Woodhouse Michael: Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWoodhouse Michael: Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 March 2015. Volume:704;Page:2321. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): It is not my normal practice to challenge some of the outrageous things that our friends on the other side say—Hon Members: But.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —but I do feel it is important to put some of the more outrageous comments in context. I can actually solve a mystery. I now know why the media thought that a technical problem with the Remuneration Authority (Members of Parliament Remuneration) Amendment Bill was going to result in MPs’ salaries going up more than was expected and that is because Iain Lees-Galloway told them. He admitted as much in his second reading speech that why the bill was delayed was because the salaries would have inadvertently gone up. Well he made that up. He madeup a lot of his intervention. He talked about the National Government thinking that pay rises in the public sector are a bad thing that I as Minister have no time or inclination for unions. Nothing could be further from the truth. As the chief executive officer of Mercy Hospital I worked very closely with the New Zealand Nurses Organisation; the Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union; and the Service and Food Workers Union and I had a very good working relationship with them. They are an important part of the employment relations landscape.Mr Shaw twisted words as well which I need to clarify—very very important. He has suggested that what I said was that this bill when passed would provide an economic incentive for keeping a lid on public sector wages. That is not what I said. What I said was that it would shine a second light on profligate spending increases by irresponsible Governments and I stand by those comments.Dr Megan Woods: What does that mean?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: It means stop spending so much because it is a proper discipline for Governments to have.Hon Member: How much is too much?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: How much? That is a very good question because that was the question I asked Mr Hipkins when he asked me whether public sector employees should get more. More than what? More than they are currently getting? More than inflation? More than the private sector? More than MPs? More than 4 percent? It was a rhetorical and stupid question. The one thing I will agree with Mr Hipkins on is this: we do want we all want a high-wage economy but one cannot legislate for a high-wage economy. One creates the climate to enable businesses to have the confidence to invest grow employ upskill and pay more and then gets out of the way and leaves businesses to get on with it and the public sector which I have to say is responsible for the same fiscal disciplines that the private sector is. We know that the public have had to tighten their belts through straitened times and they expect the Government to do the same.Now to the mystery of the missing “p” and Mrs King’s challenge. It is the one technical question I have been asked in the Committee stage and of course that is the purpose of the Committee of the whole House. The first bill when drafted had two “p”s in the equation in new section 18B set out in clause 7. One “p” referred to “personal benefit determinations in the previous year” and the other “p” referred to “personal benefit determinations in the current year”. Subtract one from the other effectively in amongst the algebraic equation. There was an issue in the transition because of calculations in 1 year that were not made in the other. So two “p”s became one and that is defined as the sum of the parts. There is no missing “p”. In the second bill one “p” does the work of two and I think that is a great metaphor for this Government. Productivity is up in the “p” sector. One “p” is doing the work of two under this Government and I think that is a really good metaphor for this bill.