliament. I think it would look better for Parliament if we did not do that. There is an undertaking to deal with it in a proper way—not to delay it and to get it back as soon as is possible and appropriate—but I think to put an obligation on the Government Administration Committee in the way that has been suggested by the Minister acting for the Minister in charge of the bill makes it look like we are hurrying it through in a way that might not be seen to be appropriate. I just wanted to indicate that it may be better if in fact the Minister does not proceed to move the shortening motion because the Labour Party will oppose that one and I think it would be a pity because there is an agreement to move this bill forward.  
Mr Speaker I think it would be unwise of me not to point out to you clause 15 of the bill and to make sure that you are looking carefully at that clause to see whether or not your vote is to be exercised in relation to this legislation. Certainly according to the rumours the conflict between the salaried positions of high commissioners and members of this Parliament is something in which you might have an interest Mr Speaker and certainly anticipate having an interest in the period I understand very soon after this bill passes. That is something to be looked at.  
I think the Attorney-General summarised the bill well. The Law Commission has done an extensive report on the matter. It has recommended that a lot of the matters that are currently the subject of determinations should in fact be in primary legislation. I will be interested in the discussion at the select committee as to whether some of the matters that are suggested to go right into the legislation should be in fact left to the new committee that is to be set up which will be based on the Remuneration Authority and augmented. There is a balance between the clarity of primary legislation and the inflexibility of primary legislation and I will be interested in hearing from the Remuneration Authority and other public law experts as to how much should be in this legislation and how much should be left to be determined.  
It is going to be important that a person with appropriate knowledge skills and experience is added to that committee. I will be interested in views as to whether or not a person who is themselves entitled to some of the former members’ entitlements is excluded from that position. It is something to be worked through. I think we have found on occasions that there has been quite a lot of debate around the balance in terms of having someone of expertise—someone who understands the way that Parliament works and the requirements on members of Parliament—involved in these discussions often in the past advising the Speaker as part of a committee. They often have a better level of understanding but it does become an issue if in fact they are dealing with matters in which they personally have an interest if they are dealing with later remuneration.  
The bill also makes it clear that the Speaker continues to be responsible for directions around the allocation and administration of party member support funding services provided to members the out-of-Parliament offices and travel allowances for members of Parliament participating in political and inter-parliamentary programmes. I think there is no doubt that it is appropriate for the Speaker to be responsible for those but I think it is also worth saying that there are occasions when these boundaries become very blurred and members are involved in a combination of exchange and personal travel. Getting that balance right is important and making sure that there is not additional unbudgeted cost to the Crown in a way that is not approved where in fact there are extensions is something that is important. It is good that the bill brings together the criteria—and they are specified in the bill—that the Speaker and the Remuneration Authority are required to have regard to in issuing directions.  
 There is what is I think referred to around the place now as the “Chris Carter clause”— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: That’s your reference to it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well no. I think it is fair to say that I did not bring that up. I am not going to claim to be the original author of the description of the “Chris Carter clause” but the suggestion that people can be docked only $10 a day by the Speaker for not turning up to work without leave is I think ludicrous. I actually have a—[ 
Interruption 
] I think Clayton Cosgrove says that Gerry Brownlee should be paid an extra $270 a day to stay away but I think that might be unkind although I tend to say that the Finns might think the same thing.  
One of the things I would like to have a discussion about is whether the 0.2 percent is an appropriate amount and whether we should be considering all the days of the year or whether in fact we should be considering sitting days. What is the balance of parliamentary work versus other work for a member of Parliament? And if a person is just not turning up at all should we be assuming that they are fulfilling the other duties that they have as a member of Parliament? They might not even be in the country. They might be out of the country. I think it would be worth having that discussion and having a look at whether or not there is discretion in that area.  
This is a bill that will take some detailed consideration at the select committee. There could well be some drafting issues which my colleague Chris Hipkins will raise about it. But one of the things that has changed in my time in this Parliament is a growth in the transparency of arrangements for the remuneration of members of Parliament for the services that they provide. And although there might be a few of our older colleagues who are spinning in their graves or spilling their gins at the current time I think generally transparency has resulted in very good progress.