Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

I am proud to bring this bill before the House. New Zealand has an impressive record of advocacy and recognition of women. Indeed, New Zealand was the first country where women achieved the right to vote. I will add that this did not happen by chance. I want to acknowledge all those visionary women who campaigned tirelessly and passionately to make it happen. They were true leaders. It seems appropriate that this legislation is introduced in 2006, the Year of the Veteran. I know that my Labour colleagues, like me, have found it both an honour and a privilege to join with our local RSAs in commemorating the sacrifices made by our veterans and their families in the service of our country.

This bill falls under the three ministerial portfolios of women’s affairs, justice, and defence. I want to thank Ministers Dalziel, Burton, and Goff for their support and assistance in preparing this bill.

The Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill seeks to amend the Human Rights Act in order to remove an exemption for sexual discrimination in employment matters that applies in the armed forces. At present, section 33 of the Human Rights Act states: “Nothing in section 22 of this Act shall prevent preferential treatment based on sex being given within the Armed Forces to any member of those forces who has the duty of serving in an active combat role in those forces.” In effect, the exemption allows the New Zealand Defence Force to discriminate against women regarding their employment in active combat roles.

At the time the Human Rights Act was enacted, the New Zealand Defence Force had a policy of not allowing women to serve in combat roles. However, that policy was formally rescinded by the defence force in the year 2000. Accordingly, section 33 of the Act no longer reflects current policy or practice in the New Zealand Defence Force. New Zealand maintains a reservation to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women with regard to the services of women in the armed forces. This is New Zealand’s only remaining reservation to that convention. New Zealand has been urged to expedite the steps necessary to comply with the convention. This amendment to the Act will enable New Zealand to fully ratify its international obligation.

The bill will build on and validate the career options for women who have progressed significantly since the integration of women into the New Zealand armed forces in 1977. Before that time, women’s opportunities within the New Zealand Defence Force were extremely limited. They were paid less for equal work, and officers had a separate rank structure. In practice, women were paid at only 80 percent of the pay scales of men for performing the same job. A 1961 exercise to align women’s trades across the three services was prompted by the 1960 Government Service Equal Pay Act. But although the trades were aligned, women were still paid 80 percent of the pay scales of men on the basis that they were not as effective as men.

On their integration into the three services, women received pay rises of up to $1,800 per year. Joint recruitment courses started immediately, but few women chose to enter the traditionally male-dominated trades. Integration was not simply about pay scales and opportunities; it was also about inequitable conditions of service. Before integration, women could be discharged for getting married. A further significant law passed in 1979, the Maternity Leave and Employment Protection Act, protected women from being discharged simply because they were pregnant.

From that period, legislation and policy changes have continued to improve conditions, career opportunities, and the status of women serving in the New Zealand Defence Force. These changes include the statement by Government employing authorities on equal employment opportunities in 1984; the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987; the State Sector Act 1988, which embedded the Government’s commitment to equal employment opportunities; the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; the Human Rights Act 1993; the Privacy Act 1993; and the report of the review of good working relationships in the defence force in 1995.

In 1997 the New Zealand Defence Force published both an equal employment opportunities policy and a harassment and discrimination prevention policy that were applicable to both military personnel and civil staff. In 1998 the Human Rights Commission was contracted to carry out a gender integration audit of the defence force, which resulted in real progress in the recruitment and retention of women. A repeat survey of good working relationships in 2001 measured progress towards eliminating harassment and discrimination, and a more robust employment equity programme policy was adapted. Paid parental leave was introduced in 2002—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Who by?

By the Labour-led Government. It has had a profound effect on the working life of women in the defence force. Those women can now, like all New Zealand women, enjoy 14 weeks caring for their newborn babies, with the security of financial assistance.

These changes have led to women’s participation in New Zealand’s armed forces increasing, from 977 in 1977 to 1,668 in 2002. On current trends, the percentage of women in both commissioned and non-commissioned ranks may reach as high as 20 percent in the next 10 years.

Over the last 28 years women have endured and enjoyed deployment to some of the harshest operational environments, alongside their male colleagues. They have proven themselves to be equal to any challenge placed before them. Some have been recognised for specific achievements but many have simply got on and done the job in a thoroughly professional manner, thus bringing credit upon themselves and the New Zealand Defence Force. Today’s women are close to achieving full integration into all trades and occupations, including the combat trade. Women serving in the New Zealand Defence Force in 2005 can expect to have opportunities to progress their careers to heights that the women serving in 1977 could only have dreamt of, but never hoped to achieve.

