Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMembers of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 12 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14569. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) BillIn CommitteePart 1 Preliminary provisionsHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of thePrime Minister: This is a very brief comment on Part 1 of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill which deals with the preliminary provisions. Clause 3 sets out the purposes of the legislation the primary purpose of which is to ensure that the House and its members are properly supported in a way that maintains confidence in the integrity of Parliament. There will be Supplementary Order Paper 389 to deal with clause 2 the commencement clause to amend the commencement date to 16 December 2013 other than what will be sections 36 to 39 which will come into force on 1 July 2014.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Thanks very much for the opportunity to take a call on Part 1 of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill. I know that a number of people around the country and perhaps even within our own precincts in the parliamentary press gallery have been getting a little excited about this bill thinking that it reverts to Parliament setting the salaries of members of Parliament. Actually it does not. The fundamental point is outlined in Part 1—what the preliminary provisions are and the overview of the bill. The point of this bill is to ensure that the provisions for support services that are required by members of Parliament to properly fulfil their functions are made in a way that is transparent and that is fair to members of Parliament and the staff but also obviously to the people who fund them the public of New Zealand.But it is also to ensure an additional point—and it is one that has been highlighted in the House quite recently but also in previous terms of our Parliament—which is that where members of Parliament have an impairment the support services that they require in order for them to fulfil their duties are different from those of other members of Parliament. So I am really pleased that as part of the provisions in this legislation we have ensured that quite rightly the law will now clarify beyond any doubt that the support for members of Parliament who have a physical or a sensory impairment is properly the responsibility of the House and not of the political party that that person happens to be representing.The bill comes about through the work of the original drafting of the legislation and the responsible Minister the Prime Minister as well as the work that the Government Administration Committee was able to do on a very politically neutral basis. We had a lot of debate between submitters and we had a lot of debate between the committee members but on this particular issue there was pretty rapid unanimous agreement that it is proper that support for all members of Parliament whether they have different support needs or not should be the responsibility of Parliament. We hope that this sends a really clear message to disabled members of our community who in the past may have been put off from being members of our Parliament because of feeling as though they might have some spotlight shone on them and feeling that they might not be able to perform their duties in the way that they would want to as an elected representative. I am very pleased with that particular clarity that is now in the legislation which I presume we are going to pass in a little while.The contentious issue that I just want to raise right at the outset of this debate because it is relevant to the very purpose of it and is one on which we got differentopinions from submitters is who would make the determination of the travel allowance for members of Parliament—whether that was a matter for the Remuneration Authority or whether it was a matter for the Speaker. The committee was persuaded in the end that for members of Parliament but not for their family members the ability to travel to Wellington every week when Parliament is sitting when they have select committee meetings in Wellington or elsewhere and where they might have a Cabinet meeting is actually a fundamental part of the responsibility—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is in one of the other parts of the bill not in Part 1.Hon RUTH DYSON: I will refer to that later. I am just saying that because the primary purpose was not to determine as I explained at the beginning our rate of pay. Part of the contentious debate was about who determined that travel allowance. The committee decided that it would be the responsibility of the Speaker because travel is part of the job of a member of Parliament. Regardless of whether we are in the backbench or in Cabinet all of us are required to travel as part of our job. I think the Hon Annette King and Grant Robertson would probably be the only two members of this House who would consider that it is a perk to come to Wellington. The rest of us consider that it is just part of our responsibility that it is part of our job. Of course it is a real pleasure to fly into Wellington every week and leave our homes and electorates behind but it is actually a fundamental part of the job and that is why we decided that it was appropriate for the Speaker to maintain that determination.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I just want to refer briefly to the Supplementary Order Paper 369 in my name. It recommends an amendment to clause 4 in Part 1. Clause 4 is just a descriptive clause. It just describes what the rest of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill does. So it is not a substantive clause in that sense but we have made amendments to this clause as well as to the substantive ones in later parts. The overall thrust of the Supplementary Order Paper that we have for this part and for later parts of this bill is to re-include MPs’ travel as one of the matters that the Remuneration Authority will determine.It was part of the original bill. The original bill that came into Parliament included that accommodation allowances and all travel services of MPs would be determined by the Remuneration Authority. Actually the Green Party has supported that proposal for a very long time but it also came from the Law Commission in its review of MPs’ expenses and allowances. It also came from the Appropriation Review Committee’s report which is the only financial analysis if you like of Parliamentary Service’s spending and it is done once every 3 years. A previous appropriations review also recommended these kinds of changes. The principle behind it is that there should be an independent authority that makes these decisions on behalf of MPs so that there is a separation between the benefit that we receive individually and the decision on that.I do agree with the Hon Ruth Dyson and others that the travel services for example are extremely important to us. We simply cannot do our jobs without them. They are as crucial a tool for our work as standing here and speaking as crucial a tool as our phones—as every MP who is chained to their telephone can tell you. Yes travel services are a crucial tool but they are also under the current system something that allows MPs to use that tool for private purposes as well as parliamentary purposes. The current travel entitlement