Auchinvole Chris: Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill — Second ReadingText is subject to correctionAuchinvole Chris: Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 22 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14075. Text is subject to correction.]CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): It is a pleasure to stand and to speak on the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill debate notes and to follow on from—Hon Trevor Mallard: Debate notes! Ha ha!CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: I beg your pardon—with debate notes. It is a pleasure to follow on from such a well-prepared speech as was given by the Attorney-General and the perhaps more spontaneous speech given by Mr Mallard who might have been a little assisted had he had some notes.Hon Ruth Dyson: Debate notes.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: He could have had debate notes yes. It could have been useful. None the less I do actually concur with the point that he made that the work done by the Government Administration Committee should not be taken lightly and indeed should not be diluted by subsequent decisions to bring forth amendments to make changes. There was ample opportunity at the committee level to get things into order.Mr Mallard did say in his speech that he felt that the bill was betwixt and between rather than a definite thing. Well to my mind I think this is a significant step in the Government’s commitment to having Ministers’ and MPs’ entitlements determined in a transparent independent non-partisan manner.Hon Trevor Mallard: More a tiptoe than a step.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Pardon me?Hon Trevor Mallard: More a tiptoe.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Well yes you know—a bit between where it needs to be. If we look at where it could be there is a public perception which was certainly voiced to members of the committee and came through fairly clearly. The public perception probably varies between thinking that we decide it all ourselves for our own benefit—and perhaps that might be considered to have been the case in the past—but also there is another perception that thinks that all MP pay and conditions should be subordinated to a higher authority and not left to any discretion of anyone in this particular organisation. That is when we come to the point about Parliament being sovereign in the management of its own affairs and being the master of its own destiny. Really if you think it through that is a very significant part of New Zealand’s history and development.This bill drawn from the Law Commission report called for reforms and these were addressed by the select committee. The select committee to me is one of the best bits I think of the process that we have in this Parliament. It is a very significant process and a very important part. It interfaces with the public and also it is through having the select committee process that we can have a single House structure of Parliament because we do have that recourse to consideration of views. We received the submissions. The committee concentrates on consulting and considering fairly widely from official reports and from expressed views that come to it. I think that was particularly the case with this bill. So it would be unreasonable for any potential critic to say that the bill was changed. Well that is what the bill is actually considered for so that there are not unforeseen circumstances so that it will have the effect that it was designed to give and so that it will not be a misfit with practice.The Government Administration Committee I must say is a balanced committee. No one particular party has—Grant Robertson: Well chaired.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: It is well chaired actually particularly on this bill. It was well discussed. I will go further. It was well chaired by the Hon Ruth Dyson who was not always there of course. Some of us had to fill in.Hon Trevor Mallard: She was there for the bits that we got right.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Indeed. It also though was a bill that caused a lot of consideration and a very concentrated amount of examination. I would like to just pay tribute to the level of advice we received and the level of consideration that was given to the pertinent parts of this bill. I think as a member of that committee that we can honestly say that the work was earnestly done that it was very well considered and in fact that it will be a very satisfactory bill. But like all bills of this nature it is part of a developing journey as the requirements of members of Parliament in fulfilling their function and meeting the requirements of Parliament will change. They change with technology they change with communications systems and they change with the state that the country is in at any particular time.It is interesting to read the history of Parliament. It is a rich history. Of course MPs used to travel here by train and stay here for a number of months. The conditions do have to change.Hon Trevor Mallard: Sailing ships.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Yes indeed. I think what we have is a very good process. There is a large amount of independence in setting the salaries. It is not at the behest of parliamentarians any more. Travel has been considered. It is something that needs to be with the Speaker and the committee recommended that change to the bill. The Clerk made the recommendation because travel by MPs is critical to the effective functioning of the House and is of fundamental democratic importance. Those of us from large electorates—and I can claim to live in one of the largest I think and I notice that the costs of travel are reflected by my colleagues in other parties who come from the samearea. It is just a matter of fact that it is expensive to travel within an electorate as well as from it to here.I leave the select committee stage at this second reading very comfortable that full consideration has been given to the aspects of this bill that were controversial and that the outcome will be satisfactory. I commend this bill to the House.