Mallard Trevor: Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMallard Trevor: Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 22 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14073. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I rise to support the Attorney-General in so far as this bill the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill is concerned. I am not quite as enthusiastic as to the results as he is. In fact it might now be seen as a bit of a muddling bill a bill that has fallen halfway between the Law Commission and the current situation. I will get back to that. But what it does do and I agree with the Attorney-General is that it makes the law with regard to the payment of salaries and matters relating to the business expenses of members of Parliament including members of the executive clearer and more workable. There is I think quite a lot of public apprehension around the setting of members’ salaries and allowances and the repayment of their expenses. I think that many members of the public think we in this House decide the level. Frankly the constant expression of opinion by the Prime Minister as to what the changes should be does not help very much. I think the public tend to think that the Remuneration Authority is not independent and that there is some sort of obligation for it to listen to the Prime Minister when he makes those comments.There are a number of changes here. I want to say that new clause 17(1)(ab) provides for the arrangements for services to take into account particular requirements of members who have physical or sensory impairments. I think it is important that we get that specifically into the legislation in a way that is clear but flexible because there will be a wide variety of needs of members with impairments but it makes it clear that there are obligations in place. I think there will be a number of members of the House who will be somewhat surprised by the fact that up until now there has been no provision to pay members of Parliament who come in from the list in the middle of a term. We have had a number of people for whom that has occurred and on a couple of occasions for some of those individuals and up until now there has been no provision to pay them. They have of course been paid. They would have complained if they had not been. What this bill does is make sure that in the future anyone who is in that situation is able to get paid and retrospectively. I think it is an OK use of retrospective legislation. It retrospectively validates the payments that have previously been made although there are one or two of them where I would say that it might have been better if we had not.There are provisions with regard to the deduction of members’ salaries. The Government Administration Committee took some time to harden up the legislation in this particular area in two ways. We did take into account a number of members who I think might be described as sort of lackadaisical in their attendance to the parliamentary part of their duties as members of Parliament. What we the committee have suggested and I think the House will agree is that unlike the 9 days of absence that the Prime Minister had previously suggested deductions should occur after 3 days. We are alsolooking at the salary level of the particular member rather than the salary level of a backbench member for those deductions.There will also be a pay deduction when a member is suspended from the House. I want to say that I have been around for a while and I have worked on the assumption—Hon Anne Tolley: And been suspended a few times.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I have never been suspended. Is that not amazing? I had always thought that a financial penalty applied to people. I thought that if they were out for a day they lost a day; if they were out for a week they lost a week; and if they were out till the end of the year they lost the rest of their pay—not that that has happened in the time I have been here. I think the maximum that I have known of is someone who has been out for just a day. But this bill makes it clear that if you get suspended you lose a day’s pay. I think that is what the public would expect and I think that is fine.There has also been what I would describe as a bit of a rort where other members I understand have been working with these rules that are to do with members’ superannuation. Most of us when we join a superannuation scheme using the arrangements as part of our remuneration and remembering that the contributions come effectively from our gross remuneration as determined by the Remuneration Authority put the money in out of our fortnightly pay by way of deductions. There have been some members who have made a decision to do it considerably later accumulate the interest on that or other investments top it up right at the end of a period and thereby get an advantage that was not otherwise considered. We do not think that is right and this bill will mean that the subsidy will not be payable to members. It will not be able to be backdated for more than 12 months. I think that is fair enough.The one proviso I will say is that I do not have total confidence in Parliamentary Service to get it right. I myself have had experience with superannuation deductions that it unilaterally stopped. We then had to sort it out. In fact—Grant Robertson: They thought you’d gone.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: What?Grant Robertson: They thought you’d gone.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well Parliamentary Service might have thought I had gone. In fact I have got quite a lack of confidence even in the current day with Parliamentary Service and its handling of reimbursement arrangements for members. Parliamentary Service sent my bank account details to Vodafone recently. It sent the slip that we get with the reimbursement of our travel arrangements along with my bank account numbers off to Vodafone. I was quite surprised when I found that out. I was not happy.I do want to say that there is a bit of a muddle in this arrangement now and I want to give the example of when a Minister—say the Prime Minister—was in Wellington travelled to Christchurch and stayed overnight before going on an overseas trip. The arrangements for the flight from Wellington to Christchurch or Auckland to Christchurch would be determined by and be the responsibility of the Speaker. The overnight accommodation in Christchurch while waiting for the early flight to go out the next morning would be the responsibility of the Remuneration Authority. The overseas travel the next morning would be the responsibility of Ministerial Services. I think it is fair to say that is a bit of a muddle and it will in the end lead to confusion.My last comment I want to make is to the Greens. I want to make it in particular to the co-leader Metiria Turei and say to her that she voted in the select committee for every clause and every amendment that was made. She voted for it. I say to her that to come to the House now having not given a peep in opposition—not a peep in opposition so she was a lamb in the committee—Hon Tau Henare: Not a word not a whisper.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Not a word not a whisper—not a whisper. To come to this House now with a set of amendments attempting to reverse that is an indication of someone who is either not properly on top of their job or is a political grandstander. I say to her that if you have got the courage of your convictions vote in the select committee. If the member believes in something vote that way in the select committee. Be consistent. Do not come to the House and change your mind.Debate interrupted.