This Labour-led Government has a commitment to upholding and advancing human rights. These women enjoy working in a demanding and rewarding environment that offers exclusive opportunities for training, development, and experience that few other employers in New Zealand can provide. Their contribution is invaluable. With a commitment to upholding and advancing human rights, we pride ourselves on our belief in a society where discrimination on the basis of gender is a thing of the past, as is racial discrimination and age discrimination. We uphold the right to religious belief and expression, and we recognise that with right comes the responsibility to treat others with fairness, respect, and honesty. It is my strong recommendation that all parties support this legislation to enable New Zealand to continue its proud tradition and ratify its obligations to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

I rise on behalf of the National Party to support this bill. It has been a long time coming. Tonight I will talk about a few things, one of them being women in combat. I am not sure that we have any women in combat at the moment—other than possibly in this House. I am not sure whether we have many women in the combat trades even though, as I was assured by the previous speaker, discrimination against women joining those trades has been removed. But I certainly remember a time when I heard the Government making a lot of noise about how we had our first woman pilot in the Air Force and how she would be one of our strike force people. And what happened? We lost the strike force. So I think, at the end of the day, this all becomes a bit of a moot point, frankly.

I have met our SAS troops, and not one of them was a woman, although they assured me that they were not discriminating against women. I said to them that I just wanted them to have really good troops, and I am really glad those guys are there. If they happen to have some women who can do the job, good on them, but I asked them not to change standards based on race, gender, religious belief, or anything else. They should just have the right people to do the job.

Of course, it is good to hear, yet again, that this is the Year of the Veteran. It really does open up the opportunity for us to talk about a woman who was one of the very few New Zealand women who have been combat soldiers. She was, and is, a war hero—Nancy Wake. Nancy Wake is a 94-year-old New Zealand woman who is the most honoured of the Allied servicewomen of World War II. She has been honoured by France, the UK, the United States, and just about everywhere else—except New Zealand. Even the Australians honoured her, and it took them a long time to do it because they said she was a New Zealander. What did our Government say? It said that she was an Australian. Well, she is not; she is a New Zealander. Yes, she lives in London. Yes, she carries a New Zealand passport. Yes, she is Māori. And, no, she has not been honoured by her own country.

I find it really just a little too much to take to hear about this, the Year of the Veteran, and women in combat roles, because we have one and we do not wish to honour her. The Royal New Zealand Returned and Services Association has given Nancy Wake the Gold Badge. She is the first woman it has ever given that honour to. The RSA gave it to Nancy Wake this year and said that it was so it could try to do something about the fact that, for some reason, this country will not honour her. I know she left as a child. I understand all of that, and none of it makes a scrap of difference. She never lived in the United States; she was never a US citizen. She never became a British citizen and she was not an Australian citizen, yet we cannot honour our own.

So we hear about women in combat. Where? Where will they be in combat? I see that Mr Mark is laughing and giggling, and he would tell me that he knows exactly what I am talking about, does he not? Well, it is all pie in the sky, because, unfortunately, it takes a little more than to say that we have equal pay and paid parental leave in the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy. That is all just great, but, at the end of the day, we have to have a credible defence force. We have to have a commitment to that and to understand that we do not live in a benign, strategic environment—and we never did. That was just pie-in-the-sky nonsense. That was all about deciding that we could not have a strike force. That was all about turning our soldiers, our Navy personnel, and our Air Force into adjuncts of other countries, and that is not good enough.

We heard today about how women do those great jobs in the services—and they do, and they always have—it is just that the jobs have changed. I absolutely understand there are some people still in the services, and some who have left, who do not like the idea of women being in combat. Well, frankly, women die just the same as men. They have blood; if someone shoots them, some bad things happen. That is what happens. Women die in war now, whether or not they are part of a combat force. I understand that there are men who ask—and I have heard this from men and women—but what if our women soldiers were captured by nasty, horrible, terrorist types who raped and murdered them? I say to those people that I am sorry, but they do that to men. That is the way it is.

💬 Ron Mark: They just don’t care.

Well, they should care, I say to Mr Mark. And we do—of course, we do. The fact is that that is what happens, but we must not turn our armed forces into some sort of organisation that says we will have so many women, so many men, so many of that, and that sort of nonsense. Those people are in a serious business. They are not there to deal with quotas; they are there to deal with very serious situations—just as our New Zealand Police are.

I do not believe for a moment that women who go into the armed forces go in without understanding that their lives may well be at risk, because that is the nature of the job. They do not go in there because they are wussies. They go in there because they want to do a job and they want to serve their country. They also want to believe that their country appreciates them doing it. They want to believe that they will be looked after if they are veterans or if they are hurt, and that their country will appreciate them, and will not ridicule them or condemn them for doing the job their country asked them to do. That is what they will expect, so we must honour that.

