Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) Link to this
I move, That the Remuneration Authority Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, that the committee reports finally to the House on or before 16 November 2009, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week when there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).
The Remuneration Authority is responsible for considering and determining the salaries and allowances for specific persons as defined by the Remuneration Authority Act 1977. The authority plays an important role through this function, and the Government is grateful for its work. Recently, however, determinations of the Remuneration Authority have led to public debate about the appropriateness of salary increases in the present economic climate. These concerns were also shared by many of those to whom the determinations applied, including members of every party of this House, and the Governor-General. Further, the salary increases are viewed by some to be out of step with several trends. These trends include a general appreciation of the need for belt tightening, and this Government’s expectations of the public sector. Reports of household financial hardships and job losses experienced by ordinary New Zealanders require a reassessment of how salaries governed by the Remuneration Authority are set. Although we may be seeing signs of economic recovery, unemployment levels continue to rise and families are maintaining tight budgets.
There is a perception that the criteria by which the Remuneration Authority arrives at its recommendations may not provide adequate guidance about the extent to which adverse economic conditions ought to be taken into account. It is important that the public has confidence in the authority, and that any perceptions that pay increases are simply automatic are addressed. The public has every right to question whether politicians, judges, and senior public servants should be handed guaranteed salary increases each year, when everyday Kiwi families are under financial pressure due to tough economic times. Consequently, the Government has decided to propose changes to the Remuneration Authority Act 1977.
This bill amends the Remuneration Authority Act 1977 to allow the authority to explicitly take account of adverse economic conditions when making its determinations, as well as a number of minor and technical amendments. Crucially, this Government wants to ensure that the authority maintains its independence when making its decisions. Decisions on pay for politicians should not be made by politicians. We also need to ensure that the authority has the tools to make decisions the public can have confidence in. The authority will have sufficient guidelines in place to acknowledge difficult times and to act accordingly, by recommending a wage freeze or setting remuneration increases at a lower rate than it would otherwise have determined. The bill requires that the authority base its assessment of economic conditions on evidence from an existing authoritative source, such as Treasury, the Reserve Bank, or Statistics New Zealand data. This will avoid the authority being required to do additional work to gather economic data.
Additionally, the bill makes a number of minor and technical amendments to the Remuneration Authority Act. These amendments concern the deletion of outdated positions in the schedules of the Act, updating positions in the New Zealand Defence Force, and the alignment of the annual reporting requirements of the Remuneration Authority with those of the State sector. These minor amendments are very straightforward. The entire bill, in fact, is very straightforward, and I look forward to it receiving the full support of the House. This bill responds to the concerns of the public and the position holders about the process by which the Remuneration Authority arrives at its determinations. By requiring the authority to explicitly consider adverse economic conditions, the bill will add transparency to the determination process while maintaining its independence. I commend the bill to the House.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) Link to this
I think that in normal circumstances this bill, the Remuneration Authority Amendment Bill, would be waved through all its stages without much debate. But, unfortunately, as members are aware, the Government has taken a set of decisions that mean that the bill is no longer non-controversial. The broad remuneration of Ministers is something that Cabinet has decided to take beyond the Remuneration Authority; therefore, there will be a debate on the bill through all its stages. The Labour Opposition will be voting for the bill to be referred to a select committee.
I regret that it has taken the Hon Kate Wilkinson so long to bring the bill before the House. The policy decisions around the bill were, I think, debated some time close to Christmas. I can certainly remember Michael Cullen being in our caucus at the time that discussions were had on this bill. I think that Bill English is someone who would have been keen for the bill to have been dealt with before his current problem developed.
There is a general acceptance of the need for belt tightening. I am not absolutely certain that this legislation will make a lot of difference. I think it might make a difference to the timing of pay increases for members of Parliament, judges, the Governor-General, and some others; they might get them a little bit later than they would have otherwise. But if the relativities and the other approaches of the Remuneration Authority were used, then it would all come out in the wash, and it would all be the same thing.
I now want to focus on the reason why I question whether this bill should be being debated under urgency this week. It goes to a matter, frankly, of sheer hypocrisy. It is sheer hypocrisy—
Jo GoodhewI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I believe that it would be known to all members of the House that to use that word in this Chamber is not acceptable. I ask you to ask the member to desist.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
Speaking to the point of order, I say that I had not applied that word to any member of the House. I was very careful in what I said.
