Mark Ron: Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMark Ron: Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 March 2015. Volume:704;Page:2327. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RON MARK (NZ First): I rise to take a brief call basically just to get a few of my thoughts on the record. I have sat here quietly and listened to this debate as it has progressed and a couple of statements have stood out really glaringly to me. I think New Zealand First has made its view very clear. We support this legislation. We are not unhappy with the moves to curb the level of increase that members of Parliament have been accorded by the Remuneration Authority. It does not go far enough. It does not focus on the top end of the Civil Service—those chief executives and those people such as the Commissioner of Police who the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety says thoroughly deserve their $300000 or $400000 a year that they get paid. We do not accept that.Actually if I was to take the Minister’s own words that it serves as an opportunity to shine a light on public expenditure then we would say to the Minister that he is absolutely right. It does serve as an opportunity to shine a light on public expenditure. It is an absolute opportunity to look seriously at what senior civil servants are being paid. We have had many opportunities to listen to the National Party whilst in Opposition over the years saying exactly that and saying exactly that about the chief executive officers of—oh what was one—Environment Canterbury for example and the Christchurch City Council. So it really is time for some people to put their money where their mouth is and actually move on those things that once before seemed to be quite abhorrent to them and yet today they seem to want to justify.The bottom line is that New Zealanders the very people whom the Minister says they are seeking to listen to in this legislation are saying this as well Minister. The levels of pay of some of our senior civil servants are unacceptably high to them. So I expect this Government will come forward with another piece of legislation to deal with that matter as well. If it means curbing the way in which the State Services Commission or the Remuneration Authority sets measures and determines those salaries then let us have that. Let us get on with it. And while we are there let us have a look at how they deal with the salaries and the allowances that are paid to officials elected to local government.The remuneration levels of some of the mayors in rural provincial New Zealand—and I can speak with authority because I have been one for 4 years—are pathetic in comparison to the duties and responsibilities that those mayors hold. The amount of money that some of our councillors are being remunerated for 6 days a week 7 days a week being on call 24 hours a day just like any MP would not even cover the cellphone bills that some of the National Party members were spending when I was in coalition Government as a junior Government whip. I can say that with clear authority because I was there as a whip you know. The Minister himself has been a whip and he knows the exact expenditure levels of each and every MP both outside Cabinet—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I would like the member to sit when I stand please. What I am going to give now not so much to that member but to the Committee generally is a warning that we have had quite a wide-ranging series of second reading speeches in the Committee stage of this bill. The Committee has accepted at the second reading the general direction and principles of the legislation. We are now talking about the technical details within the clauses and I would like members from now on to speak to them. Thank you.RON MARK: Thank you for the guidance Mr Chair. Like I said I just wanted to speak to some of the comments that had been made. I think Tracey Martin has already expressed New Zealand First’s view. We are comfortable with the legislation going forward. We are comfortable with supporting it. We do caution and I would add to the chorus of caution here that legislation that is moved in haste is often legislation that is technical in detail.I am not a mathematician by any stretch of the imagination although I did study engineering and I worked very hard at that. But I worry—and I would endorse the concerns of some people who have spoken earlier—about legislation that is technical in this nature fiscally technical and about the potential for error and that we might end up having to redress this all again. I do think that we have moved with haste. I understand the Minister’s need for doing that but I do think there is a danger here particularly given that the legislation has not gone through the scrutiny of a select committee for finding ourselves back here redressing this again.I want to finish by addressing with your tolerance Mr Chairman a comment made by the Minister in the chair himself: “We all want a high-wage economy.” Well zero-hour contracts do not give you that manipulating employment statistics for people who work only 1 hour a week do not give you that and driving down wages by employing foreign students and misusing and abusing foreign labour do not give you that Minister.