In terms of some of the other jobs that women do in the services, obviously many of them previously were nurses, or they worked as clerks and in all sorts of roles. When those services were amalgamated and those women were able to move across into the—I will use that term—mainstream of the services, some women probably felt that it was not what they had ever signed up to do. But I am sure that today’s new women in the services, and many of those who have been there for quite some time, feel very proud to be fully fledged members of our armed services.

The first and foremost job of any Government is to protect its people, and the first and foremost job of this Parliament is to make sure the Government takes adequate steps in order to do that. I do not think this Parliament necessarily does that job very well, and I do not necessarily believe that this Government has a real commitment to our defence forces, other than to be able to say: “Look at us, we are going to call this the Year of the Veteran. Look at us, we are going to bring this legislation in.”

I congratulate Lynne Pillay as a back-bench member of the Government on bringing this Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill forward, and I say good on her. But I also say to her that we have had 7 years of this Government and not one Minister has put his or her name to this bill. The Government has left it to a back-bench MP to do it. So where is the commitment? I think it is because Government members are ashamed of their commitment to our armed forces. They are ashamed to stand up here and say what happened to our one woman pilot in the Air Force. Well, I can tell this House that she became the aide-de-camp to the Governor-General. That is what became of her—a fighting woman had to run around after the Governor-General, holding open the door. That is what we did to our one fighting Air Force woman. Mr Mark laughs about it, but I understand that he shares exactly my frustration. I mean, how are we, as women, supposed to go out there and say that girls can do anything—and they do; we can hold open the doors. That is, unfortunately, what we do see when we do not have a real commitment to our defence forces and to our veterans.

I will make a final plea to this Government and this Parliament to do the right thing by Nancy Wake. If we do not do the right thing and honour this woman, we will never have the chance to do it again while she is alive. I do not want to be here saying: “Is it not great that we are honouring her?” when it is too late. It will be too late then, she wants it now, and the Government should do it. I say to the Government not to be so pigheaded in this Parliament as to say that it will not do it because I asked it to, and because people like Ron Mark and Tariana Turia asked it to—the Government should just do it.

I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First and say we will be supporting the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. We will support the bill going through to the select committee, and we look forward to any further discussion taking place there.

It is wonderful really, because moments are full of irony on some days. Irony oozes out of legislation such as this. I was a little bit pipped when Judith Collins took the line of debate that she did, because I have already done a little bit of work. I have been refreshing my memory over one particular issue, and that is the issue of Nancy Wake. I know it is not often that MPs tell the House what they are doing in terms of Queen’s honours, but if I recall correctly, my office has recommended Nancy Wake for a Queen’s honour at least three times—probably four times now—going back over some years. Each time that we have done that and seen no result we have been severely disappointed.

This bill just begs some comment. How ironic it is that a bill should come into the House espousing the views and beliefs that women should be treated equally and have equal opportunities in the workplace and, in particular, in the armed forces. Such a bill speaks so highly of the desire of women to be involved in combat and at the sharp end of warfare. Yet the Government fails to recognise the one woman of this country who did exactly that. One would say, on reading the newspapers, that this is a case of hypocrisy.

💬 Anne Tolley: That’s right.

I say to Anne Tolley that Labour has not been the only Government not to recognise Nancy Wake. Other Governments have refused to do so, as well. But it is interesting; we could say the policy is consistent in that the Government refused to recognise Sergeant Mānahi, the Māori Battalion soldier who won the day at Takrouna—we all know that. It was a feat of arms that astonished Erwin Rommel himself and inspired the commander of the entire African theatre of the war to recommend him for a Victoria Cross. But he was not recognised.

One would have thought that a Government led by a female Prime Minister—and in the time of a female Governor-General, a female Attorney-General, and a female Chief Justice—would give some consideration to this matter. This is particularly the case right now, when a Government MP is saying women in the armed forces should be given equal rights and equal opportunities, and that the Human Rights Act in its current form prevents women from having that privilege and that right.

So where is Nancy Wake in this discussion today? Let us remind ourselves. The following words are not mine but come directly from an article called “Warriors: Nancy Wake—The White Mouse” on the website nzedge.com: “Nancy Wake was the Allies’ most decorated servicewoman of WWII,”. She was not New Zealand’s most decorated servicewoman, not Australia’s, which often wants to claim her as its own, not even the United States’, who would claim her as quick as a flash if it could get away with it; she was the Allies’ greatest servicewoman—we are talking Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Canada, South Africa, India, New Zealand, Australia, Fiji, Samoa, and France. The most highly decorated woman in the entire allied force is a New Zealand woman. We cannot recognise that, but we will stand up here and make wonderful speeches about the right of contemporary women to join the Army, to become a tank commander, an infantry soldier, or an SAS soldier—to fix bayonets and charge the enemy.