Hon Simon PowerI note that the member carefully avoided naming any one individual, but the former Minister, one of the longest-standing members of the House, will know that to raise a matter like that, and to use that word in a generic sense, actually brings all members and their reputations into disrepute and reflects badly on the House more broadly than would a reflection on one individual member. That in itself is out of order.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this
I am in a slight quandary here, to be perfectly frank with both sides. Firstly, it is clear that it is out of order to call a member hypocritical or to accuse a member of hypocrisy. Secondly, it is out of order to accuse a party of hypocrisy or of being hypocritical. But use of the words “hypocrisy” or “hypocritical” is not unilaterally ruled out. A member might want to raise an issue about something being hypocritical but not attribute it directly to an individual or to a party. On this particular occasion, the member speaking has skated very close to the wind. He has called the issues hypocritical. He has not named the individual member or the particular party. I will not rule the member out of order on this particular occasion, but I say to him that he is exactly on the edge. The Hon Trevor Mallard has now heard that the House is concerned about this, and I advise the member not to pursue this line of debate from this point onwards.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
I will not challenge your ruling, Mr Assistant Speaker, or pursue that line at all. In fact, what I am going to do is lay down a challenge to the House: I ask members opposite what the word is for a Cabinet that decides on the one hand to pretend to limit the salaries of Cabinet members, and on the other hand to say to the Deputy Prime Minister that he can have $37,500, with no receipts required, for pretending to live in Dipton. What is the word that one uses for giving a person who is one of National’s number $37,500 extra for pretending to live in Dipton when that person actually lives in Wellington? Why did Cabinet take away the rules around this in order to protect one of its own? In order to give money to the Hon Bill English, John Key, who is in charge of Cabinet, decided to undo the rules in order to effectively give Bill English a pay increase.
I do not care if that money goes to a trust—there is a whole pile of issues around the trust, and those will be pursued—but it is effectively paying Bill English’s rent. It is paying for him to live in Wellington. It is paying for a mortgage that should be paid for out of his own pocket, out of the very generous salary that the Government is pretending to limit at this time. I again challenge members opposite: I ask them what the word is for a Government that pretends to be keeping down salaries but at the same time gives $37,500 to someone who is not eligible for it. They do not have a word for that. I do not think there is a word for it that we are allowed to use in this House when we apply it to John Key or Bill English. We know that it is wrong.
We also want to know, again, as with the money-laundering bill, whose brilliant decision it was to bring up this bill this week under urgency.
Chris HipkinsHon TREVOR MALLARD Link to this
It might have been Gerry Brownlee; he does not like Bill English very much, because he put him out of his job. I tell members that it might have been John Key. John Key might have asked his Cabinet to try to get rid of this while he is out of the country, to please try to get rid of the stuff, which points at a scandal that he is responsible for, because he is the person who is in charge of Ministerial Services, and he is the Minister responsible for the extra funding—funding that goes nowhere near the Remuneration Authority. I tell members what someone with integrity would have done. That person would have referred the issue to the Remuneration Authority. That person would have said to the Remuneration Authority that its job is to sort out the rules and make them clear. But what do those members do? They decide to take some money out of taxpayers’ pockets—some of the poorest people in New Zealand are paying extra tax as a result of the decisions that this Government made—and to give it to the Deputy Prime Minister. They are putting it into his pocket in a way that I am certain an independent body like the Remuneration Authority would never do.
I just do not know how wrong one can get in this particular area. If Mugabe did this, we would call him corrupt. I do not know the names of the rulers of Nigeria, but I know that they are corrupt. If they were doing this sort of thing, if they were saying publicly that they were holding their own wages down, but at the same time were making decisions that were sneakily putting cash into the pockets of people associated with Ministers, we would call it corruption. I cannot believe that a country like New Zealand has come to this. It is absolutely outrageous.
We are a country that regularly comes out at No. 1 in the world for lack of corruption. We are a clean country. All of us were absolutely ashamed at what Phillip Field did—what he was convicted of doing. We saw the court case and we know how wrong his actions were. But Phillip Field was a junior Minister outside Cabinet. And what do we have here? Our Minister of Finance is meant to have international credibility. He is the one who fronts up around the world to say that New Zealand is in a position to pay its debts. “We are a clean country. We are a transparent country.” is what Bill English is meant to say. I ask why the Government brings in legislation like this at the same time as it is handing tens of thousands of dollars to its Cabinet Ministers on a tax-free basis with no receipts required and without going to the Remuneration Authority. I thought Simon Power was better than that. Frankly, I thought that Chris Finlayson, as Attorney-General, would have put up his hand when that money was going through Cabinet to his colleagues and said that it does not look good, that it is not credible. As the highest law officer of Parliament he should say that it is wrong, and that it is not good for New Zealand’s reputation, because It makes our Government look like Zimbabwe’s, and it is just wrong.
