Turei Metiria: Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTurei Metiria: Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 12 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14577. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I want to make just a brief call too on Part 2 of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill. We also agree with the changes to the AWOL provisions—to the deductions. There is no point in having a rule if you cannot enforce it. If you cannot enforce a rule then you probably need to change the nature of the rule. If we have a rule that says you have to be here and if you are not here without leave then you are in trouble well we may as well make it enforceable in some way and a financial penalty is one of the ways to do that. We have got no particular problem with that.I would also just note that one of the provisions in this part in clause 12 is the one that provides for 3 months’ pay for an MP who is no longer an MP as at polling day. It is an old provision. It is a transitional provision where MPs continue to be paid their salaries for 3 months after the election if they stand and are not re-elected. There is nothing new in this but again it is one of those issues that perhaps the public are not aware of. I do not think that it is particularly unusual to have a transitional period like this for someone in a role like ours—I am open to other advice about that—but it does raise one of the issues for me which is around former members’ entitlements.We have discussed this at various times in Parliament. It is not part of this bill as such but it does raise the issue that we have to be very careful that we do not continue with provisions that we do not need and that allow for MPs to be paid or given benefits well after they have finished their jobs. There is no other profession that I am aware of where a person continues to be paid to gain to obtain or to use the same or similar benefits that they had from their employers when they were employed after they finishbeing employed. There are some justifications for this 3-month provision; there will be some concerns. We are supporting the bill with this provision in it but it does again raise for me that we will need to discuss as a Parliament at some time in the future and it is likely to happen sooner rather than later the issues around former MPs’ entitlements and how they can continue to be justified.I would also just like to pay note to Brendan Horan’s proposed amendment. We have looked at this and there are differing views from the Green MPs on this. One of the concerns—and this is a concern that I have around this Supplementary Order Paper 368—is that if we are to say that the Remuneration Authority is genuinely independent from political interference and that we do this because we want to have someone quite independent and separate from us making decisions about our salary and allowances then every time we make a change to the law that gives the authority some kind of instruction or guideline are we doing so for political purposes as opposed to practical ones? Is there a genuinely good reason why beyond our own political interests we would be asking the Remuneration Authority to do something differently from what it currently does?I would note that the Greens made a change and had a change pass through this House for the Remuneration Authority to give consideration to the financial circumstances of the country as a whole. This was just before or around the same time as the global financial crisis. So we have been involved in some of these discussions in the past where the issue is to what extent this is a political issue that we are asking of the Remuneration Authority and to what extent it is a legitimate process issue that we are asking of it. I am very reluctant to support any changes or requirements that we might place on the Remuneration Authority where there is a political interest in doing so because again it becomes another means by which we can impose political influence over the decisions of our pay and allowances.The other argument for this Supplementary Order Paper though in favour of it is the practical reality which is that MPs’ salaries and allowances are political issues and that there is a great deal of political interest in what they are how they are set whether they go up or down and how they do or do not relate to the minimum wage and the average wage. It is absolutely true that there is no process in New Zealand for protecting and raising minimum wages like there is for protecting and raising higher incomes. So we have this enormous inequity not only in pay but also in the way that pay is set. We had the Higher Salaries Commission which did that work for those on higher salaries. We now have the Remuneration Authority which will be doing this work for MPs. We have nobody no agency whose job it is to look at the viability and the value of the lowest wages in New Zealand. That is actually a political decision made by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister essentially sets the minimum wage. So we do have a significant discrepancy in the way that wages and salaries are managed for New Zealanders and that has to change.The Green Party has proposals for how to change that so that it is more equitable and so that we can close the gap between the lowest paid and the highest paid. That is one of the political issues that are buried in the instructions that we might give the Remuneration Authority about setting wages and salaries. So understanding that there is severe inequity in this country between the wages of MPs and others on high salaries and the lowest paid that there is inequity in the way that wages are set for those two communities and that there is a great deal of political interest in the decisions that are made about MPs’ salaries should it then occur only once every term? Is that one way of taking out the political heat on issues of MPs’ salaries and of giving the Remuneration Authority the power to limit how often MPs’ salaries might go up? They tend to go up; they would never go down. I do think that Parliament and MPs do have apolitical interest in having the Remuneration Authority limited in its ability to increase MPs’ wages because of the public concern about those increases. None the less it is a reasonable tool to give the Remuneration Authority some indication that it needs to take some of these things into account too.So on balance we will be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper. We think that it is a tool that the Remuneration Authority can use. It does deal with some of the heat in the issue around MPs’ salaries and allowances. It does not deal with the inherent inequity in pay. It does not deal with the inherent inequity in structure that means that MPs’ pay and the pay of highly paid New Zealanders—highly paid public servants for example—are protected whereas the minimum wages of those on the lowest incomes are not. That is another discussion that is still yet to be had. Thank you.