Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill

Good morning! It is nice to be back here in the Chamber, digging in for another 3 or 4 days of hard yacker until Monday, at least—and that is exactly what the conservatives intend to do. Last night when I was taking a call, I talked about clause 157, “Crown entity to be good employer”. I looked at subclause (2)(g), which provides for “recognition of the employment requirements of women;” and I had to think of Judy Bailey. Now, there is a Crown entity that is an outstanding employer for women—Television New Zealand.

It is also a pleasure for me to be back after a spirited night last night. I would like to offer Mr Connell some even more PC amendments to this part, and in particular to clause 157, because I do not think that the Crown is being a good employer. It is falling down particularly in relation to pay equity, and I intend, on behalf of the Green Party, to put forward an amendment to fix that particular problem. If members care to look at clause 157(2), they will see that it currently states that: “… a good employer … operates a personnel policy … including provisions requiring— … (b) an equal employment opportunities programme;”. In our view, that does not go far enough. We want the Government to have a pay and employment equity programme, and in case members are in any doubt about what that means, our proposed amendment to clause 157 provides for “a programme that is aimed at the identification and elimination of all aspects of policies, procedures and other institutional barriers that cause or perpetuate or tend to cause or perpetuate, inequality in respect of the employment and remuneration of any persons or group of persons.” That is something that should be incorporated into this bill, because the public service should be a leader in pay equity, for a start.

Unfortunately, to the embarrassment of the Government, not only does the public service fail to be a leader but the gender pay gap is wider in the public sector than in the private sector. One reason for that is that the public sector employs comparatively more women than the private sector, but that is not an excuse. It is time that this Government faced up to the need for a proper pay equity programme, and it is time that it put some money where its mouth is. Senior people in the Government often talk about the need for pay equity—the need for women to earn the same as men for either work that is the same or work that is different but of equal value. I say to members on the Government benches—particularly to those members of the Government with a union background, such as Lynne Pillay and others— that this is their opportunity to show that they are committed to pay equity and that they do recognise that women still earn only 80c for every dollar that men earn, despite improving their educational attainment. So let us deal with the structural discrimination that exists in the labour market.

The Government, of course, acknowledges that we have a problem. It is not even as though we have to convince the Government that there is a problem. It has been doing something about it. Its usual strategy is, of course, to set up a task force, so it did that. The Government had one of those in 2003, and since then it has established a unit within the Department of Labour to look at the pay equity issue and to find ways forward. Well, let us actually implement some changes. Yes, pay equity is a complex issue, but there has been sufficient work done for the Government to proceed to put pen to paper, and to legislate for pay equity. It should take the first step today by supporting the Green Party amendment to clause 157, so that a pay and employment equity programme becomes part of what is expected of a good employer. It is all there in the task force’s report; it stated what needs to be done.

Let us face a few facts and look at why pay equity needs to happen. At the moment there is the classic example of nurses and sworn police officers. A nurse’s starting salary is approximately $30,000 a year, while police start at approximately $40,000. At the top of the scale, nurses are paid just over $40,000, while police earn $60,000. That is simply unacceptable. The Government knows that, and it should be doing something about it. But pay equity is not just about men and women. There are significant differences in pay between different ethnic groups. The average hourly earnings for Pākehā men was $19.88 in the year to June 2003, while for European women it was $16.96, for Māori men it was $16.29, for Māori women it was $14.53, for Pacific Island men, it was $13.90, and Pacific Island women earned the lowest hourly rate of $13.79. That is unacceptable for a Labour-led Government—one that claims it is committed to helping people who are poor or disadvantaged in the community.

The Government has the opportunity today to fix that problem. It can become a leader and fix the problem in the public service, where the average salary was $43,163 for women and $52,436 for men.

I would like to carry on with what Rod Donald was speaking about, and with what Lockwood Smith was speaking about just before midnight last night, when we adjourned for the evening. That was clause 157(2). We will not be voting for the amendment that Mr Donald has put forward. He may take another call and explain it further, but he has not satisfactorily given a good reason to justify pay equity.

Rod Donald: Cut your salary by 20 percent!

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: That is the point. People who advocate equality for all—

Rod Donald: Equity!

