Martin Tracey: Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMartin Tracey: Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading[Sitting date: 17 March 2015. Volume:704;Page:2302. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TRACEY MARTIN (Deputy Leader—NZ First):Kia ora. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First. Yes it is a very difficult thing to keep up with this legislation; it is quite truncated. I appreciate the contribution of the Green Party member James Shaw and also the contribution of the Labour Party members. This has been one of the more educational debates to take place in this House for quite some time. That is because it is a burning issue. If it was not a burning issue if the people of New Zealand did not care about it then believe me we would not be here talking about it. It is my understanding that the Government actually knew about the announcement before the announcement was going to be made. It had an opportunity to actually take advice prior to the Remuneration Authority coming forward with its recommendation but Christmas is not really a good time to actually make these announcements. So we end up where we are now.Again I think all of us have said how unfortunate it is that we are in this place and this moment without the true ability to even just give it full attention. It is around algebra. I mean I do not know how many people in this House who would stick their hand up and say they are brilliant mathematicians when it comes to algebra. I am looking; there is nobody. That is good.Hon Michael Woodhouse: I am now.TRACEY MARTIN: Mr Nash has put his hand up. We will be testing Mr Nash in the dinner hour. And the Minister has said that he has very quickly learnt an awful lot about algebra—so there you go. I have to admit that I have been upstairs working through it myself trying to figure out what those letters actually mean. I think what has been most valuable about the contributions for me anyway to date is one the contribution from the first Green Party spokesperson who asked why we do not consider splitting this out. Minister why do we not consider splitting this out? Let us put a stop to the 3.5 percent. We all agree that the 3.5 percent is just out of whack and is not acceptable. Why do we not consider actually splitting it out then and taking a moment? Let us just go back to what we had before. None of us that I can pick up was gagging for an increase in pay. None of us was lobbying. None of us was trying to actually get more money because all of us are very aware of people inside our areas who live on a heck of a lot less or who are trying to live on a heck of a lot less than what we get paid to do our job.There would be no argument. We would probably not even need to take any more calls if we actually split that bit out and said: “Stop the 3.5. Go back to what it was prior to the Remuneration Authority.” And then let us take the next year to put the new equation the new criteria through a select committee process. Let us take some time and allow this voice of New Zealand—the voice of New Zealand—which we know is out there to actually come and submit around a select committee process because then we would have an enduring solution and I think that has been what has been pointed out by previous speakers as well. We have no doubt that this will come back. We often get pieces of legislation that have been pushed through. Let us give the benefit of the doubt. You know the staff who write the legislation are doing their best under time pressures. There is an outcome that is being desired and it is algebra.The equation was not right last week so are we sure—are we sure are we sure—that the modelling done this week is right? Are we sure that the quarterly employment survey is the thing that we should be working on? Are we sure that when we say in the legislation that “the Quarterly Employment Survey for the public sector average ordinary time weekly earnings for fulltime-equivalent employees using the change for the average for the year to June compared with the average for the previous year to June.” that that is going to give us the outcome that we seek? And what is the outcome that we seek? What we seek is that we do not want to be treated—I believe this is what we seek—unduly better than any other New Zealand worker out there. We want to be treated fairly just as they wish to be treated fairly. I do think that Mr Robertson’s point reiterated by Mr Shaw around the inequality that has grown between the average worker’s salary or wage and that of chief executive officers has contributed to this issue and yet we are not addressing it. I do think that that is something that if we were able to take more time we could have a really good look at it. I think this has highlighted that major issue.It just struck me that when the National Party member for the Wairarapa spoke last week he spoke on a bill where he argued about the need for the capacity for employers in his area to bring in workers who would work for the dollars they were offering as opposed to the member for Wairarapa standing and arguing that the employers of the Wairarapa needed to be supported to be able to pay the dollars the workers required and the dollars they would take that work for. Too often we are hearing about this. Too often we are hearing that New Zealanders will not take the job; whereas in reality New Zealanders will not take the job for the pay and conditions that are offered. And then there is an argument often from the Government benches that we therefore must bring in people to fill those positions that New Zealanders will not take. So I think it is a valid statement a valid comment that the lower pay scales and the higher pay scales inside the public sector area of New Zealand have got completely out of kilter.Are we appropriately attaching our pay to the right criteria through this bill? I would say that there is some mood that perhaps we are not. New Zealand First is also working to try to get a Supplementary Order Paper into the House—I am not sure how successful we will be—to make this bill which is to amend the Remuneration Authority Act 1977 cover all the people whom the Remuneration Authority has to consider not just members of Parliament. We think that that recognises how out of kilter these payments have become.There have been a couple of contributions from the Government benches. They have given the impression that we are voting for a pay cut and that is not the case. The words “pay drop” were used by Mr Woodhouse and I believe by Ms Dowie and also by Mr Young in the first contribution if you go back. They gave the suggestion that we were voting to give back money or to have a pay cut. Actually we are not. We are voting against an increase that was inappropriate. I just want to be really clear. We are not being that magnanimous. We are voting against an increase that is inappropriate. I would not want anybody to think that there are all these shining halos all over the place. What we have found ourselves in is a situation that reflects a problem in the wider society. We are not addressing the problem in the wider society and we know that that problem affects the lower-paid workers in New Zealand. It affects every other area of their lives.New Zealand First is not confident that this bill is going to do anything about that. It is not part of the criteria. It is not part of the brief. We get it. But maybe just maybe if we could take the first part to select committee maybe just maybe we might be able to have a conversation about the wider issues. Kia ora.