The track record is not good, is it? Of course, as Judith Collins says, we did the one female Air Force pilot we had out of a job—it costs a few million dollars to train these people—by taking the aircraft off her. I have to say that New Zealand First has no opposition to this legislative change, at all. But we would like people to put their money where their mouths are. If we truly want to give women the opportunity to take up combat roles, then for crikey’s sake we should recognise them when they do so. In particular, we should recognise those women who reach such heights as Nancy Wake, who ended up being a saboteur, an organiser, and a resistance fighter, and who led an army of 7,000 Maquis troops in guerrilla warfare in order to sabotage the Nazis. She was a woman who played a huge role in bringing freedom to France. She suffered the loss of a husband, who was tortured and put to death by the SS after being captured by the Germans. Nancy Wake is a woman who still lives today and is still able to hear her country say: “We are sorry for overlooking you. We do recognise the part you played. You are an inspiration to women in the armed forces today.” We should do something about it.

Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēna tātou katoa. I could not help but agree with Judith Collins and Ron Mark on the issues they have raised in terms of Nancy Wake. It kind of makes the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill look hypocritical, in that here we are talking about women being at the front line, yet we are not prepared to honour the woman who stood at the front line and who is somebody of Māori and New Zealand descent. I feel quite ashamed about that, actually.

When it comes to discussion of the armed services, this is one area where Māori people can be proud of their statistics. The numbers of Māori who serve in the area of combat are huge, and I am really proud of them. In the excellent publication of 1984, The Māori Battalion Remembers, Sister Pare Kopou-Saxby describes her experiences as part of the New Zealand Army, which included sailing up the Suez Canal to Port Said, arriving in Tripoli, and eventually transferring to 3G.H in Bari.

Memories of very heavy air raids, bombed buildings, and dust storms are casually described alongside stories of leave in London, and sightseeing. Indeed, the ordinariness of women taking up leadership in defence and peacekeeping roles is well known in Te Ao Māori. In a 1994 paper, Ani Mikaere described Māori women from all iwi performing leadership roles in all spheres. She described Waitohi, the sister of Te Rauparaha, as a leader and an accomplished military strategist. She referred to Hēni Pore of Te Arawa, who fought against the British troops in support of the Kīngitanga in the 1860s, and who also fought in the battle of Gate Pā at Tauranga, in 1864. Other tribal accounts honour the voice of women who would make the call to lead the warriors, who recognised the clarity of their karanga.

This glorious background of strength, valour, and leadership provides a useful context for understanding the attraction of the armed forces for many Māori women. It also provides the context that makes it easy for the Māori Party to support a bill that removes all impediments from women being able to serve at the front line if they so choose. However, the Māori Party supports the bill with some reservations, for our preference is that armed forces would be deployed only under the auspices of supporting a peacekeeping role in the world.

We see this bill as a formality. It allows legislation to be updated to fit with the changes in practice, as well as being consistent with international conventions, such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The bill also gives us an opportunity to promote the fact that the New Zealand Defence Force has made significant progress in improving the representation and distribution of women throughout the services.

Although the intent of the bill is to repeal section 33 of the Human Rights Act 1993, to remove the exemption allowing discrimination against women, it is possible only because the armed forces have made changes to the culture, to accept and value women alongside men. Importantly, a recent review has concluded that the armed forces have made much-needed improvements in the way in which harassment issues are dealt with, as well.

The review in progress of what is called gender integration came in response to a report instigated by the Human Rights Commission, the Burton report. That report in turn responded to complaints about the way in which the Defence Force was managing allegations of harassment and mistreatment. Flight Sergeant Viti Flanagan, the first female engine runner in the Air Force, talked about the challenge of facing sexist attitudes. Of Māori, Fijian, and European whakapapa, Viti was from a highly matriarchal family, where women were expected to achieve along with the best of the men.

She reflected on some of her experiences: “Anyone in a position of power could make it difficult. You could either fight every battle and lose the war, or choose your battles and ignore the rest. That’s what I did. But it was quite a lonely existence.” Laura Gillan, the Human Resources Manager for the New Zealand Defence Force, described the enormity of the change: “We are talking about cultural, systemic, and attitudinal change. … It is up to Defence Force leaders to consider these, and decide whether some of the systems within the services reflect modern arrangement and the expectations of society as a whole.” I say that as we progress this bill we should honour all our women, and particularly Nancy Wake, one of our most honourable women in combat. Nā reira, tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Speaking in support of the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill on behalf of United Future, I think it is somewhat sobering to recall that as recently as 13 years ago in this House, we made an amendment to the Human Rights Bill to exempt women from being put into a combat role in a front-line sense. I recall the debates at that time, which were the sorts of debates that dripped with concern about the frailty of women and the dangers of exposing them to dangerous fire, etc. I think that most people today would be somewhat amazed to think we are actually debating, in 2006, a bill to give women the right to be in the front line if they so choose. Most people would assume that that has been the case for a long time.

