Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill

I move, That the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Education and Workforce Committee to consider the bill.

I am honoured to stand here and introduce my first member’s bill as a member of Parliament. I recognise my beginner’s luck to have had my bill pulled from the ballot while some MPs often wait for years or even decades to get such a similar opportunity. I am relieved that I am making the most of this privilege by bringing forth a bill that champions a worthwhile cause and ensures that female-dominated occupations, which have been historically undervalued, are recognised for their true worth. Now, before any steps are taken to establish a system for lodging pay equity claims, what is first necessary is to actually establish what a pay equity claim is and how this differentiates from other forms of sex-based discrimination in the workplace.

Pay equity and equal pay claims are often confused and lumped together. While both are important tools in preventing discrimination and closing the gender pay gap, the main difference between them is scope. Equal pay discrimination claims are primarily focused on the individual and make sure that women are equally rewarded for performing the same work as men. Pay equity claims, on the other hand, look at the gender pay imbalance with a wide-angle lens. These claims rightly recognise that there are entire professions that have been historically undervalued because they’ve been traditionally dominated by women—women’s work, as they may call it. This bill stands up for the principle that women deserve equal pay for work of equal value, not only the same pay for the same work.

While Kristine Bartlett reached a great outcome at the end of the TerraNova Homes and Care Ltd case, we saw how much of a lengthy, protracted, and expensive process that was. The primary purpose of this bill is to establish a seamless system where claims such as Kristine’s can be recognised and resolved in a way so all parties are happy.

The first thing that this bill does is set out the criteria to establish whether a pay equity claim has merit. In other words, it determines whether the work is being predominantly performed by women while also establishing reasonable grounds to believe the work has historically been and continues to be undervalued. Once the merit of a claim has been established, the bargaining process that this bill creates is flexible, practical, and fair and it’s based on the principle that pay comparisons can be made with male-dominated equivalent professions.

I want to draw attention to what are two very important aspects of this process. First is the ability for employees to consolidate claims: clauses 19 and 20 of this bill highlight the ability for employees to consolidate not only similar claims against the same employer but also similar claims from employees of multiple employers. These clauses are important. They recognise that the undervaluation of these professions are not isolated or the fault of a single company but they’re based on historical prejudices towards an entire industry. Another key characteristic of this system is its resemblance to the already-established bargaining procedures that are in the Employment Relations Act of 2000. As a result, all parties to the pay equity claim, whether it be the employees or the employer, are held to the same high standard of good-faith bargaining. It also provides an option for any issues relating to the claim to be referred either to mediation or to the Employment Relations Authority.

Now, I was not yet an MP when this bill was last debated as a Government bill, but I have gone through Hansard to better understand why there was such vocal opposition to this bill from the other side of the House, and there seem to be three main points that I’d like to address. Firstly, the limiting of back pay: opposition to this is based on the failure to recognise the fundamental differences between equal pay and pay equity claims that I mentioned earlier.

I want to quote from the report on this bill from the Attorney-General’s office, signed by the Hon David Parker, which states that this limitation is justified because pay equity “takes account of historical discrimination against an occupation, and therefore is not caused by an individual employer.” We cannot unfairly punish individual business by making them pay for historical injustice. It’s important to note, though, that this bill does not actually prevent the parties from agreeing to additional back pay if deemed appropriate.

Another key issue of opposition was around the comparators used to determine pay, so the current Government made it a key focus for the reconvened working group. It turns out, though, that they stood by all the original principles and made no changes. Finally, there was opposition to the methods of establishing merit. Even though the requirements in this bill were adopted nearly word for word from the original recommendations, it was argued that these were too difficult or onerous. It turns out that the reconvened working group stood by these principles noting that some parties had misinterpreted the original system as a higher evidential hurdle than intended. While they recommended some minor cosmetic changes to clarify the process of establishing merit, I am sure that these can easily be adopted once this bill reaches select committee stage.

With what remains of my time, I want to go over this bill’s history and wider context, even though I am sure many members will be familiar with it and they’ll recognise the work that has fed into the development of it before I adopted it in my name. As many would know, and I mentioned this earlier, this bill and the discussion around pay equity has its roots in the court action taken by Kristine Bartlett and the E tū union for what is now known as the TerraNova case. This case resulted in the key finding that the Equal Pay Act of 1972 applied not only to cases of equal pay but also to cases of pay equity.

