Dyson Ruth: Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 14 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14718. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I commend the Minister Chris Finlayson for his words in the third reading of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill and also acknowledge the members of the Government Administration Committee who have worked pretty hard on this bill. I think we asked for two extensions in order to get the agreement of all members of the select committee. There are three parties in the Government Administration Committee—National Labour and the Greens—and all parties agreed completely in the end. Actually during the process we had quite a lot of differing opinions even within each party because some of these issues are not as black and white or as straightforward as some matters are. We also had pretty impressive contributions to our deliberation including from the former Speaker of the House the Rt Hon Sir Lockwood Smith now resident in London who made a very considered and robust contribution to the thinking of the committee. I want to acknowledge his contribution as well as the contribution of the Clerk of the House and others who also made very considered contributions.The primary driver of this legislation is to modernise the regime under which members of Parliament’s remuneration and services are provided and not only to address what are some clear anomalies or gaps in the system but also to improve transparency. I think without doubt that that was an issue on which all members of the Government Administration Committee which I am privileged to chair reached agreement immediately. We understand from our own constituents that when publicmoney is used when taxpayers’ money is funding the operation of Parliament there has to be the highest level of transparency in the use of that money. I am very pleased that this legislation has progressed that transparency even further than the original proposals. It certainly has been the case in the last 10 or 15 years particularly I suppose that there has been more transparency in the use of public money. I do not know whether the public is yet at a time when they can say: “Yes this feels right and we understand what the money is used for.” but I certainly hope that after the passing of this legislation that transparency will increase the public confidence in the operation of Parliament because that is pretty important.The next round of decisions that we considered were who made determinations about remuneration and support services that members of Parliament and their parliamentary staff and out-of-Parliament staff may receive—whether that determination should be made by the Speaker of the House or whether that determination should be made by the Remuneration Authority. We changed by unanimous agreement of the select committee the provision in regard to the travel for members of Parliament. We agreed that that would remain the responsibility of the Speaker and this is for a very simple reason. It is because we view the travel that members of Parliament undertake as being a fundamental part of the work of a member of Parliament. For those of us who live outside Wellington—thankfully—and indeed outside this island we know that it is our responsibility to come to Parliament every week. That is part of the travel that we undertake as part of our job.It was our view that the work-related requirement of a member of Parliament to be able to travel to perform their duties—not just travelling from home to Parliament but also travelling from home or Parliament to other duties either as a Minister as a spokesperson as a National Party backbencher or as an Opposition spokesperson—is really critical to not only fulfilling your job as a member of Parliament but also ensuring that we have a healthy democracy. We cannot have a democracy that flourishes in Wellington and ignores the rest of the country. So it was our view that the proper place in which that determination should be made was with the Speaker. We did not however feel the same in regard to the travel that family members are able to access. We agree that it is a very important supporting part of being a member of Parliament to have family members able to travel to provide support on various occasions but we did not agree that it was fundamental to your job. Therefore we agreed that the determination of travel for family members should properly go to the Remuneration Authority.With the provision of support services we believe that that is again a core role of fulfilling your duties as a member of Parliament and it should therefore be a determination of the Speaker. I am really delighted that this bill clarifies that the funding of support services for any member of Parliament is the responsibility of Parliament and not the responsibility of the individual party to which the member who needs those support services belongs. We have had instances—over the last well perhaps since Invercargill was held by a Labour member of Parliament so it goes back quite a long way—where members of Parliament have a physical or sensory impairment and may require different support services in order that they can perform their full function as a member of Parliament compared with other members. There has been a debate in recent times about whether those support services for a member with a physical or sensory impairment should be funded by the party that that member belongs to or whether it is the responsibility of Parliament. We have kicked that out the door and said that without doubt this is the responsibility of Parliament. I hope that this gives a really clear message to all disabled New Zealanders that they would be welcome in this Parliament as contributing members regardless of what party they were elected torepresent and that Parliament would consider it our responsibility to provide proper support services so that they are able to perform their duties.There are a couple of other points that I just want to draw to the attention of the House. I mentioned right at the beginning our very quick and unanimous agreement on the point of recognising how the public feels about their taxpayers’ money being used for these purposes—to fund the operation of Parliament including not only the salaries of members of Parliament and their support services but also the allowances that former members of Parliament get. That is often an issue of contention. It was our view that this was a very important area in terms of improving transparency of the use of those funds. So the travel of former members of Parliament will now become part of the public record. Again I do hope that members of the public see that as a good thing. It is their money not our money and how it is used should be a matter of public record so that people can then make their contribution known in a debate about whether that is a fair use or a good use.I am sure that many people in our constituencies quite often wonder what we do when we come to Parliament as indeed will the thousands and thousands of people who will be watching this debate on television. They will look around the room and they will see many seats that do not have a member sitting on them. They will wonder whether the person has knocked off early and gone home or whether they have gone down Lambton Quay to do some shopping. What are they doing if they are not sitting in the House? Well we know as members of Parliament that the commitments outside the Chamber are real. We have other meetings that we all attend and they are meetings that are important to us for various reasons. But for a member of Parliament just to go AWOL and not turn up at all is not acceptable to any of us so we have increased the penalties that those AWOL members will have to pay. We have linked it directly to their salary so if a Minister goes AWOL they will not be penalised on the basis of their salary being a backbencher’s salary; they will be penalised as a percentage of the ministerial salary they receive. That should give a very clear message that when members of Parliament are elected to be representatives they should turn up and do their job.The same applies for members of Parliament who are suspended for bad behaviour. Fortunately we do not get that very often. I did think during question time today that there might be a bit of a clear-out but in the end there was not; the Speaker dropped his focus on removing some members. But if a member is suspended from the House then we think there should be a financial penalty attached to that and that is included in the provisions here. Clause 14A in the bill came directly from a recommendation of the Standing Orders Committee.I think that the work that we have done has been pretty rigorous. It was not always black and white. There were some differences in consideration but I think we got quality submissions. I think that we all worked really hard to make sure that the public funds that are used to support our democracy in New Zealand have not only a fair process but also a transparent process. Thank you.