Equal Pay Amendment Bill

I move, That the Equal Pay Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I’d like to thank the members of the Education and Workforce Committee for their hard work and support of this bill. I’d also like to thank all of the people who made submissions on the bill, especially those who shared deeply personal accounts of how pay inequity has affected their lives. This Government is committed to building an inclusive economy, and to do so we must address inequities in pay for female-dominated work. We propose to enact world-leading legislation that sets out a fair and practical process for employees to investigate whether their work is undervalued due to systemic, gender-based discrimination.

This bill will make it easier for employees to raise a pay equity claim through an accessible process aligned with New Zealand’s existing bargaining framework. The bill will enable employers and workers to negotiate in good faith to come to a pay equity settlement while still retaining the right of recourse to the Employment Relations Authority or court through the dispute resolution process.

The select committee received close to 600 submissions on the bill from a range of individuals and organisations. The high level of public engagement shows just how important the issue of pay equity is to New Zealanders. Most submitters were supportive of the bill, particularly the low threshold for raising claims, the lack of hierarchy of comparators, and the incorporation of the pay equity regime into the existing Equal Pay Act. The committee listened to those submissions and has recommended that the bill proceed with a number of amendments, which I support.

A key amendment that the committee recommended was to define the meaning of “predominantly performed by female employees”. The bill as originally introduced did not state what “predominantly” meant, and the committee was concerned that without guidance, the parties or courts could interpret “predominantly” to mean a higher threshold than intended. The committee has recommended clarifying that “predominantly performed by female employees” means “work that is currently, or has historically been, performed by a workforce of which approximately 60% or more members are female.” This definition aligns with the pay equity principles proposed by the joint working group and the reconvened joint working group, which include that the threshold to enter into pay equity bargaining should be a low one.

A number of submitters raised concerns about the dispute resolution process in the bill. In particular, submitters were concerned about the many steps in dispute resolution and the potential for disputes to become long and drawn out, placing a burden on the resources of both parties. The bill originally required parties, in most instances, to go through mediation and then facilitation before they could apply to the Employment Relations Authority for a determination. There will be some instances where facilitation is useful in resolving disputes, but it may not be useful in all circumstances. The committee has therefore chosen to remove mandatory facilitation for deciding whether a claim is arguable. If parties cannot agree on arguable, then they can go directly from mediation to seeking a determination by the Employment Relations Authority. This change will ensure parties don’t unnecessarily spend time and resources deciding on whether to enter into pay equity bargaining, especially if they recognise that facilitation is unlikely to result in agreement.

For other matters that arise during bargaining, except where fixing remuneration, the committee has recommended that facilitation only be used where the authority or court considers it would be helpful. The requirement to go through the full range of dispute resolution steps, including facilitation, has been retained before the authority can fix remuneration, to ensure the parties have every opportunity to agree on the terms of settlement themselves.

The committee received many submissions containing a variety of views as to what the limitation period for back-pay should be. The provisions in the bill balance the systemic nature of pay inequity with the responsibility of employers to address a pay equity issue as soon as they are made aware of it. Parties can agree to any amount of back-pay during bargaining, including settling without back-pay. However, if parties cannot agree, the authority or court may make a determination on back-pay, taking into account certain discretionary factors as part of a determination fixing remuneration. In general, the amount of back-pay that courts will be able to award will depend on the time it takes for parties to deal with the claim.

We introduced this bill to make it easier for workers to make a pay equity claim, using a more simple and accessible process aligned to New Zealand’s existing bargaining framework. Following the select committee report back, our social partners, the Council of Trade Unions, and Business New Zealand approached us with the view that the pay equity bargaining framework should align more closely with the framework for collective and individual bargaining under the Employment Relations Act. I agree that closer alignment with existing employment bargaining practices will make the pay equity process better for all parties involved. Good-faith bargaining offers the best opportunity to build productive employment relationships through a collaborative process. The bargaining framework provides opportunities for parties to agree to address wider workforce issues alongside pay equity claims if they wish.

Through a Supplementary Order Paper, I plan to make additional changes to the bill to further align pay equity bargaining with existing bargaining processes while maintaining distinctions where necessary. Working through these changes took time, but we wanted to get it right. Such changes include enabling unions to raise pay equity claims and allowing union and individual pay equity claims to progress separately. This will enable parties to negotiate claims more easily, similar to the way they’ve been doing claims in the State sector. The bill will continue to allow employees to bargain individually for pay equity where there is no union or where employees choose not to be represented by a union.