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) Link to this
Tonight we are discussing the Remuneration Authority Amendment Bill. The bill is an amendment to the Remuneration Authority Act 1977, and basically requires the Remuneration Authority to take into account adverse economic conditions, based on evidence from an authoritative source, in determining the salary or remuneration of persons or groups of persons covered by the Act. The bill also makes a number of technical changes, which are quite minor.
The heart of what we are looking at tonight is a bill that seeks to take into account the economic conditions of our time. In recent years there has been a major impact on the world economy of the financial crisis that has predominantly occurred in North America, but has gone round Europe and the rest of the world. That has led to a situation where many New Zealanders face uncertainty in their lives, especially financial uncertainty. It is a time when Governments have had to take on board an approach that delivers a strong economic base so that a country can survive and prosper in the long term.
Part of that process for the Government was to take into account any costs that may be incurred by it. The Government is, therefore, looking at the Remuneration Authority, which has the ability to set, for example, the wages of members of Parliament. It is giving it the authority to take into account the economic conditions of the time in making such a determination. The bill is a result of the economic situation we have found ourselves in through the international crisis. It is an attempt to make sure that the Remuneration Authority takes into account such conditions when setting the salaries of members of Parliament.
It is the right thing to do, as my colleague on my right says. We look forward to the bill progressing through the House.
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) Link to this
I would like to start by acknowledging the comments of the Hon John Carter when he said in his introductory remarks to the Remuneration Authority Amendment Bill that every day New Zealand families are under pressure. I thought that was a good thing to say. Furthermore, I think that John Carter, who comes from Northland where very few people are on the salary of $131,000 that I am on, would get a sense that that was a good idea. Indeed, there are very few people in Dunedin, where I come from, who are on $131,000.
But unfortunately some of the actions of the Government have not been consistent with that sentiment, and Trevor Mallard has laid one of them out. As from 1 January 2010 the entire executive, as long as they do not live in Wellington or as long as they, in the words of Trevor Mallard, “pretend to live in Dipton”, will be able to pocket up to $37,5000. That is unless, of course, they own their own house, in which case it is $30,000. The point is that it is a reduction in transparency.
When I am in my motorcar going to the airport, or wherever, I must maintain a logbook. If I were a Minister, and indeed I was, and there were to be any expense incurred, then it would have to be an actual and reasonable expense. I would have to get the docket. There would be no refund without the docket. This was the position until Mr Key came along and said: “Oh, let’s give them the money and let it go.” Every member of the executive, irrespective of their costs, irrespective of whether they are or are not staying with their second cousin at a cost of 150 bucks a week, will be able to pocket $37,500, minus any expenses. That is not good. It is not good because it means there is not only a reduction in transparency but also an increase in the well-being of those who are best off. Cabinet Ministers are well paid. That is a reflection of this Government. On 1 April the one and only bunch of tax cuts the Government will ever put in place for the next little while went almost entirely to the well paid. Here we are, making sure that the chances are that a politician’s wage rise in December will be modest or zero, and that is a good thing, and Labour will be voting for this legislation. But at the same time as the Government speaks in favour of that, it ensures that anyone who is already rich gets a tax cut and that from next year any Minister gets 37,500 bucks, minus actual expenses incurred—and not a receipt in sight. It goes straight into the back pocket. That is not good enough.
What else is not good enough is that in times of economic constraint, and this legislation is predicated on the idea of economic constraint, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Earlier this week we have seen the corporate fat cats pocket big money, and we have seen unemployment go up by another 2,000 jobs this week. The majority of the people who have lost their jobs were already in low-paid jobs. They have moved from low pay to no pay, or from low pay to an unemployment benefit if they qualify. When times are good, there is the possibility of closing the rich-poor gap. It seems that when times are bad, the Government has abandoned that idea. That seems to me to be sad. When we are tucked up in bed tonight, people will come into our offices and clean our rooms, and some of those cleaners will be on $12.55 an hour. They will get up in the middle of the night, strap a portable vacuum cleaner on their back, and go around and clean the offices of people who are on $131,000 a year, or in the case of the Minister of Finance, on twice that plus whatever he is pocketing—and all for $12.55 an hour. We ought to be reflective of the fact that in harsh economic times, much as we want to congratulate ourselves on signalling that we do not want a pay rise this year, the poor are getting it in the neck anyway.