means that as the rules have been set by our own people by our own institution MPs can use that travel entitlement to come to work and do our business but also to go away on holiday somewhere in New Zealand if we want to. So there is a personal benefit to the travel allowances.The value of that benefit has been taken into account by the Remuneration Authority and the authority has changed its view of what MPs should be paid to reflect thepersonal benefit that it believes is provided through the travel allowance. That is one way of dealing with it but it is not the most transparent way. It is not best the way I believe that the public would like to see these kinds of allowances being dealt with. We are firmly of the view that an independent authority ought to be making these decisions and that it will then be able to assess both the needs of MPs to be able to travel to do our jobs and the needs of the public who look to our system and seek from it the best possible transparency so that they can have the greatest confidence that we are using public money wisely.This is all within a highly politicised context. MPs live in this deeply politicised environment where political attacks come from all over the place. We are right now in the middle of some very significant public scrutiny over pecuniary interests and I am sure that there will be more of this scrutiny over housing allowances—all of these things. We do not operate outside of an intense political environment but this is why yet again it is so important to have these decisions being made not by our own institution but by an independent one. We would like the members of the Committee to give serious consideration to supporting our Supplementary Order Paper that proposes returning to the original proposal—which is to have the Remuneration Authority also determine our travel allowances—on the basis that the best principled basis is to have an independent agency make these decisions on our behalf.I guess we can see why that is so important at the moment with the scrutiny over the use of housing allowances superannuation funds and other trusts that are currently in the media and there is apparently more to come. I am very pleased that the housing allowance part of the MPs expenses is being moved to the Remuneration Authority through this bill because that is one important step. But the scrutiny on MPs will not end until there is a genuine truly transparent and independent process for setting allowances.Although it is really good that we are making steps towards increased transparency and independence and although certainly the Greens will be supporting this legislation because it does make some important steps in that regard we can do better and we should. We should trust the public to view us and our work in the best light. It does not always feel like that sometimes but it is certainly true as I have travelled around the country speaking on issues around MPs’ expenses and allowances that the majority of New Zealanders understand that we need resources to do our job and that we do an important job and they would like to see us do that job well. But the quid pro quo is that we are open and transparent and we give more than just a vague nod to the independence of deciding around these things. As I say I urge members to support this Supplementary Order Paper and the changes to this part and to future parts and look forward to further debate. Thank you.DARIEN FENTON (Labour): I am going to endeavour to take a call on the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill. You will forgive me if my voice collapses halfway through. I have the lurgy that many other members of Parliament have had and I can see the—Hon Christopher Finlayson: No I’m as fit as a fiddle.DARIEN FENTON: —Minister looking very sympathetic. Well at least he is not gloating.Moana Mackey: Viruses have no effect on him.DARIEN FENTON: Is that right? Does he carry around garlic or something? Anyway it is a pleasure to take call on Part 1 of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill. In responding to the last speaker Metiria Turei I have some sympathy with what she said. I have a lot of sympathy with the general public’s view particularly at a time when we are facing workers struggling to get payincreases with 46 percent of the working population not having had a pay increase. The Government is proposing to make it even harder for workers to conclude collective agreements and win pay increases—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!DARIEN FENTON: So I completely understand and support the comments that people have made.However I do want to say in speaking to the purpose of this document that I think the Government Administration Committee has done an excellent job.Chris Auchinvole: Thank you.DARIEN FENTON: I have read through the report. The committee is chaired by the excellent member Ruth Dyson and I know that the member Chris Auchinvole was there as well. I think the changes to the purposes clause make a lot of sense. They spell out very clearly what this bill is intending to do. It is “to ensure that the House of Representatives and its members are properly supported in a way that maintains confidence in the integrity of Parliament.” That is very very important. We do have to be properly supported to do our jobs but we also have to be able to demonstrate integrity. I think the changes that this bill brings do enough to demonstrate integrity in Parliament. The other purposes in the bill include “providing for the remuneration of members of Parliament;”. Members of the public do get upset when we get pay increases but it is important to emphasise that this bill continues the practice of remuneration being decided by the Remuneration Authority so it is very much at arm’s length from Parliament and is independent.The bill is about “ensuring that members of Parliament are provided with the services that they require to enable them to carry out their roles and functions.” Metiria Turei and others have talked about the importance of us actually being in this place of coming to Wellington. I do not know why anyone would think it was a perk to leave home at 5 o’clock on a Tuesday morning and get on a plane to come to Wellington particularly when it is not a very nice day and the plane does the waving of the wings as it is coming into Wellington. But we do have to be here. Our primary job is legislating. Our primary job is as legislators and that is why we are here. Our primary job in Opposition is to hold the Government to account so that is why we must be in Wellington. We cannot do this by remote control. We have to be in Wellington.Also we do need efficient and effective systems for determining the services that are provided to members of Parliament and may I say that I think the support services we have around this Parliament are excellent. I want to put on record my thanks to the parliamentary staff and to Parliamentary Service staff who do a wonderful job in very difficult circumstances. The tricky one really is around the travel services for the family of members of Parliament. This bill will change that so that those travel services for family members are decided by the Remuneration Authority. The tricky bit the point of conflict is that the travel arrangements of members of Parliament will not be decided on; they will continue with the current arrangements.As I say I think the select committee did an excellent job. I know it heard from many submitters—about 18 submitters. The committee considered this issue very carefully and I am sure it considered how this is a deception for the public. But I think it is important also that the travel arrangements for members of Parliament to do their job do involve people who actually understand what doing the job is all about—the people who know what it is like to be in this place know what the requirements are know when we are expected to turn up here and know when we are not. I think as I said that the select committee has done a very good job of changing the purpose clause of this bill. Clause 4 is I think a very useful overview. I am sure that we are going to talk a little bit more about other parts in the bill but I think it is a very useful overview. Thank you.