We also plan a number of tweaks to streamline and clarify the process. I understand that the transitional provisions were discussed by the committee at some length. Under the original provisions, pay equity claims that had formally commenced in the authority or court under the Equal Pay Act but had not yet been determined were discontinued and transitioned to the new regime. We recognise that there will now be claims that have made substantial progress by the time the bill is enacted, which was not foreseen when the transitional provisions were first drafted. Therefore, we also propose to make changes to allow those claims which will be in the process of being heard by the Employment Relations Authority or court at the time of enactment to continue undisturbed by the bill.

This Government has made an investment of $1 million to assist parties in navigating the pay equity claims process. This money includes funding for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to develop online tools and resources which will improve people’s understanding of the pay equity regime by providing detailed guidance about the different steps in the bill. This will help to reduce disputes, improve bargaining efficiency, and lead to more enduring pay equity agreements.

I acknowledge the ongoing work of unions and agencies to progress pay equity claims in the State sector using the joint working group principles on which this bill is based. The time we have spent working on this bill has not slowed the progress of those claims. I’d also like to thank the Minister for Women and our social partners for working with me on this important legislation. It has taken time to improve the bill, but it is certainly worth getting it right. A robust and accessible pay equity process will be a critical tool in reducing the gender pay gap across the economy. I commend this bill to the House.

It’s a pleasure to lead off the Opposition side of this debate on what should be our last bill this evening that’s debated in the House. So it’s very much a pleasure and good to be discussing the Equal Pay Amendment Bill in the second reading. National will be supporting this legislation, and I hope that is proof that National supports good policy regardless of where it comes from. This bill was referred to the Education and Workforce Committee in October 2018, so this Government has had nearly two years in which to sort this bill out, and it surprises me that we’ve now got news that a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) will be dropped to tidy up this bill and make it more consistent with the Employment Relations Act.

Again, this is a lack of process and I asked, I think, in previous readings why this bill was being delayed. They had a bill that my colleague Denise Lee had submitted and they pretty much took 90 percent of that bill and wrote their own law based on that. Now we’ve lost two years and now we’ve got further changes to this law that are being proposed. Look, all I can say is that’s a lost opportunity. It’s a lost opportunity for the many thousands of women out there who do suffer from pay discrimination and, unfortunately, this Government has again failed to deliver on that.

The Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, Iain Lees-Galloway, is in the House, and he’s saying he’s progressing other bills, but this Government has progressed other bills this week around prisoners’ voting rights, around making sure wellbeing is at the heart of the Public Finance Act, so that should tell you where the priorities of this Government are at. They’ve sat on this bill, they’ve extended this process, and they could have made much more progress to date.

Look, anyway, National supports the kaupapa or the purpose of this bill: essentially to make sure that women are paid an equal amount for work of equal value—that is the kaupapa and the spirit in which my colleague Denise drafted her member’s bill which this Government voted down over 2½ years ago and then resubmitted 90 percent of that bill later. So it’s a really important bill that has an important purpose and seeks to outline a process for women in sectors where they feel that they have been historically underpaid to go through and make those claims and resolve those claims.

I do want to acknowledge the gender gap that exists in New Zealand. In 1998 that gender gap was about 16 percent. As of last year that gap was reduced somewhat to 9.3 percent, but there’s much more work to do. I want to acknowledge all the thousands of businesses out there that are—independently of the Government and of this law—trying to make strides in that area. Certainly I think it’s reflected that it’s not just legislation, it’s actually the wider mood of the public and customers who are driving companies to, for example, report their own gender pay gap and, in a transparent manner, try to address that as well.

But this bill is important. It’s important as a signalling tool to companies and to workers out there that if you are women and you do work of equal value to men then you should be paid the same amount. So that and the spirit of the law, we support. Just to run through quickly the process for pay equity claims. So the criterion that’s been determined is around work predominantly performed by female employees. In the select committee, we’ve changed that slightly to be 60 percent—to basically put a value on it. So if you’re in a sector where at least 60 percent or more of workers are traditionally women, then that meets the criteria, but you can’t raise a claim if an employer has already extended previous claims to their workers. So that is, again, another criteria that must be fulfilled.