When we look at our armed forces overseas at the moment—those in the Navy patrolling difficult areas of the Persian Gulf—and others that have been in peacekeeping situations where they have been exposed to danger, we see that women have played an active and prominent role for many years. We now take it for granted, and properly so, that our armed forces are fully integrated in that sense. So this bill, which I welcome, is long overdue. I suspect that for many New Zealanders it recognises what they assume has been the reality for a long time. The arguments against the bill are not sustainable in any sense; the arguments in favour of the bill are compelling, and I congratulate the member Lynne Pillay on bringing it forward at this juncture.

I want to comment on some of the other speeches with regard to Nancy Wake. She is a famous New Zealander, even though she left here at the age of 12. She grew up in this city. It was an era where gallantry, bravery, bravado, and dash accompanied all of those women, and they were women, who were part of the Special Operations Executive, which did so much extraordinary—today we would probably call it terrorist—activity in parts of France and elsewhere. Those women carried out sabotage, behind-the-lines activity, and the sorts of things we admire as courageous. I recall reading Peter FitzSimons’ biography of Nancy Wake, and reading about her work with the Maquis and the dangers she was routinely exposed to. I think that there is a strong case for this country honouring her—not, perhaps, as one of its own, but because of the contribution she has made. As time marches by, I think the case becomes more compelling.

It is a sadness—and we have done it a couple of times in this country—that where we have felt disconnected from someone or from an event, we tend not to give formal recognition to that person or event. For example, it was only on the 50th anniversary of the cessation of hostilities in Korea that this Parliament, at my instigation, finally moved a motion commemorating those New Zealand forces that served in what had become known as the forgotten war. Nancy Wake, I suspect because she has lived so much of her life out of New Zealand, has become the forgotten Kiwi. It is the pattern repeating itself.

We do not have too many heroes in this country. We do not have enough people we can look up to as inspirational that we can afford to ignore the achievements of those who truly have been inspirational. So I think a strong case exists for Nancy Wake’s recognition. I think the irony that some members attach to this bill is, perhaps, drawing a bit of a long bow, but the case is strong for her recognition, nonetheless.

This bill will be welcomed by those who serve in the armed forces, although part of me asks why women would want to give up the exemption they have at the moment so that they can be killed alongside everyone else. But I respect that that is a somewhat flippant viewpoint—perhaps Mr Clarkson might be more likely to express it. Simply, this is a bill that we will support and that we are pleased to see the member introduce.

I will begin with a quote: “Inequality justifies its existence because it is those who benefit from inequality who set the standards. The system says to women, of course you are equal. You can do whatever you want. You can be a judge or a permanent head or a Cabinet Minister. What that actually means is that women are free to be exactly like men. Because women are not exactly like men, because their circumstances always will be different from those of men, it is unusual for women to succeed by the standard the system sets for them. So the system, having set the standard, can declare that women have failed to meet it, and so justifies their continuing inequality.

“It is exactly the same as a Pakeha system which says to Maori people, of course you can be equal. You can be just like a Pakeha if you want to be. It sets Pakeha standards for Maori people and when they fail to meet them, as inevitably they fail, the system has justified their continuing inequality.

“The standards the system sets are powerful. It is a sad irony that many women have been suspicious of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs because they thought that a ministry that wanted equality for women must necessarily want women and men to be the same. The Ministry does not want that at all. It wants a society in which women of all cultures can set their own standards and live by them as they choose. That is genuine equality of opportunity. If it is to happen the system must change, and changing the system is a task of awesome difficulty. There is much active discrimination still to be removed.

“It is offensive for instance that women cannot join the air force to train as pilots. That has two results. It keeps women off the very lucrative gravy train which pilots get on to in civilian life. It perpetuates the myth that the defence of our country is something which belongs exclusively to men. In a society which daily subjects women to violence and the threat of violence that is self-serving hypocrisy. If the Minister of Women’s Affairs wants to have a crack at that one we can make it a joint effort.”

