Dyson Ruth: Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 March 2015. Volume:704;Page:2307. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Once again at peak listening time I get the opportunity to take a call in this second reading of the Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill. I just have to acknowledge the member who has just resumed her seat and say that that was a courageous attempt to defend what has been a series of amazing errors on behalf of the Government. We were told on Monday last week by the Leader of the House: “There will be urgency tomorrow to pass the Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill.” So we were all prepared. There was no sign of the bill. Actually there was no sign of the Leader of the House either but that is not always a bad thing. Then we were told on Tuesday that the plans had changed and there would now be urgency on Wednesday to correct the MPs’ pay issue. Wednesday came and went. We were then told it was going to be Thursday. So in a 3-day sitting week we were told that all 3 days would be the day for urgency and then on Thursday we were told it would be this week.We received yesterday—or perhaps even earlier today; yesterday I think—version 7.3 of the Supplementary Order Paper that has now been incorporated into the bill. This is not a well-considered well-thought-through piece of legislation. The original draft risked parliamentarians—Hon Michael Woodhouse: I’m hurt.Hon RUTH DYSON: I do not hold responsible the Minister who is braving it and fronting it in the House. He may not have had the opportunity to read the latest version. I am not sure whether it has been run past him actually. But take the chance to before the third reading. It would be worth it. It would be worth it from our point of view to have this bill which is designed to correct the decision of the Remuneration Authority—and I say “correct” in the broadest terms because it has now become a political exercise—to make sure that MPs do not get a huge pay rise when clearly other people deserve it much more. That is the point of this legislation.The original legislation the Government was going to bring in several times last week ran the risk of increasing the pay of members of Parliament even further than the Remuneration Authority had proposed.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Hon RUTH DYSON: As I was saying prior to the dinner adjournment it is a good opportunity during the second reading of the Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill to compare the actions that are proposed in this legislation with the portrayal by the Government of why it is taking this action under urgency and actually what is happening in the rest of the world.I certainly support this legislation and all Labour members will be voting for it but I have to say that it is a bit of a mess. We had on three occasions last week actually four counting Monday the Leader of the House saying that this legislation would be introduced under urgency the next day. The Minister Gerry Brownlee Leader of the House said that to us on Monday. Tuesday came and went. It did not happen. On Tuesday he said it would be introduced on Wednesday. Wednesday came and went—no legislation. On Wednesday he said it would be Thursday. Thursday came and went. Members returned home after the House rose—still no legislation.Then today we have the legislation with version 7.3 of the Supplementary Order Paper. This has gone through a lot of changes. Now we are going through all stages under urgency. The Supplementary Order Paper has now been incorporated into the bill. It is another structural change to the legislation that we are considering rather than having that as a Supplementary Order Paper and none of the opportunities of the usual consideration of a select committee.Even though it has taken the Government 6 years to decide that the process of the Remuneration Authority for setting MPs’ wages is not what it likes—it has been in power for 6 long years—now we get under urgency through all stages a bill that has clearly been problematic. The bill that was going to be introduced last week could not be introduced for a very good reason. The errors in it were detected at the last minute—I do not know who detected them. It was possibly the Hon Christopher Finlayson. He seems to be one who actually reads legislation; he is the only one whom I have noticed actually out of the entire Cabinet. Somebody picked up the fact that the proposed legislation ran the risk of actually increasing the salaries of members of Parliament by more than the Remuneration Authority had suggested and clearly that was not a runner.Although we support this legislation I have to say that the Government portraying itself as being fairer is a total nonsense. I do not think it is good practice to put in rushed legislation through all stages under urgency if you are serious about fixing a problem. It certainly could have been done some time ago. We knew that this issue was going to come up. Again prior to Christmas last year there could have been some proper cross-party talks about an alternative mechanism for fixing the salaries of members of Parliament that could be open and transparent and that the public could have some confidence in.At the same time as this legislation is going through and the Government is saying: “We are doing this because we want to be fair.” the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are announcing via the media to the public servants of New Zealand that they are going to have their wage increase promised by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance during the 2014 election campaign evaporate. Suddenly that promise like many of National’s promises is worth absolutely nothing. Actually the National Party campaigned on a promise of a good increase in the wages of public servants and now it is saying: “No we cannot afford it.” I guess it wants to put some of that money into its made-up surplus as well.The Government has increased the minimum wage by a measly 50c an hour—50c an hour—for the lowest-paid workers in New Zealand and it is trying to portray itself as fair and considerate. Well it is obviously a nonsense. The Government is ripping off New Zealand workers and New Zealand businesses to the tune of—not a little bit—$350 million a year the equivalent of 700 jobs that New Zealand workers and employers are paying in overcharged ACC levies. They do not need to be charged that much. They are paying too much in their ACC levies and that money is being taken out of ACC and put into a surplus. We have not seen that sort of behaviour since the Rt Hon Robert Muldoon. This legislation is being portrayed as: “We want to be fair. We want to make sure that MPs do not get huge salary increases while we are giving tuppence-ha’penny to the people on the minimum wage.” But the truth is that is exactly what this Government is doing.This has been quite a hashed process as I indicated. Last week we had several indications from the Leader of the House about this legislation being introduced under urgency and it has come in only today. We did have over seven versions of the Supplementary Order Paper none of which made sense. There has not been any public debate on what should be the core principles if the Remuneration Authority regime is going to be changed. In my view they are that the setting of any salaries for members of Parliament should not be made by members of Parliament; they should be independent it should be publicly transparent and accountable and it should have fair considerations. Part of that should be the consideration of what other people in our society are getting in terms of their wage remuneration.I remember in the 2009 Budget the first Budget that this National-led Government brought in there were massive tax cuts for the wealthiest people in New Zealand and at the same time there were cuts to home-care services for older New Zealanders. There was also nothing to help the wages of the people on the lowest income the minimum wage workers in New Zealand. Bill English said during that debate in Parliament that if people in New Zealand wanted to earn more money they should work harder. That is what he said in this House—if people wanted to earn more money they should work harder.I know that all members of Parliament work hard and come into this House to do better for their country. It is the highest form of public service but it is by no means the only form of public service. So we should not get paid more than we are worth. Public servants in New Zealand should get paid what they are worth and they are not and people on the minimum wage deserve to have their contribution valued more. Thank you.