This law provides, essentially, a process for workers to go through to raise a claim but then work through that claim until it’s been resolved. I’m glad the Minister talked about the dispute resolution process and trying to make sure that that is smooth and consistent with the Employment Relations Act. So there is a really good process that’s in place in terms of bargaining and settling pay equity claims and providing a dispute resolution process for that.

National’s position is clear—that we link pay to the value that’s been created, regardless of which gender you are. So if you are out there in a job and you are performing a function, then regardless of whether you’re a man or a woman, you should be paid the same amount. There are historic reasons why market rates for pay may be discriminated against or may be different for gender. Part of that is bias and part of that is historical, and that’s what this bill seeks to address, and we certainly are supportive of it.

So look, without further ado, I guess, we look forward to seeing the SOP and to be able to scrutinise that. As I said, this House has actually had quite a substantial amount of time to address this bill—well over two years—and now we’re at the stage, in urgency, of discussing changes that are going to be made later on in the process. So I look forward to seeing the SOP as soon as we can, and we on this side of the House will certainly scrutinise that closely to make sure that it provides a smooth process for going through pay equity claims and addresses the issues that have been identified. So look, it’s a privilege to be leading this discussion on the Opposition side, and, as a man in this position, it’s certainly a great privilege to be able to address this, because certainly there are thousands of men that want to see women of equal value paid the same amount as well. So without much more time at this very late hour of the evening, National will support this bill into law, and we commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m glad that the previous speaker, Dan Bidois, is going to scrutinise the Supplementary Order Paper because he certainly didn’t scrutinise this bill. The most he got out of understanding the bill is that women are going to be paid the same as men. Well, actually, that happened in 1972. We’ve had the equal pay legislation already for quite a few decades but its purpose hasn’t actually really been progressed.

I would imagine that calling this bill a signalling tool would be quite offensive for the hundreds of women that over probably half a century have fought so hard to get pay equity for women—a really, really quite offensive speech that doesn’t actually acknowledge the really complex work that has been involved in getting this bill to this stage. And that was actually evident if the member had listened to the 591 submissions that we heard where the women very eloquently told us the impact on their lives of having different acknowledgment of their work than their male counterparts. We heard over a 100 organisations and individuals, and they made it very clear that we have to tackle this problem of inequity.

One of these very personal stories was of a Public Service Association delegate. I remember her very vividly. She was a mother of two, a grandmother of three, and she was telling us about the multiple jobs she was working over 100 hours a fortnight, and she said that she still couldn’t make ends meet. And it wasn’t until Kristine Bartlett and her union, E tū, won the equal pay case that she actually managed to get her hours down to 62 a fortnight. She managed to actually see her kids, take her grandkids to the movies, and she said she was able to shout them fish and chips afterwards and that is what this bill will do for so many tens of thousands of women more.

Campaigning for equal pay for women has been ongoing for decades, as I said before. It was actually a New Zealand Parliament that passed one of the very first pay equity laws in New Zealand. If Mr Bidois had done his research, he would have known that was in 1972 but it took 41 more years before a court actually made sure we got some traction on this issue. Now, one of those women that campaigned so hard, who I want to make a mention of here in the House, is Elizabeth Orr. She published this book only a few days ago and I was very privileged to receive a signed copy. If the member would perhaps take the trouble to go to chapter 16, if he can’t read any of the rest, then he would really understand a little bit more about the hard-fought fight of women to even get to this part of the bill.

If we had, in fact, taken on the bill that the National Party put on the Table, women would have been kept in low-paid jobs forever because that bill overrode the court case that was fought for so hard. Hundreds of women took to the streets in 2017. They all were against a bill that the National Party tried to drive through while they were in Government trying to keep those women in their low pay, get that win away from them, and for ever and a day keep them in their place, as Mr Bidois would probably say. But, hey, he’s a man and he stood up here and he said that a woman should be paid the same as a man and he was about 41 years too late to say that. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m taking this call to support the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. While we support this bill, I want to say that this side is really disappointed to see that this bill had been sitting on the Order Paper for 13 months. So this bill was reported back from the Education and Workforce Committee in May 2019, and today is 25 June 2020. So for 13 months, this bill was sitting on the Order Paper. If the Government was so passionate, why was this bill sitting on the Order Paper for 13 months?