That quote was from a speech at the opening of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, delivered by the Rt Hon David Lange in May 20 years ago. He also said: “It is not beyond women to change the system. The system had already changed in one way simply because this Ministry is now in it. It would not be here if women had not fought for it. I saw it fought for at party conferences and I saw it fought for in Cabinet. If its existence is a reproach to me and others like me that is exactly what it should be.” In opening the ministry’s offices, David Lange wished everyone well who worked there. He knew that many women were already looking to the ministry, and he was expecting to hear from them.

Twenty years later we are delivering on what David Lange promised women could do, with the removal, in my capacity as the Minister, of the last remaining reservation to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. New Zealand has filed five reports since it ratified the convention in 1985. New Zealand’s first report was considered by the UN committee in February 1988. The fifth report, covering the period from March 1998-2002 was considered by the committee, after having been admirably presented to it by the Hon Ruth Dyson, who was then the Minister of Women’s Affairs, on 14 July 2003.

In that reporting period, New Zealand had two reservations to the convention: one relating to paid maternity leave, and the other to women serving in armed combat. New Zealand noted that the paid parental leave legislation had been enacted, and that removing the relevant reservation was being considered. That reservation—as, of course, we now know—has been lifted. If this legislation is passed through the House—and I certainly hope it will be—then New Zealand will be able to remove the last remaining reservation to the convention, which is something that I will be able to report to the committee later next year.

I congratulate Lynne Pillay on bringing this important measure before the House. I am proud that, 20 years down the track, David Lange’s dreams are to be realised.

I seek leave to table the New Zealand Defence Force personnel branch’s policy on equal employment opportunities for Defence Force personnel. It shows that the military has had an equal opportunities employment policy in place for women—for all people—since 1997, the time when it signed up to the agreement. In 1990 the Defence Act was amended. Further to that, on the same page are figures that show the number of women in the defence forces has decreased from 1,352 in 1990 to 1,318 in 2001.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

I rise to speak on behalf of the National Party for the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill that the member Lynne Pillay has put forward today. I cannot help but start by stating that girls can do anything. On my own behalf I would like to add that we do not all want to do everything. But for those who do, and who want to be in a combat situation, and want to be in the armed forces, I certainly think: “Good on them, and why shouldn’t they?”. If this bill will take away that little bit of legalese from the principal Act, then National will stand up for it. The bill certainly has my support.

I have done a bit of research into the legislation over the last few days—particularly yesterday and today—as I knew it was coming up. One of the things that struck me, after talking to many in the armed forces, was that women do have opportunities to be in those roles. In fact, someone very close to me, who is in the armed forces, made it very clear that there is no discrimination against women. He said: “Boy, by crikey, help you and you will not have a job within the armed forces if you are seen to be promoting on the basis of gender and not on the basis of the best person for the job.” That is something we should recognise because we are so quick to go out there and condemn people for separating the genders, for putting women down, and for saying they are not good enough to be given equal opportunity. If there is no discrimination in our armed forces, despite the Human Rights Act at the moment, then they deserve some recognition for that and for the opportunities they are giving.

I agree with previous speakers that it is a disappointment that our own Government does not do this and does not recognise the one woman, Nancy Wake, who has done so much in that regard. I hope that perhaps that message has come through tonight even more strongly, as well as the fact that so many people believe that she deserves recognition.

As has been stated, the legislation is just changing the descriptions that are there to stop discrimination and prevent it from happening. The speech made by Minister Lianne Dalziel was beautifully read. I think she read it really well. It is a shame that as Minister she has not put this legislation through herself; she could have done it relatively easily. It is a shame that it has needed to go through everything, and that it has taken so long. We could have done it more simply if we had needed to, instead of proposing it as a member’s bill and hoping it would get pulled from the ballot. From my obviously very new recognition, that is the difference. We had to hope that this bill would be pulled from the ballot, instead of the Government putting it through in the last few years.

With regard to the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women and this bill being a step towards it, I proudly stand up as a New Zealander and on behalf of National in recognition that society has moved so far along. I agree that we can look back 20 years, and then look at where women are today. But it is these sorts of battles that we still need to be fighting.

Let us look at combat, and women in the armed forces. There has been much discussion in the House today on women in those sorts of roles, what could happen to them in combat situations, and the reasons. One of the interesting things for me, in talking about women in the armed forces, was that the many people I spoke to said that in some cases there would be reasons—and quite good reasons—why women should not go into certain situations. Then those people stated there would be cases when people with brown skin, or of a certain height, could not go into certain situations. In fact, everything is taken into consideration in certain combat situations. Such considerations are not necessarily based on gender but on suitability for certain situations at certain times. We put faith in our armed forces that they recognise the safety of people with particular religious beliefs, a particular sexuality, and that sort of thing as they relate to the extreme cases and situations that unfortunately the world finds itself in at this time.