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): I would like to rise to take a call to put into context the speech of not the member who has just spoken but the one before that Metiria Turei. But first I recognise the previous speaker Darien Fenton. I would agree that the Government Administration Committee meeting was well chaired. The work that it did was particularly well researched and well prepared. We were remarkably well served by all the officials and we had a fair number of them. This bill the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill involves a very central part of the work we do and so we did have the opportunity to be well advised by a range of very very experienced officials.There are two stages of consultation for a bill passing through the House. I know from those times when I have been at the Australasian and other Commonwealth meetings that they ask how we manage with having just one House. The way we do it of course is to have a very significant part of consultation with the public going through the select committee submissions and considerations. It is a very very important part of a bill’s progress. Full participation during the select committee process is available to any member of Parliament and to every party. All parties in the select committee process are given the opportunity to be fully involved.I note that the Hon Trevor Mallard was very critical of the introduction by the Green Party of a Supplementary Order Paper that effectively assumes one could say a holier-than-thou virtuous amongst all never really wanted to agree attitude. I personally find that a disappointment and an unnecessary intrusion into an otherwise very hard-worked process. I am put in mind of someone who is deliberately rude in public and then apologetic in private. This is a sort of reverse process. The public we have been told expect transparency as if the committee process has not provided it. We most certainly did. But the public expects not just transparency in the end result and in the public process but also deliberation and consideration to be conducted with integrity and with ethics—all of those parts of the bill that are held in the committee consideration.For a party to suddenly change its mind coincidentally when there was some criticism in the media of the result of the changes that the select committee recommended—I noted that the Green Party was singled out as having not fronted up; so there was a sudden change in their view—does not reflect well on the parliamentary process and I think parties should do better than that. I think there is a problem. Where you have a party that constantly votes against everything thereby claiming for itself a particular position in parliamentary process the reality of that is that it is doing so only because it knows that the legislation is going to pass anyway. That is the only way parties can protect themselves. I would suggest that for a party that has no electoral seats for a party that considers itself a future partner in Government it needs to really consider the current standpoint that it is using. Thank you.BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): Thank you for the call. In addressing the important preliminary provisions in Part 1 of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill which determines remuneration for MPs I would like to indicate my intention to seek a couple of calls on this part to discuss the purposes outlined in clause 3 and also the changes to clause 4 proposed by Metiria Turei’s Supplementary Order Paper. Clauses 3 and 4 set out the purposes of the Act and provide an overview a road map of the substance of the bill. In clause 3(1) we are told: “The primary purpose of this Act is to ensure that the House of Representatives and its members are properly supported in a way that maintains confidence in the integrity of Parliament.” That is a bit of a masterpiece of drafting but it does not reflect what a difficult task it is to achieve that in the real world.I live in Mount Maunganui and speaking to the people of Mount Maunganui and Tauranga I can tell you that everybody thinks that MPs are well paid—that is well paidby the standards of the average Kiwi. I know there are many MPs who could be earning more in other jobs and other businesses and who view their work here as a service to their country. Be that as it may Kiwis think that MPs are well paid. What is not realised by a lot of people in New Zealand is that MPs do not set their wages. A few people who take an interest know that there is an independent body called the Remuneration Authority which sets wages for MPs. We can make submissions as indeed this House did in 2009 when it supported the motion of Jeanette Fitzsimons for a nil wage order but the Remuneration Authority makes its decisions independently and tells MPs what their wages will be.I will have a little more to say on this in the debate on Part 2 and the Supplementary Order Paper in my name proposing to have MPs’ pay determined before the election and to apply for the 3-year term. I must say that I hope that parties in this Committee will support that when we come to it although I was quite surprised today when I was interviewed by a reporter who said that she had spoken to some MPs who were not going to vote for my Supplementary Order Paper because they did not like me. I would just say that I am sorry for their poor judge of character but also it would really surprise me if an MP in this House ever voted on something because they did not like somebody rather than based on the content or the merit of that particular Supplementary Order Paper.To return to clause 3 it is not easy to preserve confidence in the integrity of Parliament. Indeed some actions by some MPs may be said to directly attack that confidence. However the second leg of the clause is to ensure members are properly supported. In other words we have to have the tools to do the job. If we were plumbers—David Bennett: Who wrote this speech? Did Winston write it?BRENDAN HORAN: Nah he is down in Christchurch at the racing.David Bennett: Is he? Oh good on him.BRENDAN HORAN: Yes. If we were plumbers we would need the tools to do the job. If we were builders we would need tools also. I would like to acknowledge the Hon Maurice Williamson for clarity on this point. We would each need a cellphone a ute and a dog. But we are members of Parliament. We need information. I would like to acknowledge the important role that the Parliamentary Library undertakes for all MPs and the wonderful job that it does. We also need access to internet and