Dowie Sarah: Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDowie Sarah: Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading[Sitting date: 17 March 2015. Volume:704;Page:2286. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): I rise in support of the Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill 2015 for its first reading but before I begin like others I want to extend my support to the people of Vanuatu. My thoughts and prayers are with them as they move through the deaths they have experienced and the destruction. My best to those people.I pick up on the point of the member opposite who said that talking about members’ remuneration has always been a touchy subject. An interesting fact is that until 1950 our predecessors actually fixed their own salaries. I do not quite remember that. I was actually born in 1974 when the Higher Salaries Commission took over the role. I am sure it was to much relief of many members that it was taken out of their hands but it certainly did not remove the fact that the public dislike MPs’ salary determinations.Just before I do talk more about this bill I want to pick up on two things that were said by previous speakers. My understanding is that there was quite a bit of dialogue with the Remuneration Authority to use some of its implied discretion under the Act that if it was going to set an increase to make it appropriate. This is a Government that is talking about having people live within their means. We are asking the Public Service to do more on less. We are asking for better results. It has been said that in support of that a 1 to 2 percent increase is probably the appropriate place for it.The Remuneration Authority has decided not to do that and the 3.56 percent increase is seen on this side of the House as neither necessary nor justified. That is the reason why we have now taken these steps to change the Act to bring this increase back into line.The other thing too is that I am not too young to remember some shenanigans in 2002 and 2005 in respect of MPs’ salaries and their determinations. So to suggest that we are doing things in a rushed way now—what we are doing is we are saying that this 3.56 percent increase is inappropriate. We have had dialogue with the Remuneration Authority. It has chosen not to take that advice so we are going to do something about it. I am in support of that bill. This bill adds to the parent Act and will clarify the Act to make determinations fair to the recipient but also to the taxpayer. These changes will obviously bring that to the fore.As I said before this decision was not taken lightly but we want to peg determinations to the average annual percentage change in the public sector pay as measured by Statistics New Zealand. That means that our pay increase will be in line with the average public sector salary movements. That is only fair because we are public servants. We are bracketed with the people who are nurses who are teachers and who are police officers. They are doing a fantastic job. As I said before this Government is asking our Public Service to deliver more on less. They are doing that. Their work is valued but we need to be walking the talk. We need to be seen as being bracketed with them and the work that they do.I certainly do not question anybody’s motives for being here. We are all here to do a job. We are all here to do the best that we can for our constituents. We may have different ideas about how we do that but I think the motives are pure just as our nurses go on to the front line or our police go on to the front line and work hard. It is appropriate that we are in line with that 1 to 2 percent increase if at all. I look forward to seeing this bill being shepherded through the House. I am in support of it. Thank you.