Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It is my pleasure to come back and resume the speech that was interrupted a couple of weeks ago now, because this is an incredibly important issue and this is something that we on the Government side of this House care very strongly about. In fact, our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, has promised she will not rest until pay equity is achieved in New Zealand.

The bill that we have on the floor of the House tonight that we are debating simply will not achieve that. When we heard the member—who, I believe, had the best of intentions in bringing this bill to the House, but when we look at the mechanisms that are contained in this bill, and we’ve heard members talking about this, vaunting what a success the Kristine Bartlett settlement was and the number of women that were lifted out of poverty through this settlement, we agree with that. We agree that was a great moment, and, as I said in my previous contribution, I am a proud member of the union that took that action and got those women that pay rise, against a Government that fought them every step of the way in the courts—the previous Government. I am proud to say those women—Kristine Bartlett and all the other members of that union—fought hard and won a rightful case there.

But the bill that we have on the floor of the House tonight simply would not allow another settlement such as the Kristine Bartlett case, as it has come to be called. There’s some very simple mechanistic reasons contained within this legislation why that would not occur. It’s why we would not vote for this bill when the Opposition were in Government and brought this to the House as a Government bill, and why we won’t vote for it now that it’s reappeared, recycled as a member’s bill. It’s because of the comparator mechanism that what we have in here, the reason—the very reason—that Kristine Bartlett was able, and those women and that union were able, to achieve that historic win against the Government, who took them to court every step of the way, was because they were able to make comparisons with comparable occupations. Under this legislation that we have here tonight, that simply would not be possible, and that is why we will not support this.

We believe passionately in equal pay on this side of the House. It is in our DNA, politically, and is one of the things that we stand for. But what we will not support is legislation that purports to achieve it and actually achieves the opposite.

💬 Michael Wood: Virtue signalling.

Because one of the things—that’s right. As my colleague the Hon David Parker has said, it’s a virtue signalling. [Interruption] Oh, sorry, no—it’s Michael Wood. Sorry, there—you’re sounding like David Parker. What this does is it distinguishes between equal pay, unlawful discrimination on matters other than remuneration, and pay equity claims. It sets out the processes for making and resolving those claims, and equal pay claims are treated as claims for recovery of wages under section 131(1)(b) of the Employment Relations Act of 2000.

Now, these all sound like very dry ways to describe it, but what this does is it forces parties to a pay equity claim to get bogged down in the arguments about sometimes irrelevant comparisons with the treatment of people doing different jobs in other sectors. That was precisely the reason, because that didn’t have to be achieved, that we could actually achieve the win for Kristine Bartlett and those other women.

This Government is committed to implementing policies to help women of all ages, all ethnicities, all abilities, and all sexualities achieve pay equity. This bill does not meet the Government’s objective of making it quicker, easier, and cheaper to achieve equal pay and to eliminate the gender pay gap.

And we hear a whole lot of shrieking from the other side of the House, from the Opposition. There were nine years that those members had in Government where they could have prioritised closing the gender pay gap, where they could have prioritised issues such as pay equity. Instead, they started their term in Government by cancelling measures that the previous Labour-led Government had put in place to achieve pay equity and never rebounded from it. This bill describes a less progressive approach to achieving pay equity than the one that this Government is currently working through with the joint working group, and it is that process that we are committed to doing.

It is so important that we remain committed to putting the right mechanisms in place so people can achieve that. New Zealand women continue to receive less pay than men in similar roles. That is not right. It is not something this Government is prepared to stand by, as the previous Government did, and let continue. We want to put in place measures that will make real change. I do congratulate the member that has had her bill drawn, but we can’t support this, because this will not make the real and meaningful change that we require in this country. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I didn’t interrupt my colleague in the final minute of her speech, but during the outburst of interjections, the honourable member of Parliament for Selwyn made an unparliamentary comment, and I’d like to ask you to ask her to withdraw and apologise.

I didn’t hear an unparliamentary; I heard a lot of—but I’ll ask the member, if she made an unparliamentary comment, if she would withdraw it.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: Madam Deputy Speaker, I did call her a hypocrite, and I withdraw and apologise.