email and also the skills and competencies required as we have emerging technologies and a rise in those technologies. We need to be able to communicate. Communication is No. 1. We need to be able to travel around New Zealand. Recently in the last week MPs have travelled everywhere for important work. Last weekend I travelled to Auckland and then I travelled to Rotorua to help some of the Tachikawa Forest Products (NZ) workers. MPs need to travel.Recently I travelled to Foxton. I had a phone call when we were debating the Psychoactive Substances Bill. The concerned members of Foxton rang me and said they had two dairies that were selling these substances. I was able to come to Wellington and then drive to Foxton. I was able to talk to those dairy owners. The dairy owners were unaware of some of the effects and some of the extremely harmful substances that are in the psychoactive substances and some of those synthetic cannabinoids. It is going to be very interesting. I wonder about some of the side effects that we might have there—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Order! That is well outside the scope.BRENDAN HORAN: Thank you—back to the bill. I was talking about travel because sometimes MPs need to travel for devastatingly sorrowful reasons. I would like to pay homage to Parekura Horomia’s tangi.I know that there are people who talk about access to telephones the ability to travel and our access to a bed to sleep in. Some people view those as perks. A number of those people are in the gallery and I will neither attack them for their view nor try to dissuade them from their folly. I respect their right to be wrong; indeed I will defend their right. But the fact of the matter is that I do not travel for fun. When I get on an aircraft it is business. When I check into a hotel or motel it is because I am away from my home away from my family because of my work as a member of Parliament. When MPs want to relax it is generally with their families at home. When I am using communication and information when I am travelling and when I am using accommodation I am simply using the tools of our trade that are necessary—indeed essential—for us to do our jobs as members of Parliament.I note that in clause 4(4) it says that Part 4 provides legislative authority for former members of Parliament. That is something I do not support. If it were in my gift we would strike this out. Thankfully the entitlement is being grandfathered out; it will not apply to any MP first elected at or after the 1999 election. I believe it is inappropriate because these people were well paid when they were in Parliament. They have done their job and there is really no reason they should get discounts of up to 90 percent on international travel for life and substantial numbers of domestic flights. I ask members to tell me whether there is any other job that provides benefits for life long after the job has been finished. Certainly the people of Mount Maunganui and Tauranga do not know of any jobs like that and I do not know anybody at the beach who even has a job like that.I want to turn to Metiria Turei’s Supplementary Order Paper 369 which would give to the Remuneration Authority the task of determining what travel and accommodation services are to be provided for MPs. I acknowledge that the member believes this is important to bolster confidence in the integrity of Parliament—public confidence that is—and I would like to thank her for taking the time to talk with me about this Supplementary Order Paper to explain her reasoning and to argue her case. I would like to repeat my appreciation for her party’s support for democracy that they cast my proxy vote. I repeat my thanks to the Greens’ caucus but I will have to disagree on this amendment. I believe that it is important that the authority and responsibility for determining what travel MPs can undertake and what accommodation they can access remain with the Speaker. The Speaker understands the demands of the job and the importance of family. I support Part 1 of the bill.BARBARA STEWART (Whip—NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I wonder whether you could please bring to that new member’s notice the fact that the Standing Orders actually prevent him from talking about somebody’s absence from the House or whereabouts that person—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! He was responding to an interjection about where someone was and he replied. That is a rebuttal to an interjection.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 369 in the name of Metiria Turei be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes15Green Party 14; Mana 1.Noes105New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 33; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Amendments not agreed to.Part 1 agreed to.Part 2 Salaries and allowances of members of ParliamentHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): Just a brief commentary from me on Part 2—Chris Hipkins: Make it brief.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Well it can be brief I say to Mr Hipkins because I can say it in words that he will understand. Part 2 is concerned with salaries and allowances of members of Parliament. Clauses 9 to 13 very importantly set out the role of the Remuneration Authority which is appointed to determine the salaries and allowances. Clause 14 sets out provisions relating to substantial increases in financial penalties for members who are absent from the House without permission with deductions starting after 3 days’ absence—I think Mr Mallard called it the “Chris Carter clause”—and clause 14A introduces a financial penalty for members who are suspended from the House. The clauses covering financial penalties for members suspended are new and they reflect a recommendation that was made by the Standing Orders Committee.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I want to make just a very brief contribution to this part of the debate on the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill because I do not think that Part 2 changes a huge amount with regard to the way members of Parliament are paid. The most substantive provisions are the AWOL provisions—so basically those are for members who are absent without leave. As a former whip I did discuss this with my caucus colleagues of course and suggested that in fact this clause did not go far enough. They did not approve of my microchipping idea which I thought might help or ankle bracelets which was the other option that I thought could be a useful contribution in the Committee. They did not think that that went far enough or maybe they thought that I was going a bit far.I think that this is actually a really important provision. It is important that we have very good rules within the parliamentary Standing Orders for members to be absent from the House for legitimate parliamentary reasons. If members are absent without legitimate parliamentary reason and without leave then there is actually very little the Speaker can do about it. I think that we became very aware of that over the last couple of terms of Parliament and the only really substantive change that Part 2 of this bill makes is to give the Speaker the ability to do something about it. So I think that it is a very welcome addition.