Hughes Gareth: Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHughes Gareth: Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 14 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14729. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]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.