Thank you. Is someone seeking the call?

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We’ve just heard the most remarkable bluster and prose from the member Megan Woods, who seems to think that simply shouting and being domineering makes up for action. I have to say to this House that empty words, hollow promises, and a lot of talk do nothing for the women of this country. In this House any of us can stand here and make speeches and we can claim to represent the downtrodden and support those who need it and stand up, but actually it’s actions that matter. And from the last speaker we just heard a long-winded speech about how much they cared and how much they would do.

Here’s the reality: the first thing this new Government did on taking office was to wipe from the Order Paper a bill that gave women the chance to have an equal pay claim heard. It’s worth reflecting on the fact that this is not just because they didn’t agree and it was the old Government’s agenda. They left almost every other bill on the agenda, and they disagreed with most of them. The one bill that the incoming Labour - New Zealand First, supported by the Greens, Government wanted to strike from the Order Paper was the bill that gave women a process and a way to have a fair claim, an equal pay claim heard. It’s a matter of fact, and anybody can go back and check the reinstatement motion. I’m happy to point them to the place in Hansard if they don’t remember, if their memories have blacked out their own egregious actions. The first thing they did was strike the equal pay claim legislation from the Order Paper.

My colleague Denise Lee has done exactly the right thing, which is to say that the women of New Zealand deserve an actual process—not empty words, not hollow promises, not baseless rhetoric about all the good they want to do. This is action. And the one thing this side of the House and my colleague Denise Lee have said to the Government is: women deserve to know how and when they can make an equal pay claim. We have asked the Government repeatedly: what is the time frame? When will women be able to make an equal pay claim? What is the process they can follow? Are you going to force them to go—[Interruption] Not you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will the Government force them to go to court to argue their case? And—nothing.

The only concrete thing this Government has done is remove this bill that was well through the processes of this House, that implemented the joint working group’s recommendations for a process to give women an opportunity and a real process to have these claims heard—wipe it from this Parliament. Now, on this side of the House, we don’t just talk about gender equality, we don’t just talk about supporting women, we don’t give speeches about how important it is, and do nothing. This is a real bill with content based on the excellent work of the joint working group that my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse introduced in his time as a Minister. This is a hard piece of policy work that our Government progressed because it mattered, that we put on the Order Paper because it mattered, and that this Government had just dispensed with because it didn’t suit their agenda.

Well, I commend my colleague Denise Lee for bringing it back to the House, because this is a woman who wants to see other women have a chance, have an opportunity to make a real difference for themselves—not to have to go to court; real action for the women of New Zealand. We are the Opposition; we understand that. We don’t have the power and the numbers in the House to take through our own agenda, but what we won’t do is sit quietly and watch the women of New Zealand have no opportunity to make a claim, have their real, genuine issues be pushed aside while this Government wants to rebrand, reframe it, and claim it as their own. We’ve seen that time and time again.

We want to put the women of New Zealand first. This bill gives them a chance to do it. It doesn’t put them on the eternal never-never of when they can bring a claim. This is a real chance to give women that chance to have their claims heard. Now, if the Government was genuine, if there was anything genuine in the Government’s wish to help women bring their claims, they’d say, “OK, National. You know what? This is bigger than politics. Let’s get this done, and if there are things we disagree with, we’ll work on it. You know, we can disagree with the structures or the provisions, the comparing of the comparator industries, we can work on that.” They haven’t done that—they haven’t done that. All they did was wipe it from the Order Paper and say no to the women of New Zealand. Well, this side of the House wants real action for New Zealand women, not just talk.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I mean, after that load of nonsense, are we meant to believe the National Party are the great advocates for women? Ha! Next minute you’ll be the great advocates for workers and the great advocates for Māori. The sad part is that some of us in this House have advocated for women. I was part of the equal pay for work of equal value campaign in 1986. The Northern Clerical Workers Union, as the Hon Andrew Little will know, led the fight for equal pay for women while the National Party were doing their right-wing training for opposing women’s rights. Now, today, you would—sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. The National Party would have us believe they are now the great advocates. It is an absolute joke, the nonsense we’re hearing tonight. Eight years of doing nothing.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: We did it—you undid it.