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: —equity for all want to drag the top people down to the bottom. They do not want to encourage people at the bottom of the heap to aspire to get to the top; they just want to drag everyone down to the bottom. Pay equity to someone who argues like that would mean taking Judy Bailey’s salary down to the lowest salary level paid at TVNZ. That is what pay equity means.

Hon Member: Bollocks!

DEBORAH CODDINGTON: Well, that was a very intelligent reaction from someone who probably should know better than that. However, Rod Donald talked about the value of those people, but I ask to whom they are of value. How can one person say that the value of a nurse is exactly the same as the value of a police officer? I absolutely, totally agree that nurses need to be paid more, but it is nothing to do with the inequity of the pay scales that leads to there being low-paid nurses. It is to do with unionisation and the one-size-fits-all approach of the union, and it is the same with the teachers’ pay scale.

There are other issues in clause 157(2). It starts off OK. It provides that: “ … a good employer is an employer who operates a personnel policy containing provisions generally accepted as necessary for the fair and proper treatment of employees in all aspects of their employment,”. But it then goes further, and directs the public service in various areas. That always starts in the public service, but then it moves into the private sector, and the private sector is required to follow those requirements, too. Clause 157(2) provides that there is to be: “(d) recognition of—(i) the aims and aspirations of Māori; and (ii) the employment requirements of Māori; and (iii) the need for involvement of Māori as employees of the entity;”. Apart from being race-based legislation, that provision is totally meaningless. What on earth is in the heads and hearts of Māori that is different from the aims and aspirations, the employment requirements, and the need for involvement of any person of a different culture or different ethnic background from Māori? That is insulting to Māori. It sets them out as being not quite as good as everybody else; therefore, they need to be targeted for special assistance.

But even more insulting is clause 157(2)(g), which provides for “recognition of the employment requirements of women;”. What are the employment requirements of women? Which women does the provision refer to? Is it all women, individual women, large women, small women, white women, or brown women? We cannot collectivise a group of people like that without it being an “-ist”. This is sexist and racist legislation. It insults women, Māori, and ethnic minority groups, which are also mentioned in the clause. This legislation is being promoted and driven by the Minister who is meant to be ferreting out all that sort of drivel in legislation—the whole ethnic filter that is creeping into legislation. This is an example of the Government paying lip service only to that. After the Ōrewa speech, the Government came out grandly and said there would be no more race-based legislation, yet here it is written large in clause 157(2).

I go back to the pay equity issue and the issue that people should be paid the same amount for work that is the same, or for work that is different but of equal value.

I move, That the question be now put.

I also want to talk about clause 157 in the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill. I am astounded to come into the Chamber today to find that a clause such as this is even in legislation: a Crown entity is to be a good employer. That sort of legislation would not have been required until this Labour Government came to power. I want the Committee to remember the treatment that Helen Clark gave to one State employee, Kit Richards. Kit Richards was a valuable member of Timberlands, but because he disagreed with the Prime Minister she drove him out of his job. She hounded that man. Now that incident has been quietly forgotten, and into the legislation we are putting this sort of politically correct clause requiring a Crown entity to be a good employer. I just hope Helen Clark herself takes note of this clause. In future, when another person like Kit Richards has the audacity to disagree with the Prime Minister, we will see what sort of treatment he or she gets.

It reminds me of the debate that is going on in the newspapers now about one Judy Bailey; it is on the front page of the Dominion Post for the second day in a row. Here is a person who is negotiating with her employers, and now Helen Clark has decided that that salary is something that she has the right to set, as well.

If I refer back to clause 157, I want particularly to look at subclause (2). The subclause states that for the purposes of this section a good employer is one who “operates a personnel policy”, moving down to paragraph (d), that requires: “recognition of—(i) the aims and aspirations of Māori; and (ii) the employment requirements of Māori; and (iii) the need for involvement of Māori as employees of the entity;”. Are not Mr Mallard and the Prime Minister on record as saying they have engaged in a process to get rid of race-based legislation, and to base Government policy on need? That is what they say they will do, yet today what we see in the detail of this bill is absolutely the opposite. I do not recall any legislation that is as specifically race-based as clause 157(2), which states categorically that for a Crown entity to be a good employer, it must develop a policy recognising the aims and the aspirations of Māori.

