Robertson Grant: Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 22 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14084. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker and my apologies to the House for having to sort out some matters of logistics there with the Assistant Speaker.Hon Paula Bennett: Good to see you run.GRANT ROBERTSON: That is right. My only exercise for the day Ms Bennett—I will do my best. The important points I wanted to get across about this bill the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill are the extent to which this is actually about the how of remuneration not the what. I think that an important consideration for members of the public who are watching this debate is that what is being debated today is the way in which the salaries of members of Parliament the allowances for members of Parliament and other matters are dealt with rather than the exact amount that members of Parliament are paid or the exact amount of travel entitlements—or travel privileges rather—that we may have.Hon Trevor Mallard: Travel expenses.GRANT ROBERTSON: Business expenses in fact as my colleague Trevor Mallard says and he is very right in that regard. Something that I think members of the public perhaps sometimes find difficult to understand about the way in which parliamentarians are serviced and resourced and how they are paid is around that question of travel.Obviously what the bill does is make some changes to the arrangements whereby the Remuneration Authority will be responsible for accommodation the travel of family members and the travel privileges for former members while the Speaker retains the responsibility for MPs’ travel. The reason from the Government Administration Committee for that as I understand it is that MPs’ travel is essentially a business expense—it is a business role. The reason for travel by MPs is to undertake our duties.I have often thought that one of the issues here is that when most people go on an aeroplane or travel they are going on holiday and that is what they associate the act of travelling on an aeroplane with. Not me as the MP for Wellington Central—there are no flights from Wilton down to Parliament—but most of the members of Parliament who are here get on an aeroplane to go to work and for MPs the 1-hour commute from Auckland to Wellington is like driving on the motorway in Auckland. I know and I can understand and appreciate why members of the public who generally find themselves on flights when they are lucky enough to be able to go on holiday might associate air travel in a way that is somehow or other to do with holidays. It is not in this particular instance; it is to do with our role as parliamentarians.I further understand that part of the justification given by the select committee for not moving MPs’ travel to the Remuneration Authority is that the potential end result of doing that could be that a member of Parliament was unable to fulfil their duty as a parliamentarian. They would effectively breach privilege and not be here as a parliamentarian potentially as the result of a decision by the Remuneration Authority and that is what distinguishes travel by MPs from the other privileges that are now being handed over to the Remuneration Authority.I have to say that from a personal point of view I find this whole thing unsatisfactory. Labour will be voting for this bill because it is the consensus that was come to by parties at the select committee and it is important on issues like this that we work on the basis of a consensus and a unanimous approach but I personally believe that the whole issue requires further work.There were other proposals provided that I personally think could merit consideration. I have heard proposals that the salaries of MPs are set at the start of the 3-year term and it is left as that for that whole 3-year term and everybody has the same expectations about what those salaries would be. They would be set by the previous Parliament potentially and then be carried on by a new Parliament. Another idea is the one that you could index the payments to inflation. I think there are a lot of other ways.For me this is a very awkward piece of legislation. It tries to fix some problems which I think it does quite well particularly around MPs with physical and sensory impairments. It deals with the question of the absences of MPs and the deduction of salaries in a much better way which actually acknowledges the fact that if people are absent without the authorised leave they should suffer a proper penalty for that. I think the bill has dealt well with those matters. What I am less comfortable about is that we have got a bit of a muddle of arrangements around the privileges and travel and I do believe that we will probably end up revisiting this. However this is the consensus and we are prepared to support it on that basis.