Turei Metiria: Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTurei Metiria: Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 March 2015. Volume:704;Page:2328. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I just wanted to address the other two Supplementary Order Papers in my name which I have not talked about yet but also just to note for the public two things. First the Minister has confirmed that this bill will not constrain MPs’ pay. What it does is it locks in increases. It will not constrain MPs’ pay. MPs’ pay will continue to grow at a percentage level and therefore increase the gap between MPs and the lower-paid workers in this country. That is what this change will do. It is one of the reasons why we are not supporting this bill.The second thing I would say is that the Minister went on at length in the Committee stage about constraining Public Service pay constraining Government spending which clearly demonstrates the purpose of this bill. This bill is not designed to meet the public’s concerns about MPs’ pay increases; it is designed to have a mechanism to justify keeping Public Service pay low. That was clear in the reasoning. The Minister has spent more time talking about this as a mechanism to keep Public Service pay low than about the public concern around MPs’ pay increases which clearly shows the purpose of this bill.I have two Supplementary Order Papers still. I have described one; I have another one Supplementary Order Paper 59 which uses a different mechanism in terms of the Public Service. What this one does is it uses the labour cost index from the labour market statistics. This Supplementary Order Paper is an alternative to the first one. It would mean that since 2007 MPs’ pay instead of going up by $30000 which it does under the current regime would have gone up by only $14000. So we would have had half the pay increases over the last few years than we do have under the current situation. It is a means to constrain MPs’ pay and is a much better measure for Public Service pay than the quarterly employment survey because this bill bases the change in salary and wage rates for the Public Service but it is a better measure.The labour market statistics are a much truer measure of the actual rate of increase than the quarterly employment survey because they measure what people are actually being paid by employers. This would mean it is a much fairer approach to using the Public Service as some kind of measure. It does mean there would have been a significant decrease in MPs’ pay over the last 6 years so it is a genuine constraint. The quarterly employment survey can be used but it is a very crude measure. What it does in the Government’s bill is it essentially maintains the status quo and locks in increases.Employers ask Statistics New Zealand about information on pay rates and they ask about the labour cost index. It is a truer measure of public sector pay. The State Services Commission uses the labour cost index. Its Human Resource Capability Survey of Public Service departments uses the labour cost index. Even the State Services Commission thinks it is a better measure for looking at pay rates across the public sector.Importantly we have also linked this to the changes in salary and wages for the Public Service as opposed to the public sector. The public sector is not an exact group to use for something this important. It is a much wider pool and includes higher wage movements in health education and local government. The Public Service is narrower and it puts MPs in a much closer position to public servants as they are more commonly understood so it is a better measure. If the intention of the parties is to have a measure that is related to the Public Service then ourSupplementary Order Paper59 is a much better clearer measure and it actually will constrain MPs’ pay increases.Our thirdSupplementary Order Paper which my colleague James Shaw has also touched on is the one that essentially removes everything in the bill except for the bit that revokes the current determination. So thisSupplementary Order Paper58 if it went through would mean that the current determination of the Remuneration Authority to increase MPs’ pay would be stopped. It would mean that this new determination would not proceed so MPs would not get their pay rise. But it would also mean that there is no additional measure so the current pay and conditions that MPs are working under would remain. Doing that would give us time to look at this bill through aselect committeeprocess and to have an opportunity for MPs and parties to look at each other’s alternatives.I do accept that for other parties that have looked at ourSupplementary Order Papers I understand their concern that they simply have not had time to assess them properly because there has not been time as part of the bill because we are in urgency. So it would mean that there would be alternatives other than the Greens’. TheMāoriPartyNew Zealand First theLabour Party ACT—I do not know whether it is supporting the bill; I would be very surprised about that but ACT may have ideas about how to constrain MPs’ pay. All of those ideas would be able to be put on the table and presented to the public. The public would have a chance to investigate and interrogate those ideas and to come to us and tell us what kinds of conditions what criteria and what constraints they would like to see and we would be able to come up with an enduring solution.So there is an option on the table tonight for political parties to stop the current pay increase—that isSupplementary Order Paper58—and then for us to step back a bit have another look at the Minister’s bill take it through aselect committeeprocess properly and have a fuller investigation as to what is the right measure because I agree there is no doubt that there are going to be mistakes in this and we are going to have to come back. And as can happen the mistake could be a significant embarrassment to theGovernment. It is the kind of thing where you could see where maybe there will be significant pay increases instead which is not theGovernment’s intention and it will have to come back to us and ask us to support fixing its mistake. Frankly that would be extremely difficult to tolerate and stomach because the Government has been well warned—the Minister has been well warned—that a mistake is likely and that there were alternatives on the table to prevent that from happening. So I would urge members to vote in favour of the preferred option which is tying MPs’ pay to the nominal median wage.The second option is tying it to the labour cost index which is a Public Service measure but a more appropriate tighter Public Service measure. And third if you do not like either of those measures then at least vote for the thirdSupplementary Order Paperto stop the current pay increase so that we can go away and have a good and decent look at this legislation.The fact is theGovernmenthas got the numbers. TheGovernmenthas got the numbers to pass whatever legislation it chooses—at least for the moment; that is true—so there is no need for urgency. The Minister has made no argument at all for urgency. He has not said a single thing about why it all has to be done tonight while the rest of the country is watchingThe Bachelor New Zealand and is very distracted I understand. There is no justification for doing this in urgency and he has made none because there is none. So it really is shocking that something so serious could be treated so trivially but given his own argument that the core reason for this bill is actually to constrain Public Service pay then I guess we cannot be surprised. It is a shame that National would treat both the Remuneration Authority and the New Zealand public and particularly the Public Service in such a shabby way. Thank you.