There is something else I want to say. The Hon Bill English, the man who has been the centre of attention this week and last week, and who will be when the House resumes, went to the Public Service yesterday and said: “You guys are not going to get a pay increase for years; not for years. Don’t even think about it.” Some of those people who work in our public facilities, who work as public servants in our schools and hospitals, are on something approaching the minimum wage already, and he is saying that that is all they are going to get. He is saying that to some of our public servants who are known to be in short supply. We know that some health professionals, for example, are still in short supply, yet he is saying: “I don’t care. Prices will be frozen.” The Minister of State Services, Tony Ryall, has been caught telling polytech chief executives and councils not to negotiate pay increases, even in circumstances when negotiations were under way. If there is anything that contradicts the provisions of our industrial relations legislation, it is that sort of heavy-handedness. In fact, I can report to the House that I know that the Minister of State Services himself, of an evening, rang certain individuals in the polytech sector and said, in the middle of industrial negotiations, “zero increase”.
That is outrageous. It is overstepping the mark. It is exceeding authority. That same Minister will, from 1 January next year, pocket $37,500 of taxpayers’ money, minus any expenses he incurs. That is a salary that some people would like to have. An amount of $37,500 is more than many people in the State sector earn in a year in total.
It is important that we support this legislation, but it is also important that we do not do so unctuously. There is inequality in this country. The inequality is growing in this economy. The tax legislation earlier this year caused an increase in inequality in this country. The pocketing of ministerial expenses from 1 January next year will cause an increase in inequality in this country, and the activity of the Minister of Finance yesterday, saying to all public servants, including those on very low pay: “Don’t even think about a wage rise.”, will create further inequality in this country. We need not be too pleased with ourselves. The poor are getting it in the neck, and we are not. The poor are being moved out of work, and we are not. We come up for our job interviews in another 2 years. Some of those people are going out of work now—2,000 a week.
Let us be careful here. Let us be sure that although we vote for this legislation and support this legislation, we had better be clear that we do not have any moral authority in this matter—at least the Government has no moral authority in this matter. The Government has been looking after itself, or its senior members, extremely well, and it has been using the economic downturn to make sure that low-paid people stay low paid. It is not good enough. I think we ought to be careful as we proceed with this legislation, but proceed with it we must.
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) Link to this
I rise to support the first reading debate on the Remuneration Authority Amendment Bill 2009. I would like to begin by picking up on the concept of moral authority, which was articulated a moment ago by my colleague Pete Hodgson. I think that is the essence of what we are addressing. This bill would require the Remuneration Authority to take into account adverse economic conditions when determining the salary or remuneration of persons covered by the Act. As of now, the authority is not required to take this into account. The bill reflects the growing mood of the public in a time of economic downturn. The latest news that the recession is turning may be taken with a grain of salt. But in any event, whether or not we are emerging from recession, that is not the point of the bill. The point of the bill is that at any one time, in times of economic buoyancy or otherwise, we must have regard for the state of the economy.
The bill derives, I believe, from an initiative taken last year by the Green Party immediately after the general election. There was some public concern over a salary increase being paid to MPs at the time the global recession was beginning to bite. We in the Green caucus discussed this matter in some detail. The result was a motion lodged in the House by our then co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons. The motion was that no further salary increase should be given to MPs for the duration of the forty-ninth Parliament—or at least an intention to do that—over the following 3 years. This was opposed by the Government on the grounds that it presumed that the recession would last for 3 years.
The Government advanced a counter-proposal, to the effect that a determination this coming November should not be made. The Remuneration Authority would then reconsider the matter thereafter. That proposal was adopted by the House, and the Green Party was happy to support it. Even though it was far less far-reaching than our own, it was at least something. The question of restraint over MPs’ salary levels has attained added sensitivity since then, as a result of the various scandals in the UK and their modest spillover into the New Zealand scene. Here again, the Green Party has led the way with a call for a review, not only of ministerial housing regulations, as the Prime Minister has decided, but also a full review of all MP expenses.
This view of the Green Party does not rest on any belief that MPs are hideously overpaid or that there is deep and dark fraudulent behaviour going on. The New Zealand system and our people generally have a genuine integrity, but there is reasonable public concern over what is going on, and, therefore, a higher level of scrutiny and transparency is in order. We are, after all, the servants of the people as well as being legislators on their behalf. Therefore, a naturally high standard of behaviour is required. A reassurance is being sought, not a witch-hunt, and we should not be afraid or be seen to be so.