You did nothing. The National Party did nothing for eight years, and then finally, hello, in election year, “Oh, we’d better do something because there’s an election coming up.”

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: And the court case said they had to.

Oh, that’s right, there was a court decision. Ah, that’s right. We’ll care about women in 2017, because we might just lose the election. And you lost—the National Party lost. But what did we get in 2017? A 2.6 percent reduction—a 2.6 percent reduction.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could the member come to the bill.

I’m talking about the bill.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Discuss the bill.

I oppose the bill, Madam Chair. I thought you might have got that by now, Madam Chair, but I totally oppose the bill.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m actually Madam Deputy Speaker—

Oh, sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: —and you will address me with some respect, and you will address the bill.

I’m addressing the bill, Madam Deputy Speaker.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I haven’t heard it yet.

I absolutely oppose the bill, Madam Deputy Speaker.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, then, talk about the bill.

I’m talking about a bill that has been set up that actually will restrict women in terms of what they’re doing. We have these types of statistics: women aged between 25 and 39—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no. Would you discuss the bill—the contents of the bill before the House. Not statistics, not election results, but the bill.

Well, I’m saying the bill’s not necessary, because this coalition Government has already got a plan in terms of equity. We have a Prime Minister who is committed to reducing inequalities, particularly in terms of women.

💬 Hon Member: Do something about it then.

She has made that statement. We know all about it. Sadly, that member over there knows very little about it because she’s done very little in terms of addressing equity in terms of women.

Pay equity and equal pay are core principles of this Government, and we have a Prime Minister, as I said, who will not rest until pay equity has been addressed. So, as a Government, we’re absolutely committed to this. This Government has supported the Joint Working Group on Pay Equity Principles, which is comprised, as the Opposition should know, of business, worker, and Government representatives, and this is the best way of addressing pay equity issues.

💬 Hon Member: Stop reading.

Oh, I’ve got to read because when I talk you keep yelling and screaming, so I’ve decided to come back to the bill. This is a bill that we’re absolutely committed to opposing, as you’ve heard tonight, because it is absolutely opposed to what we want. Our great advocate Kristine Bartlett would not support what the Opposition are trying to do with this bill. It actually works against everything that she aspires to have, to want, in terms of women’s equity. It actually would go contrary to everything that we want. We want absolute equity for women in the workplace. What we do know is that as men get older they get wage increases; as women get older their wages decrease. That’s just absolute fact. That’s a fact that this Labour Party has espoused for many years. We can’t address those types of areas with this type of bill, which is contrary and opposite to all the principles that the Labour Party stand for. Kia ora, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just want to start by acknowledging Denise Lee’s bill being drawn from the ballot. It’s a great honour to have that and it’s a very, very worthy cause and a great opportunity to try and rectify a wrong that’s being going on in this country for far too long. Also I acknowledge Nicola Willis. Welcome to the House, our newest member, and I look forward to hearing your contributions after you’ve got your maiden statement under way, which I’m sure the House will be filled for.

Look, this is a very worthy bill in so far as it is trying to fix a problem that we’ve had to deal with for a very, very long time. In fact, if you look back to 1998, I think the pay equity of women to men was a ratio of about 16.4 percent lower. Now we’re actually starting to head in the right direction and I understand what this bill intended to do, but the reason why New Zealand First will be opposing this bill is we don’t believe it goes far enough.

We are now sitting at a pay equity gap of about 9.2 percent differential. Again, I say we’re heading in the right direction, but it’s really quite ironic that here we are in 2020 and we’re actually in Parliament discussing the pay equity of men and women. I see absolutely no difference between the jobs that men do and women do. We shouldn’t be paying people a different wage for doing the same job or a similar job because of ethnicity, because of race, because of gender. We should be treating everybody equally and the same, no matter what. It’s about fairness and it is about equity. New Zealand First has always been a strong advocate and I look around the House and I have to say our coalition partners also have a very, very strong ethic on this issue and have been fighting for a very long time.