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I first of all acknowledge the Minister in the chair the Attorney-General and say that it is admirable to have such a high level of education and understanding about so many matters of the world but still be able to speak in language that the rest of us can understand. It is such an admirable quality. Very few people in that position have it.I want to make a brief contribution to Part 2 of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill as well. One of the debates at the GovernmentAdministration Committee was about not just the role of the Remuneration Authority but also the size of it and the competency of the members. It was not in any way to challenge the competency of the existing members but really to look at what mix of skills might be required on the Remuneration Authority. It is my recollection that the select committee made a small amendment to it by lopping one of the proposed new members off it and retaining it at the current size. I think that was a good decision.I share the view of my colleague who has just resumed his seat Chris Hipkins that we should have a much higher level of penalty on members of Parliament who have been elected to be representatives either of their constituency or of their party and do not bother to show up in the House. I find that immensely frustrating. All of us of course would like to stay in our electorates or in our home areas at various times. But being in Parliament—and not just being here physically but actually being a participant in Parliament—is why we were elected we should always face up to that being a fundamental part of our responsibility.The previous regime let us off far too lightly and I think that we could actually go a little further than this bill but it is a good step forward in the right direction. As for the idea of microchipping members of Parliament and having GPS trackers on us—what harm would be done? I am sure it would provide other members of Parliament and—[Interruption] It would certainly provide the media with a lot of additional copy to prepare I am sure.But on a serious note members of the public know that we get very well paid for the role we undertake as their elected representatives and the very least we can do is make sure we turn up at the appropriate time. So we have a penalty provision for people who do not show up but do not have a legitimate reason—and of course there are reasons that are legitimate when a member of Parliament might not be physically in the Chamber at any particular time or indeed in the precincts of Parliament—and we also have provisions for people if they are suspended from the House. I think that a deduction of salary is entirely appropriate and I am very pleased that we introduced those stronger AWOL provisions.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.BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): We are debating Part 2 of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill. Part 2 of the bill—clauses 9 to 15—is entitled “Salaries and allowances of members of Parliament” and it starts off importantly by stating that the Remuneration Authority determines the salaries and allowances of members of Parliament. I have Supplementary Order Paper 368 which I would like to address. It inserts new clause 9A and would address the practice not required by law of the authority giving MPs a pay rise every Christmas. It may be nice but is it fair? Is it justified? What new clause 9A will do is this. The Remuneration Authority will set the pay rate for MPs before each general election and that pay rate that determination will apply for the full 3-year term of Parliament. MPs’ wages will be fixed for each term of Parliament if that amendment is adopted.Last Christmas in December I promised that I would put forward an amendment in a bid to get Parliament to agree that salaries would be set by the Remuneration Authority before the next election. This keeps that promise. Three weeks ago I wrote to all parties in Parliament seeking their support. Quite honestly I cannot understand why anyone would vote against this. If adopted the new law would still require the Remuneration Authority to independently set the salaries of MPs. The difference is that the determination would be published about 3 months before the election. That way every candidate running for Parliament and all the voters will know the remuneration of MPs for the next 3 years. Voters will choose their MPs and we will have an end to the spectacle of Christmas back-pay bonuses.A commentator said that unless MPs enjoy the annual self-flagellation they go through they should vote for this Supplementary Order Paper. He went on to say: “Some MPs may be reluctant to support this amendment because it is from Horan.” I do not know that particular commentator very well at all but I would say that that would be very short-sighted and cutting off the nose to spite the face. Certainly I would appeal to every party every member here to support this Supplementary Order Paper. We are elected for a fixed term of 3 years. None of us can be certain that we will be returned in November 2014. Yes I will be a candidate at the general election and I may or may not be back. I would say to the honourable David Bennett and the honourable Mark Mitchell that they cannot take for granted the green leather that they are seated in over there. It is up to the voters to exercise their judgment and those members might not like the verdict of the public this time next year. We are here on a fixed-term contract and it is appropriate that the voters and the candidates should know before the election what the pay is going to be. It is called openness and transparency.Last Christmas we had the shameful treatment of KiwiRail’s safety maintenance crews where they lost their jobs and were made redundant. And we had the ridiculous situation where a train driver from Veolia Transport Auckland fell through rotting sleepers in a track. Being made redundant is not fair and it is certainly not fair that workers are being made redundant at Christmas and then hearing that MPs are getting apay rise. It sticks in the craw. I found that out last year as we all did and I would hate to think that it would happen again. Thank you.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 in the name of the Rt Hon John Key to Part 2 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 368 in the name of Brendan Horan to Part 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes16Green Party 14; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes104New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 33; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.Part 2 as amended agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 15 Noes 105.Part 3 Services for members of ParliamentHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): Part 3 deals with services for members of Parliament. I refer members to clause 17 which sets out the principles. There are to be three decision makers in relation to the provision of services for MPs. They are the Remuneration Authority the Speaker and in certain circumstances the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services. In relation to all the services that the respective decision makers provide they are to have regard to certain principles and it is worth noting those principles including the need to be fair to the taxpayer the need for the promotion of transparency and the maintenance of confidence in the integrity of Parliament and in the independence of the Remuneration Authority.There are three types of services. Clause 18 sets out the services to be provided by the Remuneration Authority and the way in which the authority is to make its determination. Clause 24 provides that the Speaker is to be given responsibility for setting directions on travel and communications services for MPs and on party and member support funding and sets out the way in which the Speaker is to go about making that determination.Clause 27A deals with the provision of services or entitlements for Ministers. The Minister responsible for Ministerial Services is to make that determination and the following clauses set out how the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services is to go about that task. The only other clause I would refer members to is clause 30 which provides for quarterly reports on travel and accommodation expenses to be prepared by the general manager of the Parliamentary Service and to be made available in respect of each member of Parliament and each party.