Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill

on behalf of the Prime 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.

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 different opinions 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.

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.

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 the personal 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.

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.

—Minister looking very sympathetic. Well, at least he is not gloating.

💬 Moana Mackey: Viruses have no effect on him.

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 pay increases, 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!

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.

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.

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.

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 paid by 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?

Nah, he is down in Christchurch at the racing.

💬 David Bennett: Is he? Oh, good on him.

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.

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.

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—

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.