I think the Novopay and Kristine Bartlett’s outcome was a fantastic result. I think the group that was put together—the joint working group to come up with ways to ensure that we don’t have these problems—also came up with some good solutions, but this bill doesn’t quite go far enough and we can see some problems with this bill. Yes, we could potentially work through this in select committee, but the reason why we’re opposing this bill is because this coalition Government is working on this very same issue to iron out those problems. It wouldn’t make sense to put the time of this House into two bills trying to get the right outcome simultaneously. So we will be opposing this moving forward.

I have to say I do love members’ day. You know, having members’ bills being read in this House shows the passion. There’s a very, very robust conversation going on this evening, and most evenings, in fact, when it comes to something that we’re very passionate about. But I have to say we are equally passionate on this side about this issue, and again I commend the member for her passion for this, and the last speaker, Amy Adams, when she spoke—it very, very strongly resonates.

You know, I grew up with my mother, who would be described in any society as a feminist and a very, very strong passionate supporter and person who stands up for the rights of women. So I grew up in that environment, but I’m not a feminist, but I don’t have to be a feminist to stand up for what is right about equal pay and pay equity. I’m a humanist and I go back to my point about saying, “Let’s make sure that everybody gets treated the same in the workplace with equal pay, with pay equity.”

The part that this bill doesn’t go far enough in is to do with the comparators—the way that this bill, if it goes through, will be checking the balances of other industries with those people being paid differently. It is about looking within the industry itself so it’s internalising the externalities, but we want to externalise the internalities of this problem and make sure we’re actually reaching out looking at other working groups, other working environments, with people that are equally skilled, that work just as hard, to make sure that they have the same right of a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, which absolutely underpins this Government, this coalition Government.

So I again thank the House for their contributions. I thank the member for her heartfelt positive attempt to fix the wrongs of our history. We have got work under way that is being discussed now and will be coming out in the very, very near future, that I’m sure the House will actually join forces in to ensure that it goes through all stages uninterrupted. Again, thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to begin by congratulating, for the first time publicly, Kristine Bartlett on her award of being made Kiwibank New Zealander of the Year—I think very well deserved. I also want, for the second time, to acknowledge and thank the officials who worked with me on the crafting of this bill. I can tell the House that it was literally thousands of hours that went into the framing of this legislation that has—once again, we are debating this for the second time, and while I congratulate Denise Lee for her initiative and her good luck, what we should be doing this week is debating this bill, in its second reading, as a Government bill picked up by the Labour-led Government and amended as they saw fit because of the shortcomings that they perceived. But they did not do that, and the sad thing is that the actions of the Government in throwing this bill away and starting again have set back the progress of equity for women in this country by months if not years.

I want to just reject a couple of the main claims that have been made by the opponents of the bill: firstly, that the previous Government was led kicking and screaming into the TerraNova settlement. That was not true. The Government wasn’t even a party to those negotiations. The Employment Court’s ruling, under section 9 of the Equal Pay Act, was that the Equal Pay Act applied to work of equal value. That was it. All it did was get E tū and Kristine Bartlett to the start line, and had the Government and Cabinet not taken this issue so terribly seriously, they could have been tied up in knots for years and years. But the previous Government decided that this was worth it for women and got those parties together, took it out of the courts, and settled to the tune of $2.3 billion.

The second claim that I just simply reject is that the TerraNova settlement couldn’t have been achieved had this bill been in law prior to the claim being made. It’s just not true. Indeed, the process that the parties to the TerraNova settlement followed mirrored the bill. It mirrored the bill in respect of establishing the merit of the claim and working towards what was an appropriate settlement, using comparators that started within the industry. Indeed, this opposition to starting within an industry is completely irrational when one thinks about, for example, the health industry, which is by definition dominated by women. One of the criteria that even the Government, when it brings its bill back—whenever that might be—will have is that if there is no comparator occupation, because they too are dominated by women, then they will have to go outside the industry, and that was the provision that was made in the bill in Denise Lee’s name.

Now, I note that the officials provided me with advice about comparisons with other jurisdictions around the world, and I can inform the House, again, that this bill, if it is passed, would make New Zealand by far the most progressive country against any that we compare ourselves to. The EU, Australia, the UK, the US, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Ireland, and Finland all have less progressive frameworks than this bill has, and I note that New Zealand actually starts in that comparison with the lowest gender pay gap amongst those countries.