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): Again I will make my contribution on Part 3 relatively brief. I guess the first point that I would like to make in reading through Part 3 and particularly clause 17—actually most of the clauses have it in them—is on the use of the word “entitlement”. I think that if I was writing the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill from scratch I would avoid the use of the word “entitlement” because I think the public quite rightly get upset about that andwhat we are actually talking about are business-related expenses. These are the expenses that members of Parliament incur in order to be representatives of the people—to do the job that we are sent here to do. So we are talking about travel to get to and from Parliament and to get around the country in order to be able to see people and represent them and accommodation for those people when they are travelling around the country and when they are here in Wellington. They are work-related expenses.I particularly want to draw the attention of the Committee and of those members of the public who are listening to clause 17(1)(b) because I think that there is a lot of public misunderstanding around the personal benefits from the job-related expenses that we get. What clause 17(1)(b) does is basically say that if there is a personal benefit arising from any of the expenses that are covered through our parliamentary activities that will be taken into consideration by the Remuneration Authority when our salaries are determined. In other words if through this legislation or through any determinations issued by the Speaker or the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services or through the Remuneration Authority we end up with things that we personally benefit from we will effectively end up being paid less as a result of that. So there is a safeguard in there for the taxpayer that none of the decision makers in this legislation can do things that will give members of Parliament a personal benefit without there being some offset against the salaries that we receive and I think that that is quite right. I think that that is a very legitimate expectation. It adheres to the principles that are set out in the Act about being fair to the taxpayer—which I think is very very important—about there being transparency and about the need for public understanding of the work that members of Parliament do. I think that those things are relatively well safeguarded in here.If I was writing this bill from scratch I would do it differently and again I think one of the things that I would say is that I would try to avoid the use of the term “entitlement” because I think that that sends all of the wrong messages around what we are trying to do. What we need to do here and what this legislation aims to do is ensure that members of Parliament can be effective advocates for the people who vote for us who send us here to Parliament. So that involves our need to be able to be here in Wellington. I am one of the members who can speak with no conflict here. I do not get any Wellington accommodation allowance. I do not have any interest in that whatsoever. But I absolutely accept that members of Parliament who do not live in Wellington should have that. They should be able to stay here. They should be able to find accommodation arrangements that are appropriate for them and that should be covered because I do not see how they could possibly do their jobs as members of Parliament without it.I also benefit probably less from or have less reason to be concerned about the travel sections of this bill too because again I am a Wellington member of Parliament. I drive home every day so I stay at my house. I do not fly as much as other members do but I absolutely defend the rights of members of Parliament when it comes to their air travel as well. I think it is very important that members of Parliament have the flexibility to travel to and from their constituencies using air travel and have the flexibility to travel around the country to attend to other things. Although I am an absolute advocate for transparency one of the things that would concern me greatly is the idea that members of Parliament would stop travelling and stop making themselves available to the voting public to the general public because of potential perceptions and risks. So if every time a member of Parliament agrees to travel somewhere and thinks that they will have to justify that very trip and justify that individual airfare then the result of that would be that members of Parliament will attend fewer events and will become less accessible to members of the public. Again I say this as someone who probably has less reason to call on these services than others because I live in Wellington.I absolutely think it is important that we have transparency to the point that is necessary for the public to be assured that the system is not being abused and that members of Parliament are not claiming and personally benefiting from things that they should not be but I also absolutely think that it is important that members of Parliament have the freedom to travel around the country when necessary to do the job that the New Zealand public require us to do.