Parliament Bill

Members, we come now to Part 4. Part 4 is the debate on clauses 57 to 100, “Salaries, allowances, expenses, and services for members and others”, and Schedule 3. The question is that Part 4 stand part.

I’m just excited to get back to the point that I was asking about previously—it’s not a major one. It is a really good change to the legislation, where it shows some leadership from this place around adult dependency, and a recognition that some members of Parliament have adult dependants and that there should be different provisions made that can ensure that families spend time together. I think this is a good signal, actually, to the wider community about having some flexibility, because, previously, only the dependent children—I think 18 years or under; it might even be under 18 years, I can’t remember—could qualify for travel. That is not to be a perk of the job; it’s really about making sure that children and their parents that work in this place actually remember who each other are, given the long hours. But that did not apply and did not take into account any element of dependency.

We’ve got this changed provision in clause 61, and there is a test in it, and it talks about a disability that means they require ongoing daily care, and then there are a number of things that need to be fulfilled under paragraph (a)—with the member presumably being the one who provides the care—and paragraph (b) about financial dependence and the fact they’re not living with another person in a de facto relationship. That all seems really good.

When I turn over to clause 63 and I see the meaning of a “dependent child”, it’s pretty similar. But we have in there, in paragraph (c), “to whom A provides ongoing care;”, and then a number of the other similar tests. I guess it could be argued, because we’ve got “enrolled at a registered school within the meaning of section 10(1) of the Education and Training Act”, really it’s about the meaning of ongoing care. It could be that there are some people who are in that education who may be living with others but are still relying financially on a parent, they’re not in a de facto relationship, they’re pretty dependent, they can’t get a part-time job, but they may not necessarily be living in the same home—which is not in there; it’s just got provisions about family, ongoing care, and not being in a de facto relationship.

Earlier on, it doesn’t really define what ongoing care is; it defines the meaning of a “dependent child”. But I wonder if the Leader of the House could clarify for the record how he sees the boundaries of this so that we—I don’t think it’s intended to capture people who are very dependent but not living in the same household as the MP. I think it would be good to know that, because otherwise there could be—with some of the clever legal, and other, minds in this place—some pushing up against the boundaries of the rules, and we would need to be really clear about who can qualify.

I appreciate the point that the member is making. Ultimately, the judge of this is the Speaker, and so I appreciate the member’s invitation, but I am not going to seek to define that here, because I would get it wrong and I would not want to mislead people. There will be a range of factual circumstances around this. As, I think, every member knows, people’s living circumstances can be simple and sometimes they are complex, and I’m not judging anyone—I would never seek to do that.

The intent of this, as the member rightly outlines, is to be slightly more progressive around the support that can be provided and, again, to just update it and make sure that we’re keeping pace with the variety of circumstances that some people find themselves in. There is no test, and I suspect that that’s probably deliberate. Ultimately, the judge of this will be the Speaker, and there is a whole range of things in the Speaker’s determinations and the rules around funding allowances and things like that, where, ultimately, the Speaker has the final say. The same checks apply—as I said probably about 10 minutes or so ago—in relation to judgments around that.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 4 set out on Amendment Paper 362 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 4 as amended agreed to.

Part 5 Clerk and Office of the Clerk