But I think I better understand now why those people who are opposed to this bill do so. My goal, and the previous Government’s goal, was to create a framework that keeps the Crown and the courts out of bargaining and leaves it to the parties, who are best placed to negotiate in good faith, and I realise now that the opponents to this bill want completely the opposite. They want the Crown involved. They want the courts involved as the place of first resort, not last resort.

We are going back to bargaining the way it used to be in the 1960s and 1970s, and that will be bad for employment relations. It will certainly be bad for women. That’s a setback for women because this is a really good bill, and it is a shame on the Government, who won’t even tell us when they’re going to bring an alternative piece of legislation before this House. The women of New Zealand deserve much, much better.

Tēnā koe, Madam Deputy Speaker. I really want to give a polite speech and I want to acknowledge the member who’s had the bill drawn in her first few months of being an MP. I want to acknowledge that I’m sure that she thinks she’s doing the right thing, but it’s really hard to respond politely to the speeches from the Opposition because they are so unbelievable. It’s like an alternative reality. It’s really hard to be polite.

I’d love to take the Opposition seriously, but I can’t even respond politely because the honourable member Michael Woodhouse just said that if this legislation had passed, we would be the most progressive country in the world. Well, let me just read one submission, OK—just the opening line of one submission. The executive summary from the submission on this bill, when it was at select committee the first time it was there, from the New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women (BPW), an international organisation with representatives in over 100 countries, said, “Our organisation’s aims are to link Professional and business women throughout the world so that they may provide support to each other, lobby for change and promote the ongoing advancement of women and girls.” They work for equal opportunities. Now what was their statement in the executive summary? “BPW NZ strongly disagrees with several key clauses in this Bill and believes that this legislation, in its current form, would be a step backward for the pay equality/equity cause. We believe, for marginalised women in particular, that this legislation would result in further discrimination.”

So there’s a whole host of organisations who are expert on this issue who are not political—BPW isn’t political. A bunch of you are probably members of BPW. They are not left or right. This seems to be the problem for the Opposition. It is they live in their own little world and completely refuse advice, and have their own dreams about what this legislation would do.

So let me just give a little history lesson for the members who weren’t here when this legislation went through the first time. So, in October 2015, the previous Government established a Joint Working Group on Pay Equity Principles, which reported back on 7 June 2016. They didn’t bring new legislation to the House for over a year after that group reported back. They sat on the advice from that working group, and they waited until the day after—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’d appreciate the member talking about the bill that’s before the House, not—

This is the bill. This is the bill, the first time it was before the House.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill that is before the House now, not history.

I think that it is worth—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you—is the member arguing with me?

Do you—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am asking the member—

Can I ask a question? Point of order.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you sit down while I am standing. Thank you. I’m asking the member to come to discuss the bill before the House tonight; not the history. I’ve given the member some time, but I do want the member to discuss the actual bill that’s in front of the House.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The bill before the House right now is identical to a bill that was before the House—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this—that is not a point of order, and you will not argue with the Speaker. Will you discuss the bill in front of the House.

Yes, I’m happy to discuss the bill in front of the House and how all of the submitters previously said that this legislation was flawed, and that’s why the current Government withdrew that bill and it has reconvened the joint working group. It has already received recommendations that made specific points about merit and comparators that make this piece of legislation completely redundant and completely out of line with what Business New Zealand and the other members of the joint working group have recommended.

So that is why this bill is completely useless and redundant, and the member sponsoring it clearly has no understanding of the content or the context, because literally no one apart from the National Party Opposition thinks this bill would advance the cause of pay equity. The very specific issues with the bill that BPW NZ raised had to do with the issues around establishing merit before a pay equity claim can proceed. This means proving that their part of the workforce is historically undervalued. The onus will solely be on the employee to prove all of this before bringing a pay equity claim, and that is why this legislation was specifically designed in the first instance, and again, to make it harder for working women to be paid fairly.