The previous National Government did two things. First, it engaged Ms Bartlett and the union in negotiations which resulted in a $2 billion pay settlement for 55,000 aged and disability support workers. Secondly, it created a joint working group on pay equity principles. The working group’s recommendations were gladly accepted by the previous Government and formed the basis of legislation that was introduced by my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse. It successfully passed its first reading and was then referred to select committee. It appeared progress was being made and that women in New Zealand would soon see the historic opportunity to launch pay equity claims. There was, however, an unexpected stumbling block and, after a series of unfortunate events, the Government changed following the election.

On top of that, to everyone’s surprise, this bill was not reinstated for business in the 52nd Parliament. Forty-three bills from the previous National Government that were campaigned so vocally against were prioritised. Many of these we’re still debating today, but not one bill that represents such a significant step towards closing the gender pay gap.

Instead, this Government reconvened the joint working group and delayed by months and months any progress that had been made on pay equity legislation. While I was honoured and excited to have this bill drawn, I’ll be honest and say that I was quite apprehensive about the reconvened working group and what they would report back with. They had the ability to make the systems and frameworks in this bill—my bill here tonight—obsolete. It turns out there was no need to fear. As I previously mentioned, the reconvened working group completed its work earlier this month and made no substantive changes to the principles recommended. Like many of the other working groups and reviews that have been started by the Government, this one was part of a delay tactic while they struggled to get ready for their own legislation.

I have no doubt that all parties represented here in Parliament recognise the importance of pay equity, closing the gender pay gap, and achieving wider gender equality. We’ve got an obligation to act here today. I call on the Government to support this bill to first reading for real progress for women, mothers, daughters, sisters, and aunties. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s my pleasure to take a call on this bill. I’d like to congratulate Denise Lee, the member that has just taken her seat. It is a fantastic opportunity to get the chance to bring a member’s bill to this House so early in your term, so I’d like to congratulate you. I would also like to outline the reasons why Labour will not be supporting this bill.

Nobody could have been prouder than when a fellow member of my union, E tū, was named New Zealander of the Year—Kristine Bartlett—earlier this year. Kristine Bartlett is a fearless campaigner who, alongside her colleagues—the women, largely, that she worked beside in aged-care and home-care facilities—worked hard, along with her union, to pull off a remarkable triumph. The previous speaker, the member that has brought this bill, talked about how that process took so long. That process took so long because the previous Government fought that union and Kristine Bartlett every step of the way in the courts. They only settled when they were forced to do it.

We will not be supporting this legislation, because under this bill, the triumph that Kristine and her union were able to achieve simply could not be possible. When it comes down to it, what is the problem? The Bartlett case and the case that E tū brought to achieve this amazing triumph for women turned on the fact that we could compare work that is traditionally seen as women’s work with work that is traditionally seen as men’s work, and this is where the rub of this lies. It’s in the lack of the ability to do this comparator work that is in the bill that this member has brought to the House that lies the problem.

This is why the Government did not support this bill when we took over the Government benches. We said, “We need to do this properly. We want to put in place pay equity legislation that will allow for more triumphs like Kristine Bartlett and her union were able to achieve.” This bill, this legislation, is recycled Government legislation from a Government that was unelected at the end of last year—let’s bear that in mind—and a Government where Kristine Bartlett, the woman that they’re saying is the triumph of what we should be aiming for, criticised this very piece of legislation because she recognised that what she achieved, and what her union achieved, in bringing 55,000 women more pay could not be achieved under this piece of legislation.

So we are determined to do this properly. We do not want to legislate against the Kristine Bartletts of this world. We do not want to legislate against the opportunity that exists for women who are seeking substantially increased pay packets because of that triumph.

I have spoken to many workers in my electorate who now talk about the fact that they don’t have to walk to work. They can afford to get the bus because of the settlement of that case. That is the fundamental difference that it is making to people’s lives, and the fact that we have a piece of legislation that would make it impossible for other groups to get that—

I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but it is time for me to leave the Chair.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.