After the bill was reported back, the very next day, on 14 May, two Ministers in charge of this legislation, the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, and the Minister for Women—did a joint ministerial statement, and the title of that was “Supporting working women with pay equity: next steps”. If I read the first sentence, that was “Women who aren’t paid the same as men for similar jobs will be given the tools to make a pay equity claim as the Wellbeing Budget delivers a practical solution to gender discrimination in the workplace.” They’re talking about the previous year’s Budget, and they have already delivered this year’s Budget.

So this is a good example of this Government being a big-talk Government, but when it comes to delivery, there is no delivery, no action. So they were really good at doing that press release, but then they didn’t progress the legislation through the House, and we—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m going to stop this member and ask her to relate this to the actual bill. I’ve heard a lot about the process, a lot about her opinion of what happened after the bill was reported, but actually nothing relevant to the bill. So the member needs to stick to the bill.

Mr Speaker, this is the second reading, and we’re talking about the select committee process, so it was reported back from the select committee on 13 May.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Yeah, and I reiterate what I said: you need to, in those comments, bring it to the relevancy to the bill.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr Speaker. So what this highlights is that the bill was reported back, but then there was no action. In the select committee process, we worked really hard on this legislation. We were sitting long hours; we even applied for an extension. The first time the extension was declined, and then we applied for an extension again—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Which, again, is all part of the process, but it is actually addressing—

💬 Nicola Willis: The select committee process is what second reading speeches are about.

Mr Speaker, this is the second reading—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! I’ll do this on my feet, then. I tried to do it from a point of encouragement, and now I’m making a ruling, OK? And I don’t appreciate, when I’m doing that, that other members interrupt or try to interject. It’s not helpful at all. I’m warning the member that this is her warning. She needs to speak to the bill, not about the process.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, this is the second reading, and I’m talking about the select committee, and I’m talking about the process that we had to deal with in the select committee, because this is the second reading, and I’m reflecting on how we worked hard in the select committee on this legislation.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Yes, and I’ve made my ruling on that. The member’s not going to—I’m going to start the time again, and the member can speak to the bill.

Thank you. So in the select committee process, we received 596 submissions, and out of that we had the opportunity to hear from 41 submitters, and I want to thank these submitters, because they’ve made this effort twice, because this bill was on the Order Paper before. But when that Government came into office, they decided to not carry over with that legislation; they decided to dump that legislation, bring this legislation again under their name.

So these submitters had to make this effort twice to submit on this legislation, which is very much similar to the legislation we had before on the Order Paper. So I really want to thank them for their effort. And in the select committee, we received various kinds of submissions and there were some submissions that were copy and paste—that was totally fine. But the message that came through was very similar, and the message was that—as in the example here of one submitter which I have picked, and I’m quoting this sentence from the submission—“We have waited too long for our work to be valued.” And that length of time was added to by 13 months of this bill sitting on the Order Paper.

We also received some submissions which were handwritten, and that, I think, was really amazing, because that shows us that the technology was not a barrier for people to come forward and submit on this legislation, which was really positive. So we could see how much interest was there in people to engage with us on this legislation.

Another example that I have picked here is of a person who is working in a female-dominated industry, and this person says if that industry was not that low-paid, then they would have attracted more males into that industry as well. So this was actually a really good perspective that the submitter provided.

The other thing we saw in the select committee was that some submitters were not just talking about themselves; they were talking about their co-workers. They were not advocating just for themselves but they were advocating for their co-workers as well. And this is another submission where I would like to quote a sentence from the submission: “I feel that I’m paid fairly in my role. However, I do feel that there needs to be more equity and fairness in terms of pay equity for support staff.” So she is talking about support staff in her industry where she works. So this was really good to see, that people were actually not just concerned about themselves, not just advocating for themselves, but they were advocating for other people in their industry as well.

In the select committee process, the whole select committee—members from all sides—worked really nicely on this legislation. There was so much interest to ensure that this legislation, when it was reported back, was reported back in the best possible state. And now we understand that the Minister is going to table a Supplementary Order Paper, and we really look forward to seeing that Supplementary Order Paper and speaking to that Supplementary Order Paper as well.