That is the universal opinion on this bill outside of the National Party Opposition, and I’m so glad they’re no longer in Government, because this Government is already making real progress on pay equity for women. We have the recommendations from the joint working group, which clearly saw the problems with this piece of legislation, and we’ll be introducing new legislation within the next few months that will actually make it easier for women to achieve the pay that they deserve.

It is just unbelievable—unbelievable—that they claim that this piece of legislation is about fair pay when it is the opposite. It’s putting in place barriers for the most marginalised women.

Tēnā koe, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you, and I am rising to take a call on the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill. I would have really liked to support this bill drawn in the name of the member Denise Lee. I think she’s actually a good sort. We work together quite collegially in the select committee. But not this bill, I’m sorry.

This bill is a dog’s breakfast, and this bill has been before the House before. I remember taking part in an equal pay rally in August 2017, and the women were absolutely outraged with this bill. They didn’t have the wool pulled over their eyes. They knew damn well that this bill was not a good bill. Someone referred to it as a turd wrapped in glitter, and I have to agree with that.

So, about pay equity—everybody here agrees, I’m sure, that the gender pay gap is not acceptable. It’s the result of decades of discrimination and prejudice. Work that includes a caring component is just paid less because it’s seen as women’s work. So it was great to see predominantly women, 55,000 last year, in caring roles—aged care, disability, and home support—receive a pay increase when Kristine Bartlett and the union E tū won their case through the courts. This is why I was quite astonished that the member Michael Woodhouse asked us to question whether this Government was going to force the women to go through courts when the previous Government supported the employers appealing against the Terranova case all the way to the Supreme Court. So it’s a little bit rich to throw it back this way.

But what wasn’t great was that after the low-paid women, who put heart and soul into some of the most difficult work that is being done in society—they won their settlement after fighting all the way through the courts, and what did the previous Government do straight away? They enacted legislation to try and force it through with a one-vote majority—one vote—in July 2017, and had they been successful, the legislation that had then gone through the House would have eroded and undermined the actual settlement. But, luckily, we had a change of Government, and the bill was withdrawn.

But today, unfortunately, through the members’ bill process we see the hideous bill back before the House. Now, I have gone through this bill painstakingly to try and find a difference—one difference with the previous bill—and I didn’t find any at all. Actually, no, I should apologise, there’s one on page one where it says Denise Lee instead of Michael Woodhouse. So that’s the difference that I did find.

What it would do, if we revive this bill, is it would keep women on low rates. Now, I’ll explain because I think what has been kept from some of the members on the other side of the House is the big problem with this bill is in clause 24. So if you look at “Identifying appropriate comparators”, what this section of the bill does is it forces women through their unions to firstly identify appropriate male comparators in their employer’s business, then similar businesses to their employer, then the same sector or industry, and only then, according to this bill, could they use comparators outside their industry. I know that the member Michael Woodhouse, back in July, called this a very straightforward and practical process, but what I’ve just run you through hardly sounds like a practical process to me. This bill would’ve made it much harder for employees to file pay equity claims directly, and it would’ve slowed down significantly any of these pay equity claims.

So just to reiterate, this bill before us today is exactly the same bill as the previous Government tried to rush through. It’s not practical, it’s not fair, and it’s actually completely inconsistent with the court decisions. It’s not consistent with the recommendations from that working group that the member Michael Woodhouse referred to. It’s actually omitted the recommendations made by that joint working group.

The previous National Government has pretended it’s leading the way, but it’s only because they have to. They have to because they couldn’t win in court so they made this legislation, which basically does the opposite from what the agreement had done. It does not support women, it does the opposite. This coalition Government has already reconvened that joint working group on equal pay. They’ve reported back with recommendations, and these recommendations are going to be very soon considered at Cabinet. What will happen from that process is that that will result in a much better bill. So I have great pleasure to not recommend this bill. Thank you.

I do feel as if I need to put on record the fact that this is a members’ day, this is a member’s bill, and one of the key opportunities to improve legislation is to have it go to a select committee. So to have a coalition Government that purports to be supportive of women’s equality who won’t even allow a piece of legislation that will reduce, if not eliminate, discrimination for women in the workplace in terms of both their terms and conditions and their pay is outrageous. It is absolutely outrageous that they won’t even allow a piece of legislation to go forward to a select committee for the ability for the New Zealand public—and, as my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse said before, we recognise that the new Government has a slightly different take on some aspects of the solution to pay equity.