In opposing the Green Party’s proposal, the Government displayed, I think, a slight misconception. Our view of the need for financial restraint did not rest on the exigencies of economic recession. It rested on the deeper underlying issue that MPs’ salaries should always reflect a degree of self-abnegation on our part. So it depended less on picking when we might clamber out of the recession, and more on some natural standards over where we sit in society and how we serve society. In that respect, I must say that in my short time in this House I find a fundamental difference among members. That difference reflects, to some extent, differences of philosophical persuasion. There are those people who compare us with the private sector, and the highly paid corporate sector at that. Therefore, they conclude that we are badly paid relatively. This colours their perception of what we should expect in financial remuneration, and also of how we might respond to any public scrutiny. Others amongst us compare ourselves with, say, the average salary within New Zealand. Of course, we are relatively well-paid in comparison. The expectations and predispositions are palpably different.
These issues are sensitive. For my own part—and now I am speaking personally— on entering this House I was surprised as to the difficulty of exploring this issue. I did inquire on entry about whether it was possible to refuse a salary increase. I was advised that it was not. I asked for the legal basis of this, and I was told that it was up to the Remuneration Authority. I asked what the legal basis was on which the authority made its decision. I said that I was interested to explore a little more the question of the legal compulsion of MPs to accept a salary increase, as determined by the Remuneration Authority.
I noted that the relevant section in the Remuneration Authority Act 1977, section 14, was as follows: “(1) Every determination of the Authority has effect according to its tenor and, despite anything in any other enactment, an Order in Council is not required in order to fix the rates or scales of any salary or allowances that are determined by the Authority in a determination.” Also, and this was the critical point, it states: “(2) It is unlawful for any person to act contrary to a determination under this Act or to fail to observe the criteria or limits specified in a determination.” So I asked whether Parliamentary Service had ever obtained a legal opinion on whether this meant categorically that recipients of a salary increase may refuse it or may not refuse it. I was advised that Parliamentary Service had not previously sought an opinion, as it would seem that this question had not been raised before. I replied that this seemed to mean that the issue of accepting a salary rise through a Remuneration Authority determination was an issue for members. If so, I asked whether it was an issue for each member individually or all members collectively. I was told that this would be an issue that I would really need to discuss with the Remuneration Authority and that it would have a view on what its role and responsibility are, and what that means for MPs singly or collectively. I left it at that.
I do not pretend to have emerged with any great insights on this matter. Perhaps the question of MPs’ salaries might be seen as a personal conscience issue. I do not know. I do know that it is a sensitive issue and that each individual will have a different view from that of others, and I would certainly respect them all. I think that we still have some way to go on this issue. The relationship between the personal interest and the national interest is at issue; so is the relationship, incidentally, between the public sector and the private sector. Suffice it to say, for the moment the Green Party is happy to support the bill’s referral to a select committee, and we will look forward to the deliberations therein.
RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) Link to this
Before I start my speech I join with the rest of the House in expressing my sadness at the passing of Tā Howard Morrison, and to extend my condolences to his whānau.
The timing of the first reading of the Remuneration Authority Amendment Bill under urgency is interesting, to say the least. Yesterday’s newspapers all came together, shining the green light for gross national spending. With headlines like “Things have stopped getting worse”, “Outlook brightening, economists say”, and “English welcomes GDP growth”, one might be mistaken for thinking that golden weather is just around the corner. They might also soften the blow when looking at the details of remuneration for persons or groups of persons covered by the Remuneration Authority Act 1977.
One of the more interesting facts when looking at the determinations from the authority is to rank the top 22 positions by salary, down to a $300,000 threshold. The Prime Minister comes in at No. 9, trailing behind, in order, the Solicitor-General, the State Services Commissioner, the Commissioner of Police, the chair of the Commerce Commission, the Chief Justice, a judge of the Supreme Court, the President of the Court of Appeal, the chief of the New Zealand Defence Force, and the Controller and Auditor-General. All those people who think that politicians are rich should realise that not one MP other than the Prime Minister makes it to that forum.
Notwithstanding the six-digit salaries earned by the judiciary and commissioners, as previously mentioned, there is still a massive jump from the remuneration of people covered by the Remuneration Authority Act and the remuneration of the people in the street. Those in the positions of Solicitor-General, State Services Commissioner, Commissioner of Police, chair of the Commerce Commission, and Chief Justice are all sitting on annual salaries of close to half a million dollars. When one compares those salaries with the average wage for all New Zealanders, quite frankly there is little to compare. The average Māori wage for all persons aged 15 years and over as at June 2008 was $20,904, compared with $23,508 for non-Māori. The Remuneration Authority Amendment Bill does not make mention of these inequities, which is inevitably to be expected.