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): We have some amendments to Part 3 but they are essentially to the same effect as the amendment I described earlier which is to re-include the travel of MPs in the determinations that are made by the Remuneration Authority rather than leaving that with the Speaker. I understand Chris Hipkins’ view and there is potentially some logic to it. The other view is that if we in Parliament are to treat travel services as a critical tool for the purposes of doing our job then I think the other option is that they remain with the Speaker as will be the case if this bill passes as it is at the moment. They remain with the Speaker but that is for parliamentary purpose only. Just as when we sign off our budgets and the various things that we have to do every month for the parliamentary spending that we do we have to sign a little piece of paper that says: “This spending is for parliamentary purpose.” We do—you know everybody has to do it. In having to do that we are having to make a genuine declaration that this travel is for parliamentary purpose. But the problem with travel is that we are entitled to use it for personal reasons. That is it. That is—Chris Hipkins: So if an MP flies home to attend to a sick child is that a parliamentary purpose?METIRIA TUREI: Well there is a question there. I agree Mr Hipkins and it might be that the right to travel from where you are for your work to your home is considered to be part of your parliamentary purpose given that you are entitled to get back to your house right? So we might have to look at how the parliamentary purpose reflects the nature of the job. MPs have to move from their home to Parliament and from their home to some other place to do some work and back to their home. That is not unreasonable for us to have that conversation but the issue is—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.METIRIA TUREI: If anybody is curious as to why I have this lovely young thing standing next to me her name is Jellybean Harakeke. She is part of the Buddy Day campaign that is being run by Child Matters over the next week. The campaign encourages adults to adopt a buddy to carry the buddy around with us and to encourage conversations about how adults can prevent child abuse and engage in real solutions to prevent child abuse. That is why I have my buddy Jellybean Harakeke with me today.Before the dinner break I was just responding to issues raised by Chris Hipkins about the travel allowances part of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill. He was suggesting that in the current system whereby MPs have access to travel for our work we are also able to use travel allowances for personal reasons as well. He was suggesting that part of the trade-off is that the Remuneration Authority assesses the value of that personal use and then in determining our salaries takes away—subtracts from the final determination—the value of that personal use.That is one way of doing it and it is the way that it has been done. The Green Party’s view is that it is not the most transparent way. It is not the most straightforward way. In fact a better way would be for the travel allowance to be for parliamentary purpose only. Yes that would require some understanding or rule-setting around what “parliamentary purpose” means. For example—and Chris Hipkins raised the issue—what would happenif an MP was away from town away from home on parliamentary business and needed to get home? Well one could reasonably argue that the travel itself is for a parliamentary purpose and therefore it is reasonable for the travel home to be included in that purpose. That would have to be a discussion.My argument here is that if travel is to remain with the Speaker as the bill currently sets out and because travel is considered to be an essential tool for MPs to operate in our job—like our laptops like our office furniture or whatever other kinds of tools you may want to consider—then there is an argument that that tool should be restricted for parliamentary purpose. That would take away then the perception that the public might have—and I think they do have actually—that MPs want to retain control over the travel allowances because they want to retain the ability to travel for personal reasons as well as parliamentary purpose.So what is the trade-off here? One trade-off we could have is to agree that travel stays with the Speaker but is restricted and is not available for MPs to use for personal travel. We have not had that conversation yet. This is another one of those issues that remain unresolved. The issue is unresolved—that is whether travel should be restricted to parliamentary purpose only with no provision for personal use—because we have not discussed that. That has not been a matter that MPs have wanted to discuss in the Parliamentary Service Commission and elsewhere even though it is an issue that has been raised by the Law Commission the Appropriations Review Committee and in other areas. The Greens’ view is that the travel should also then move to the Remuneration Authority.It is therefore critical for an independent agency to set the travel rules. We actually cannot have it both ways where we get to decide our own travel allowance and we get to keep—or decide to keep—the personal component of that travel allowance. I do not think the public believe that that is the right thing to do. I do not believe that the public should be mistrusted by MPs either. I think we can trust the public to have a reasonable view about the tools that we need to do our jobs and to have a reasonable view about the travel that we need to do our jobs. Some people will always complain about the resources that we use. But again in my experience of travelling around the country and talking to people about these issues the vast majority of people understand that we need to use our travel allowance to get around. They understand and they want us to be able to get out to a variety of areas and talk to a variety of communities. They want to see and hear their representatives from a wide range of parties and over a wide range of issues.They do not in the main believe that we are intentionally trying to maintain our own personal benefit to the extent that perhaps the media makes out sometimes but the public want to be trusted to hold that view. One of the ways that we can demonstrate that trust is to give over the authority to make these decisions ourselves. It does us no harm. It does us only good if we agree that the public can be trusted to hold our interests at heart; that the independent authority can be trusted to make a reasonable decision about the allowances that we need to do our work.Therefore at the end of the day all of this takes the political heat out. We do not end up with the kind of front-page news stories that we currently have. The more transparent we are the more information that we provide and the less we hold on to the authority to make decisions about these things ourselves the more the public will then agree with what it is that we need to do our jobs and trust us to do them with their interests at heart.So I urge MPs to vote for Supplementary Order Paper 369 that I have on the Table which again reinstates travel services as being a determination of the Remuneration Authority. I think that is a positive move. It is a practical move. It is a principled move. It gives confidence to the public that we are not here to further our own interests that we arenot here simply to improve our own personal financial wealth but we are here to serve the public and to use public resources in a way that is wise and transparent. Thank you.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I call and recognise the Hon Ruth Dyson.