Well, why not use the legislation? The first opportunity was the bill that was previously before the House that the Labour Government discharged with immediacy—I think one of only two that were discharged—but no, they didn’t want to talk about it then. This is the second opportunity, brought by my fantastic colleague Denise Lee, for the Parliament to discuss and debate the issue, for the Government of the day to provide input in terms of what improvements they would see, but no. What does the current Government say? More women up and down this country will be forced, because of their delays, to go through the agonising process of going to court, when we want to make a simple, practical solution.

The other thing I do want to do and put on record is that I’m really offended on behalf of the joint working group previously led by Dame Patsy Reddy. I’m offended on their behalf that the previous speaker, or the one before that from the Green Party, was so scathing and dismissive of the months of work put in by business, by unions, and by the Government to come up with a solution: a set of principles, that was workable, practical, and fair. I do want to just put on the record of the House my utter disgust that a member of this House would disregard the months of work that was entered into in good faith—

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder if you’d consider two things. Firstly, I take offence at what that member is saying about my speech. It’s completely misrepresenting what I said. Secondly, the previous member, Michael Woodhouse—most of his speech was about his experience in drafting the original legislation, which then I was unable to speak to during my speech.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear the comment that you took offence to.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: She implied that I was putting in to disrepute the previous joint working group, which is ridiculous. I did no such thing.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I don’t think that you can take offence on behalf of someone else, particularly if they’re not even parliamentarians.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: What I take offence at is that member’s characterisation or mischaracterisation of my entire speech and what I was saying.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think that is a debatable point and I think the member herself said she found it very hard to make a polite speech. So I’ll ask Louise Upston to continue.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. So the issue here—and I don’t think there would be any member of Parliament in this House that wants to see further delays in real solutions and real pay increases for real New Zealand women. Unfortunately, by members opposite not supporting this legislation to go forward to the select committee, that’s exactly what’s happening. We’ve heard lots of talk from them—we’ve heard lots of talk about their intentions and what they want to do. Where’s the legislation? Where’s the time frame? What is that side doing about it?

So in terms of results, absolutely, we know that pay equity is a significant part of reducing the gender pay gap. We’ve seen significant reductions in that since 1998, so over the last 20 years we’ve seen significant reductions. Part of that is resolving issues of pay equity, so it is really frustrating to stand in this Chamber and to know that members opposite are willing for women to wait, for women to have to go to court, like Kristine Bartlett did, and struggle for years, when this is a piece of legislation—they have the ability to influence it and change it so that we do get outcomes for women. It’s just unfortunate that that side of the House is unwilling to advance this.

It is somewhat frustrating to hear the comments and the empty language and statements about their intentions when how you deliver for working women in New Zealand is through legislation making it easy for them to engage, not making them go to court to fight for it. This is a simple solution with the joint working group recommendations that business and unions and the Government agreed. So it’s a sad day in this House when women aren’t supported by the members opposite.

I rise once again—it won’t be of any shock to people that I rise to oppose this Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill. But I would like to congratulate the member Denise Lee on having her bill drawn out.

I too, like the colleague here beside me, would love to support this but I just will not be, because this bill does put things backwards for pay equity. It is not a great day for women. This is absolutely not a great day when we have these discussions in the House. That would take things backwards in the pay equity field.

I have been in a female-dominated workforce my entire working career up until coming in to Parliament last year. I have worked as an educator, but the people that I look to in the pay equity space are the people that I worked very, very closely with, and they are our wonderful support staff who support wonderful, quality education in schools. They are tired of feeling undervalued; pay equity is their ray of hope. But one thing I would like to say is that they want to get this right. They don’t want something that is rushed through and will not give them the pay equity that they deserve. They want to make certain that we, as a Government, get the pay equity legislation correct. That is why, as a Government, we reject this bill and rejected it in its last iteration as well, and we will reject it here this evening.