The purpose of the bill is quite specific. It amends the Remuneration Authority Act 1977 to require the authority to take account of any prevailing adverse economic conditions when determining the remuneration of persons or groups of persons covered by the Act. This is where it becomes interesting, because taking into account the economic conditions will obviously result in lower remuneration rates than would otherwise have been determined.
The regulatory impact statement of the bill explains quite clearly that the authority is not currently required to take into account the prevailing economic conditions when making a determination of wages. Failure to respond to the changing economic profile may, in turn, lead to negative public perceptions of the authority and those in public office, in light of the difficult economic climate currently confronting all other New Zealanders. That would also be inconsistent with the belt-tightening approach being promulgated by the Government in signalling its expectations around the likely impacts for wage rounds in the public sector. It would be even more incongruous in light of the frequent reports of household financial hardship and job losses experienced by ordinary New Zealanders. Despite glowing reports that the recession is over, we need to remember that we are not out of the woods yet.
The 2009 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development report has suggested that the crisis that initially began in the financial sector has now turned into a dramatic downturn in the wider economy, with global gross domestic product expected to fall by more than 2.5 percent this year. Indeed, Heiner Flassbeck, a director with the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, has described the outlook as bleak, cautioning that even in the most optimistic circumstances it could take up to 6 years for most countries to return to the levels of GDP reached in 2007 before the crisis. Against that context, the Māori Party is happy to support the intention of the bill to amend the Remuneration Authority Act.
In the event of evidence of prevailing adverse economic conditions, the authority will exercise its discretion as to whether it will determine remuneration at a lower rate than it would otherwise determine. We believe that that is only due and fair, and we have supported the need to hear the bill under urgency out of our concern for urgency to be accorded to the critical need to help reduce the gap between high and low incomes, and to better focus and target public spending.
This is where we come back to our prevailing concern about doing everything we can to make adequate provision for those New Zealanders who are particularly vulnerable to the impact of adverse economic conditions. Rising food prices and a proposed increase to GST suggest to us that low-income families will continue to be disproportionately affected. Here I recognise the work of Te Rōpū Wāhine Māori Toko i te Ora, whose hui opened in Wanganui this morning. On the agenda tomorrow is a workshop about finances and financial literacy. It is sad that we have to be taught about financial literacy when we have less money than people who actually know about financial literacy. I hope that the Māori Women’s Welfare League continues in its good work.
Manaakitanga and rangatiratanga lead us to support low-income taxpayers. We believe that it is entirely appropriate that while we are talking about the context of remuneration for a certain sector we also take into consideration the very real costs to other New Zealanders. I will bring to the debate the disparity that continues to impact on the lives of Māori in terms of their median weekly personal income. At $500 per week, Māori weekly income is a whole 33 percent lower than the weekly income for the total population of $537 per week. Why is that a concern for this Parliament? Rob McLeod, chairman of the New Zealand Business Roundtable, summed it up in a Treaty debate at Te Papa earlier this year. He said: “The current and increasing relative population of Maori mean that Maori are very significant to the New Zealand economy, both today and tomorrow. Furthermore, the economic and social wellbeing of Maori and non-Maori are interdependent. An economically affluent Maori people will enhance the economic prospects of non-Maori. Conversely, an under-performing Maori population will hinder the progress of non-Maori.”
My point is that Māori unemployment levels continue to increase and incomes reduce as a consequence of the prevailing adverse economic conditions. Although no one would want to suggest that any incomes should reduce, we think it only fair that the impacts of economic uncertainties are experienced universally and comprehensively across the sectors. We note too that the coverage of the Remuneration Authority Act is limited to only those occupations listed under the Act. Other mechanisms must be considered to ensure that the salaries of a greater range of top offices and positions can also be considered in relation to the prevailing economic environment.
Finally, we recognise that although a review of recent determinations made by the authority suggests that it has been cognisant of the prevailing adverse economic conditions, it is vital that we have a formal mechanism for ensuring that it happens. To this end, we support the bill at its first reading, and we place on record again our commitment to helping to reduce the gap between low-income taxpayers and the average income of the nation. Kia ora.
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) Link to this
I move, That the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee consider the Remuneration Authority Amendment Bill, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 16 November 2009, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions, and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).