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Thank you very much Mr Chairman. I am pleased that you recognise me. We have worked together quite a lot and I think I would be quite disappointed if you did not actually. I want to make a small contribution in relation to Part 3 of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill and in particular draw the attention of members in this debate to what I think is actually one of the most important parts of this bill: the principles that are outlined in clause 17.Clause 17 “Principles” talks about what the Remuneration Authority the Speaker and the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services must have regard to in setting determinations or issuing instructions. It says some really important things. Clause 17(1)(a) says: “that the entitlements of members of Parliament and Ministers to support services should be determined in a way that—(i) recognises the need for public understanding of the work of those persons and their parties and the services they require to enable them to carry out their roles and functions;”. It is really important that we recognise the need for public understanding and also the fact that it is the public who is funding these support services.What also has to be considered is that any such determination has to facilitate “the delivery of support services in an efficient and effective manner;” so we cannot be frivolous in terms of the support services we have. They have to be efficient and effective. A determination recognises “the need to be fair to the taxpayer;”. That is a really important principle to have in the legislation. It “promotes transparency in relation to the allocation and use of public money to provide the support services necessary for members of Parliament Ministers and parties to carry out their respective roles and functions; and (v) maintains confidence in the integrity of Parliament; and (vi) maintains the independent of the Remuneration Authority:”.I think we should be very appreciative of the fact that in New Zealand we have those principles of fairness of transparency of public understanding and support and of maintaining confidence in the integrity of Parliament and the independence of the Remuneration Authority. I bet that many other countries around the world would be very envious of us having in our legislation such provisions. I think as New Zealand members of Parliament we should be very proud that that is actually the legal requirement for those different bodies when setting determinations or issuing directions.The other important provision that I just want to draw to the attention of the Committee is also in the same clause but it is actually subclause (1)(b). It relates to what is often seen as the tension between what members of Parliament need to do their job properly—whether it is a phone or a flight to a meeting or an engagement you have been invited to or have to attend as a constituency MP or as a portfolio holder in that area—or some other support service that is provided to us in order to do our job. The tension arises when members of public see that support service as a private benefit.I want to just draw the attention of the Committee to 17(1)(b) which says: “that if services provided include an element of remuneration or result in any other private benefit the value of that benefit should be taken into account by the Remuneration Authority in determining relevant salaries and allowances…”. So if there is a private benefit that is gained by a member of Parliament through any of the other support services that we are given the Remuneration Authority say: “Well you gain X Y and Z from that particular determination. You gain that as a private benefit. Therefore when it comes to setting the salaries of members of Parliament that amount will be deducted.”I think that having that transparency is really important so that the Remuneration Authority does not do it behind closed doors. It can actually say: “This is the private benefit that a member of Parliament gains from that determination and therefore we are going to take that same amount off their salary when we take into consideration any increase or adjustment to the salary.” I am very pleased with those two provisions. I think they are very important and enhance the strength of this bill.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 in the name of the Rt Hon John Key to Part 3 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Metiria Turei’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 369 deleting clause 27D is out of order as it is contrary to an earlier decision of the Committee. So that has been ruled on. But we do have another one in the name of the honourable member Metiria Turei. It is the remaining amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 369. All those in favour please say Aye to the contrary No. The Noes have it?Hon Members: Party vote.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Party vote called for. The Clerk will please conduct a party vote. Just to make sure and so that I am not confused these are Metiria Turei’s remaining amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 369. That is what I have here. So it is not the one that was set out on Supplementary Order Paper 369 deleting clause 27D because that was out of order. But there is another one. I think the Greens will want to vote for this one. So let me put it again.Hon Ruth Dyson: They’ve said that. They’ve called a party vote.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): You want a party vote? I just want to make sure you know what the situation is. OK we will have a party vote. Please conduct a party vote.The question was put that the remaining amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 369 in the name of Metiria Turei to Part 3 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes15Green Party 14; Mana 1.Noes105New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 33; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Amendments not agreed to.Part 3 as amended agreed to.Part 4Entitlements of former members and other miscellaneous mattersThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Could honourable members now turn their minds to Part 4. It is debate on clauses 36 to 68 and it also includes the schedules 2 and 3.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 in the name of the Rt Hon John Key to Part 4 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes102New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 33; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Noes18Green Party 14; Māori Party 3; Mana 1.Amendments agreed to.TIM MACINDOE (Junior Whip—National): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise I have cast the vote in Part 3 incorrectly for the Māori Party. The Māori Party’s vote should in fact be cast against the Minister’s amendment and Part 3 standing part. I would be grateful if the record could be corrected.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): So you are seeking leave to amend the record?TIM MACINDOE: I am seeking leave.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action—there was no vote on Part 3; it was agreed on. That is OK?TIM MACINDOE: That is fine. My apologies. There was a vote but it was actually on a—The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Yes the only vote was on the honourable member Metiria Turei’s amendments. OK.TIM MACINDOE: That’s fine. No correction needed. I apologise for apologising.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It is Tuesday evening!The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 369 in the name of Metiria Turei to Part 4 be agreed to.Amendments not agreed to.Part 4 as amended agreed to.Schedule 1agreed to.Schedule 2agreed to.Schedule 3The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 in the name of the Rt Hon John Key to schedule 3 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Schedule 3 as amended agreed to.Clause 1agreed to.Clause 2CommencementThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 in the name of the Rt Hon John Key to clause 2 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.