How can that not be race-based legislation? I want the next Labour speaker to deny that that is the case. No Labour member will be able to do that. The Prime Minister is so busy spinning the message about the need for equal citizenship, yet her Government is quietly, back in Parliament and under urgency, forcing through a huge bill that specifically requires a Crown entity to establish race-based employment policy.

I say to Phillip Field that that is absolutely wrong. That is wrong on two counts. First, it is condescending to, and demeaning of, Māori. Why do they need a clause such as this? They can get on in this world like the rest of us.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Labour thinks Māori are inferior.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Labour feels that they are inferior, so it punches through legislation such as this that just demeans Māori. I ask Phillip Field, who is going to take the next call and make an attempt to answer this, to explain to the Committee today why we have to put this sort of wording into legislation. The answer is we do not have to. The answer is we should not have to.

I move, That the question be now put.

I listened with interest last night as I left the Chamber just before midnight, and heard quite an impassioned comment about the very subclauses that have just been referred to by the last speaker—namely those in clause 157. I went home after midnight somewhat confused by the trend and the tone of Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith’s comments.

I am even more confused by the Hon David Carter. As an employer in the State service as a school principal who employed many teachers and other staff throughout the late 1990s, I recall such aspirations as these being quite clearly set out in the then Government’s requirements. I also can recall a very impassioned debate with an education consultant about why the Treaty of Waitangi obligations were being fostered upon the education service by the National administration of the 1990s. All that I can say, very briefly, is that what I see here is a watered-down version of what I saw the last Government enshrine in day-to-day requirements of employers in the State service throughout the 1990s.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Rubbish!

JIM PETERS: The call of “Rubbish!” could be answered by documentary evidence of exactly that. This measure to me personally is demeaning. It need not be there. But all that I see in that clause is a watered-down version of a far stronger obligation that was imposed by the last Government upon the State services throughout the 1990s. So let it rest where it belongs. Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith knows exactly what I am talking about. As a Minister of Education he set in train such obligations and burdens, and he knows that. It was because of his impassioned call last night that I decided reluctantly to get up and say that National was not only the godfather, the grandfather, and the grandmother of these clauses but enshrined them, bill by bill, Act by Act, throughout the 1990s. For those members to attempt now to come to the Committee with very pure and clean white hands is just not on.

I move, That the question be now put.

We are debating Part 5 of the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill, and I want to draw the Committee’s attention to clause 148, “Power to direct Crown agents to give effect to government policy”. This is where Helen Clark picks up the phone, rings Bill Ralston, and says: “I think Judy Bailey should be getting $800,000 a year.” And what happens? It is in the headlines the day after.

This is an interesting clause. I do not know whether the Minister is able to tell us whether it is new or whether it has been in legislation for some time. If it has been in legislation for some time, then electricity consumers in this country would have to wonder why their power bills over this past winter were so big. The State still owns 85 percent of the electricity industry. The State returns enormous profits to the Government coffers—all those electricity bills helping to build up the almost $7 billion surplus that the Government currently says is so small it is unable to give any relief to taxpayers. That surplus comes from things like big electricity bills.

Then, of course, is the issue we have seen in the last couple of days, where the Government has decided to apply a new tax to oil and other fossil fuels so we can have a guaranteed supply. I would have thought that the Minister, when he was alerted in October 2002 that New Zealand was facing a crisis in its oil supply—in other words, our 90-day stocks were well below that level at that time, and continued to be all of that time—might have said to the bodies responsible: “Let’s get ourselves involved here.”, and the ministry could have been directed to ensure that that level of supply was available to the country.

But this Government is absolutely terrified of the bureaucracy. It knows that the last remaining strong union in this country is to be found in the State sector. So a clause like this one, clause 148, is put into the legislation, and we know it will have absolutely no effect whatsoever. The Labour Government enacting this legislation will not pick up the phone to tell Mr Ralston to cut the pay rate afforded the country’s most highly paid newsreader. It will not say to electricity companies: “Calm it down fellas, calm it down. The people out there who actually own you would like to have a better deal during the winter months.” And they will not go to the Ministry of Energy and say: “Get us a 90-day supply, and make sure it’s maintained.”