We have been led by our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern. We’ve heard here tonight that she has said she will not rest until pay equity is achieved in New Zealand. But we need to make certain that we get that right. As I’ve said, the legislation has to be correct so that we get that right and we make certain that this discussion becomes part of history.

I have a dream that one day my sons will be able to have a conversation with their children that this was part of history: “Remember the day they had the argument in the House about pay equity?” We might have an Opposition who might laugh and trivialise it, but actually that shows their lack of regard for women and pay equity. It’s an absolute lack of regard that we are seeing for them, that they don’t want to take the time to get this right.

They have heard here tonight that the Joint Working Group on Pay Equity Principles has reported back to them with recommendations, which will be soon considered at Cabinet. But again we’ve heard an absolute lack of regard around that. They want to make this harder for women and a more difficult space. There will be women shaking their heads at that reaction. They will be shaking their heads that people don’t want to get this right.

I’m confused as to why an Opposition would put up another piece of legislation when we are working on a progressive approach to pay equity. It is incredibly confusing that you would put another piece of legislation on top of this. This bill would make it harder, not easier, for any future Kristine Bartletts to win their landmark pay equity settlements. Kristine Bartlett was a hero, an absolute hero, in this pay equity space.

We need to see other professions and other people having those wins as well. This piece of legislation would set that back. This would force parties to a pay equity claim to get bogged down in arguments about sometimes irrelevant comparisons with the treatment of people doing different jobs in other sectors.

I think that we are having a conversation this evening that was absolutely unnecessary. We have got the working group recommendations. We need to see those come through, and that will happen incredibly shortly. I have no hesitation in saying that this is a poor bill and I would not be recommending it to go further.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s beyond belief that this is the point that we’ve reached. Throughout this debate, the Government has rubbished this bill, piece by piece, and I am disappointed that they are so clearly misrepresenting the framework that it sets up with political point-scoring.

How can the Government honestly say that this bill is so fundamentally flawed, filled with so many holes that can’t be fixed by later debates, when the principles that this bill is founded on have been reconfirmed by not one but two individual working groups? These working groups were operating under National and Labour Governments, with input from business and unions alike. The hard work has already been done, and this bill is ready now.

What we have here is the only real progress towards pay equity that anyone has seen since August 2017. We have heard, and it’s been quoted tonight by the other side—we’ve heard the Prime Minister say, “We will not rest until we have pay equity in New Zealand.” Well, if they had stepped up when they had the chance, they would be able to be resting by now. In 2017, they voted against the first reading of this bill. That was eight months ago. They then took this bill off the Parliament’s agenda. That was five months ago.

Just six weeks ago, this bill was pulled from the ballot and in all that time we still have not seen any meaningful action from this Government towards pay equity. Instead, it seems they are actively holding it up. How can they say with credibility, any credibility, that pay equity and closing the gender pay gap are priorities for this Government, when they continue to delay any action? Instead, they choose to wait—wait for another working group, wait to introduce legislation. They are keeping the women of New Zealand waiting.

Let me point out something so simple and so obvious. It must be that the Government cares more about their politics, their pride, and their partisanship, than they do about getting a solution for women in this country now. How do I know that? It is because they could use their numbers to amend this bill. They could send this bill to select committee right now and, if necessary, they could make any changes to bring it up to the standards that they expect. The Government could arrest right now what will end up being months and months of delay—and it looks like there’s going to be an 18-month delay for when women will actually be able to lodge a claim. Women across New Zealand deserve the opportunity to submit and voice their opinions on this bill to the select committee.

I would like to thank tonight the speakers who joined me on my team—all formidable colleagues who have slogged on this topic immeasurably more than I have. I’m humbled by their faith in me, to attempt to carry the flag. I would like to thank Amy Adams, Michael Woodhouse, Louise Upston, and Paula Bennett for her counsel. I call on the other side of the House to picture women they know, women they’ve met, women who have worked, and women who have grown tired both physically and emotionally with the weight of being undervalued, and then do the right thing. We have an obligation to vote this to its next stage so that we can engage with women in this idea. The women of New Zealand deserve progress now.

A party vote was called for on the question that the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill be now read a first time. [Interruption]

Sorry, there will be silence while the votes are being taken.