I am happy to be standing here and defending women’s rights to have equal opportunities out there. If this is one more small step towards them, then National can certainly commend this bill.

As a feminist and as someone who has fought for women’s equality, I find it slightly galling that we are celebrating here the idea that it is somehow a great step forward for women to have the right to kill and be killed in combat on the front line. However, if there are women who want to go to the front line and into combat positions, far be it from me or the Green Party to try to stop them from doing so. We will therefore be supporting the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill.

However, I want to make one point, which is that once we start to have women participating in combat zones and fighting on the front line, we need to have greater protection or greater assurance of their safety and, in particular, of the safety of their unborn children. We learnt through the Agent Orange select committee inquiry how much future generations can be affected by a chemical like that. We sent our troops into Viet Nam, and our Government—certainly—was oblivious to the fact that our troops were being exposed to Agent Orange and that the dioxin would continue to affect future generations, resulting in deformities in the second and third generations. As someone said recemtly, when people go to war it is not just the generation that actually goes to war that is affected but also future generations.

Now we have a similar situation today with regard to depleted uranium. What would happen if we sent women into the combat zones where depleted uranium is being used? Depleted uranium is a radioactive product of uranium enrichment. It is used to coat ammunition such as tank shells and bunker-busting missiles. But the problem is that even a tiny particle of depleted uranium, if ingested, can cause a range of horrendous health effects, including birth deformities. Tonnes of depleted uranium have already been dropped on Iraq, on Afghanistan during the Gulf War, and even in Yugoslavia. Some studies have been done on exposed populations. For example, in Basra there has been a 242 percent increase in malignancies. In Afghanistan, some children born in areas where depleted uranium has been used have been born with no eyes, with no limbs, with tumours protruding from their mouths and eyes, and so forth. That is the reality of the effects of the weapons of war that we are continuing to use today.

Obviously, we should be concerned about men’s exposure to depleted uranium and not merely women’s. However, we need to be particularly concerned about our women troops, even though it is true that our male troops who were exposed to Agent Orange ended up with a range of health effects that have been passed down to future generations. We need to be especially careful about protecting our women troops because in Viet Nam one sees the truly horrendous effect on generations of children born to women who were exposed to Agent Orange. Hundreds of thousands of children in Viet Nam, in village after village, have the most incredible birth deformities because their mothers were exposed to Agent Orange.

So if our women troops are on the front line, with the freedom to kill and be killed—this new wondrous freedom for women, which Ron Mark has said is not newly acquired—we do need to be very careful that we protect not just those women from depleted uranium and other horrendous weapons that are being used, and have been used in the past, but, in particular, that we protect future generations. Women may be pregnant and not realise it. Exposure to one particle of depleted uranium, if ingested, could cause a whole range of effects and birth deformities. It is entirely possible that women fighting on the front line could come back home and give birth to children with deformities, as a result of that exposure. If we are to send our women to the front line, I believe we have to have some guarantee that future generations of New Zealanders born to those women will not have birth deformities as a result of the wondrous new freedom to kill and be killed—or to have that opportunity—on the front line.

I am delighted that my first substantive speech in the House, apart from my maiden speech, supports the broadening of human rights in New Zealand. I rise to support the repeal of section 33 of the Human Rights Act.

I worked closely with the Hon Katherine O’Regan and others in the early 1990s to ensure that the new Human Rights Act would be a satisfactory law. At the time that Act was passed, the New Zealand Defence Force had a policy of not allowing women to serve in combat roles. That policy was formally rescinded in 2000 but section 33 of the Act remained as part of the law of New Zealand. Section 33 no longer reflects the reality of New Zealand’s modern defence force. Women already take a full part in the operations of our armed forces, in New Zealand and around the world. Their contribution is invaluable, and repealing this now-redundant provision will help to acknowledge that contribution. I am proud of this Government’s commitment to upholding and advancing human rights, in New Zealand and internationally. It has made an excellent contribution to the goal of creating and sustaining a world-leading human rights environment, where people are able to reach their individual and collective potential. This is the latest in a series of Acts that have attempted to put in place a progressive and comprehensive human rights framework in New Zealand. The 2001 amendment to the Human Rights Act, the Care of Children Act 2004, the Civil Union Act 2004, the Relationship (Statutory References) Act 2005, and the New Zealand Sign Language Act 2006 can be seen, in common with this legislation, as part of that effort.