I want to know from the Minister whether this is new, and whether we can expect a lot more Government direction on these matters in the future. I say quickly that the National Party would not operate in that way. We would not want to see taxpayers sold the idea that a television company was of such importance that it had to operate under a charter, but then had to maintain its commercial position to such an extent that it had to lead the market in the salaries it pays to its people. We would also want to ask what the point is of the Government having such a huge stake in the electricity industry if New Zealanders have to go cold because they do not have deep enough pockets to pay the bills electricity companies render.

This bill is very, very interesting, and Part 5 seems to be the most important part of it. In fact, I believe that after this we will begin the debate on the schedules, or are the schedules being taken as we go through?

Simon Power: There’s Part 6.

GERRY BROWNLEE: I am sorry. We will be back on Monday for Part 6, and I hope I can take call on that part. I know that this legislation is so important that we are having to do it under the cloak of urgency. By the way, the Government has had this bill on the Order Paper for—how long?

Jim Peters: 11 months.

GERRY BROWNLEE: This bill has been on the Order Paper for 11 months.

Two questions leap to mind while we are discussing Part 5. The first unanswered question is, what does the United Future party think of Part 5? The reason I ask that question is that that party supported the urgency motion that had us here until midnight last night, will have us here till midnight tonight, tomorrow night, until midnight Saturday night, and we will be back on Tuesday—

Rod Donald: Monday.

SIMON POWER: We will be back on Monday as well. I probably will not leave. Senior whips do not leave. I will not leave. United Future has a responsibility to have its representative in this Parliament rise to his feet to explain to this Chamber why it is—at least Rod Donald has the decency to rise to his feet to make a contribution during the course of this debate. We may not agree with him. He supports urgency. We certainly do not agree with that. However, United Future sits there dumbstruck, is trampled over, and refuses to make a contribution on Part 5, and more particularly on the crucial clause 148.

I tell members who are present in the House this morning that I cannot wait—and I know that Clayton Cosgrove cannot either—to get on the platform with United Future candidates before the general election later this year. National members will have great fun with them. That party, which proclaims a principled and reasonable approach to politics, puts up an amendment to reduce tax paid by New Zealanders and then votes for a bill that does exactly the opposite. It could have pulled the Civil Union Bill from the clutches of the Government, but sat on its hands and did nothing.

This morning a bill comes before the Committee whereby a clause is included to give the Government direct power over Crown agencies to affect Government policy, and what does the United Future party do? It sits on its hands and makes no contribution to this debate at all. If a party supports the Labour Government on matters of confidence and supply, Mr Copeland should rise to his feet to justify to this Parliament and to New Zealand why the United Future party supports this House sitting under urgency and is supporting legislation, particularly Part 5, that will do nothing more than centre in Helen Clark’s hands even more power to direct the bureaucracy.

David Cunliffe, who, let us face it, is very disappointed about Monday’s announcement, sits there and says nothing. He does not take any calls. He could end up with the customs portfolio, but it is unlikely. He should get on his feet to answer some of those questions. As a graduate of the John F Kennedy School of Government at Harvard he should reassure the Parliament and the country that this will not affect the way in which neutral independent democracy works. We know what will happen if one becomes a close personal friend of the Prime Minister when one is in the bureaucracy. Just ask Ross Armstrong what happens if the Prime Minister’s directions are not followed when one is in the bureaucracy. What happens is that one is hung out to dry.

Members should wait until later this morning when the TVNZ board—this is my prediction—will be hung out to dry over the Judy Bailey fiasco. This is what happens, and officials in this Parliament should be worried. When one gets too close to the Government, as one will under clause 148, bureaucrats, officials, members on boards of Crown agencies and State-owned enterprises, will be hung out to dry with whatever political expediency Helen Clark believes is necessary to pursue her own narrow-minded agenda.

That should be worrying for what historically has been a proud and independent public service in New Zealand. That should be worrying for those who have been independently appointed to boards of State-owned enterprises and Crown agencies throughout New Zealand. The Tertiary Education Commission is a classic example. The Government cannot help but get its fingers on every little board, agency, and now deep into the bureaucracy of New Zealand, because it simply is a group of people who are total and complete control freaks. That is the only way to describe it. What happened? United Future let it happen week after week after week in this Parliament, and with important legislation like this, refused to take a call.

I move, That the question be now put.