Graham Kennedy: Remuneration Authority Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Graham Kennedy: Remuneration Authority Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6902] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I rise to support the first reading debate on the Remuneration Authority Amendment Bill 2009. I would like to begin by picking up on the concept of moral authority which was articulated a moment ago by my colleague Pete Hodgson. I think that is the essence of what we are addressing. This bill would require the Remuneration Authority to take into account adverse economic conditions when determining the salary or remuneration of persons covered by the Act. As of now the authority is not required to take this into account. The bill reflects the growing mood of the public in a time of economic downturn. The latest news that the recession is turning may be taken with a grain of salt. But in any event whether or not we are emerging from recession that is not the point of the bill. The point of the bill is that at any one time in times of economic buoyancy or otherwise we must have regard for the state of the economy. 
The bill derives I believe from an initiative taken last year by the Green Party immediately after the general election. There was some public concern over a salary increase being paid to MPs at the time the global recession was beginning to bite. We in the Green caucus discussed this matter in some detail. The result was a motion lodged in the House by our then co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons. The motion was that no further salary increase should be given to MPs for the duration of the forty-ninth Parliament—or at least an intention to do that—over the following 3 years. This was opposed by the Government on the grounds that it presumed that the recession would last for 3 years. 
The Government advanced a counter-proposal to the effect that a determination this coming November should not be made. The Remuneration Authority would then reconsider the matter thereafter. That proposal was adopted by the House and the Green Party was happy to support it. Even though it was far less far-reaching than our own it was at least something. The question of restraint over MPs’ salary levels has attained added sensitivity since then as a result of the various scandals in the UK and their modest spillover into the New Zealand scene. Here again the Green Party has led the way with a call for a review not only of ministerial housing regulations as the Prime Minister has decided but also a full review of all MP expenses. 
This view of the Green Party does not rest on any belief that MPs are hideously overpaid or that there is deep and dark fraudulent behaviour going on. The New Zealand system and our people generally have a genuine integrity but there is reasonable public concern over what is going on and therefore a higher level of scrutiny and transparency is in order. We are after all the servants of the people as well as being legislators on their behalf. Therefore a naturally high standard of behaviour is required. A reassurance is being sought not a witch-hunt and we should not be afraid or be seen to be so. 
In opposing the Green Party’s proposal the Government displayed I think a slight misconception. Our view of the need for financial restraint did not rest on the exigencies of economic recession. It rested on the deeper underlying issue that MPs’ salaries should always reflect a degree of self-abnegation on our part. So it depended less on picking when we might clamber out of the recession and more on some natural standards over where we sit in society and how we serve society. In that respect I must say that in my short time in this House I find a fundamental difference among members. That difference reflects to some extent differences of philosophical persuasion. There are those people who compare us with the private sector and the highly paid corporate sector at that. Therefore they conclude that we are badly paid relatively. This colours their perception of what we should expect in financial remuneration and also of how we might respond to any public scrutiny. Others amongst us compare ourselves with say the average salary within New Zealand. Of course we are relatively well-paid in comparison. The expectations and predispositions are palpably different. 
These issues are sensitive. For my own part—and now I am speaking personally— on entering this House I was surprised as to the difficulty of exploring this issue. I did inquire on entry about whether it was possible to refuse a salary increase. I was advised that it was not. I asked for the legal basis of this and I was told that it was up to the Remuneration Authority. I asked what the legal basis was on which the authority made its decision. I said that I was interested to explore a little more the question of the legal compulsion of MPs to accept a salary increase as determined by the Remuneration Authority. 
I noted that the relevant section in the Remuneration Authority Act 1977 section 14 was as follows: “(1) Every determination of the Authority has effect according to its tenor and despite anything in any other enactment an Order in Council is not required in order to fix the rates or scales of any salary or allowances that are determined by the Authority in a determination.” Also and this was the critical point it states: “(2) It is unlawful for any person to act contrary to a determination under this Act or to fail to observe the criteria or limits specified in a determination.” So I asked whether Parliamentary Service had ever obtained a legal opinion on whether this meant categorically that recipients of a salary increase may refuse it or may not refuse it. I was advised that Parliamentary Service had not previously sought an opinion as it would seem that this question had not been raised before. I replied that this seemed to mean that the issue of accepting a salary rise through a Remuneration Authority determination was an issue for members. If so I asked whether it was an issue for each member individually or all members collectively. I was told that this would be an issue that I would really need to discuss with the Remuneration Authority and that it would have a view on what its role and responsibility are and what that means for MPs singly or collectively. I left it at that. 
I do not pretend to have emerged with any great insights on this matter. Perhaps the question of MPs’ salaries might be seen as a personal conscience issue. I do not know. I do know that it is a sensitive issue and that each individual will have a different view from that of others and I would certainly respect them all. I think that we still have some way to go on this issue. The relationship between the personal interest and the national interest is at issue; so is the relationship incidentally between the public sector and the private sector. Suffice it to say for the moment the Green Party is happy to support the bill’s referral to a select committee and we will look forward to the deliberations therein.