At present, New Zealand maintains reservations to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination Against Women, reserving the right not to apply the provisions of the convention to the service of women in situations involving armed combat. This is New Zealand’s only remaining reservation for the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination Against Women, after the Government was able to withdraw two reservations relating to paid parental leave in 2003. The reservation was originally entered due to practical difficulties accommodating women on military vessels and aircraft, and beliefs at the time about women’s physical ability to serve in combat roles. If these reasons ever had any validity, they certainly do not apply to the New Zealand Defence Force today. Overall, New Zealand maintains just 10 reservations to five international human rights treaties. That small number indicates this country’s strong commitment to human rights and to our international obligations. It is good practice, periodically, to reconsider the need for such reservations, and in my view the time has come for this reservation to be withdrawn.

In 2003, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women urged New Zealand to expedite the steps necessary for the withdrawal of this reservation to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination Against Women. There no longer appears to be any policy or operational reason for maintaining that reservation, but the ongoing presence on the statute book of section 33 precludes full compliance with the convention. The repeal of section 33 should allow the Government to consider whether the remaining reservation to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination Against Women should then be withdrawn.

The reservation also applies to the recruitment and service of women in the police, to the extent that they are required to serve in situations involving violence or the threat of violence. Before the reservation can be withdrawn, the Government would need to consider, obviously, whether it is necessary to allow different standards to be applied by the police for recruitment and fitness maintenance, although this is not directly relevant to the repeal of section 33. Obviously, the Government would also need to consult the Governments of the Cook Islands and Niue before withdrawing the reservation.

As I have already said, this Government seeks to continue to promote a fair and inclusive society, and to demonstrate leadership in the area of human rights. This amendment, and the future withdrawal of reservations to international human rights treaties, where possible, demonstrate our commitment to the international human rights framework. The bill is timely, and I want to take this opportunity to commend Lynne Pillay for its introduction.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Just before I call the member, there has been a power surge. The lights will come on in about 10 minutes.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere): I just think there is enough warmth in this Chamber tonight to keep us all comfortable. I thank all parties for their eloquent speeches and their support for the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. It is rare, indeed, that we have a bill come to this House on which we have unanimous support, and I very much appreciate that. This bill is about acknowledging women who are willing to put their safety on the line to represent their country. They are women who take a full part in the operation of New Zealand’s armed forces, in the same way that Kiwis have done for generations.

I also draw attention to this booklet, 25 Years of Women in the New Zealand Armed Forces, because, like Paula Bennett, I did some looking up and finding out about the armed forces when I was preparing this bill. This little book was prepared in 2002 and it commemorated 25 years of women in the New Zealand armed forces—from integration in 1977. When I spoke to the bill initially, I talked about the changes we have seen over two and a half decades. I really would recommend to people to read this book. It is a good, concise little snapshot of how New Zealand has changed in attitudes over that time.

I would like to quote from a couple of women who are serving. A young woman in the naval area said: “Two years ago Te Kaha included a work-up and peacekeeping duties in the Solomons. I currently serve in naval staff as Assistant Director, Weapon Engineering, involved in procurement, project management, and weapon policy.” That position would not have been available, or even a dream, for a woman a decade ago.

A young woman who has been in the army said: “Some people said to me, before I graduated, I would never last in a male-dominated environment such as the Royal New Zealand Army Corps. Despite some prejudices and old-fashioned attitudes towards females in combat corps, I have found that the majority of males will treat you no differently to any other officer, if you are competent in your job and maintain a professional work ethic and high standards.” How different from a time when women were deemed to be worth only 80 percent of what men doing the same work were worth.

Another young woman said: “Being a professional soldier in the New Zealand Army has meant many things to me. Above all else it has meant retaining one’s femininity as best as you can, which is not easy in a military environment. Throughout my service I have witnessed a number of changes in our army, not the least being the implementation of badly needed EEO policies. From the army I have learnt the importance of sound leadership. Most things in life hinge on that.” We in Labour certainly would agree with that.

A young woman who is an air security guard said: “I enjoy the diverse nature of my job, such as range shoots, investigations, and instruction work. I really enjoy the social and sporting aspects of Air Force life, and my time has been rewarding and a life-changing experience.” It is certainly time to reflect on how far we have come in a relatively short time—since 1977.

Many of us in this Chamber—many of us women members—can remember the limited career choices there were when we were young. The choice was nurses, teachers, or secretaries—or, if one went to a Catholic school, there was the nun option, as well. We certainly have moved on, and the young women quoted in this book have acknowledged that attitudes have changed. But attitudes have not changed without the assistance of legislation leading people through. We can stand today and celebrate that we are in an environment of a much more enlightened society of women and of men—perhaps with the exception of Bob Clarkson—who, generally speaking, do recognise that women have much to contribute.

I am really proud to bring this bill to the House, but also to enjoy the support of other parties on this bill. Long may it last.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.