It was to the extent that the officials had to, for pay-back provisions in this legislation, bring a PowerPoint presentation to explain how it would work—so that was the level of engagement we had in order to make sure that when this bill was reported back, it was reported back in the best possible state.

💬 Michael Wood: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just do raise a point of order, and it’s to bring to your attention there is a member in the House who was required to not be in the House earlier by the Speaker. It could be that there’s been a change to that ruling or there’s been clarification about the time length of that, but I just bring this member to your attention.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Speaking to the point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No. You won’t be. You will leave the Chamber immediately. [Interruption] I will call the Serjeant-at-Arms. [Interruption] Order! The member will leave the Chamber immediately.

Hon Dr Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber.

So going on to the changes that we made in the select committee, I know that members—those who have spoken before me—have covered some changes, and I would like to cover a couple of changes as well. One change that we made in the select committee process which I believe is a very important change is about the timing for raising the claim. In this legislation, employees can raise a claim under the Equal Pay Act, they can also raise a claim under the Human Rights Act, and they can also raise a personal grievance under the Employment Relations Act. When the legislation was proposed, the term used was “raising personal grievance”, so we wanted to clarify: what does that mean, raising personal grievance? Does that mean verbally somebody raises that personal grievance? Is that considered to be enough to block that person from making a claim under other legislation—that is, the Equal Pay Act and the Human Rights Act? So that was clarified in the select committee process, and now it’s clear that the person will have to actually lodge a claim with the Employment Relations Authority. Then it will then be considered to be raised as a claim under the Employment Relations Act, so the person will not be able to make another claim under the Equal Pay Act and the Human Rights Act. I believe, when we are talking about providing tools to women or employees to make such claims, it’s important that the process is really clear, so this was one of the examples where the select committee worked really well to make sure that the process was clear.

The second thing which has been already talked about is the threshold. As the legislation says, one of the criteria is that the work should be “predominantly performed by female employees”—predominantly. So we wanted to make sure that this word “predominantly” is interpreted appropriately. We didn’t want it to be interpreted as a workplace where 90 or 95 percent of employees are females. We wanted to make sure that it is a reasonable number, and that’s why the number that is put in there is “approximately 60% or more”. It’s really important to note this word “approximately”. We deliberately decided to put these words, “approximately 60%” because we didn’t want a clear cut-off at 60 percent. So it could be 58, 59 percent—that means, yep, it’s approximately 60 percent, so that will be considered to be a place that is employing predominantly females. So this was another important change.

Then, finally, in the remaining time that I have, I would like to touch on confidentiality of the person making the claim, because the employer is required to notify other employees that will be affected by that claim. It was really important for us to clarify what it means for that person or the employee that is making the claim initially, so that has been clarified as well in this legislation.

So this bill has been definitely improved in the select committee process, and as I said at the start, we are supporting this legislation but we are quite disappointed to see that it has taken this long for this legislation to come up for this stage. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of this Equal Pay Amendment Bill through the second reading. I don’t intend to take too much time of the House on this important, common-sense change to legislation, and the Minister outlined very clearly and in detail what the bill was about and why it was so important. I’d just like to acknowledge the 596 submissions through the select committee process, and that the Government has listened and we have heard those submissions. Some of those submissions were actually very personal experiences; they brought forward very important aspects of developing legislation and ensuring that we’re aware of the context and the importance of legislation such as this, that we are aware of that, and that’s why we are supporting this.

I’d just like to congratulate the Minister on working very hard on this piece of legislation. I know it wasn’t easy. I know the Opposition want to stand up and try and make it out that the Minister has been sitting on this legislation and doing nothing. That’s hardly the case, and, in fact, it’s quite the opposite. So I’d like to congratulate the Minister on doing so. It’s a very good bill, it makes a lot of sense and a lot of important changes, and we do acknowledge that there will be a Supplementary Order Paper coming forward and we look forward to that coming through and making those important changes to this legislation. We commend this bill to the House.

National supports the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. We support it for the very good reason that we think that gender should not be the basis for determining the pay that someone gets and that men and women deserve not only equal pay for doing the same work but equity in the payment for the work that they do based on the value of that work rather than the gender of the people doing it. This is what this bill sets out to achieve and it establishes mechanisms which allow people to make claims where pay equity and equal pay principles are not upheld.

National supports this bill and we have supported advancing a framework of this sort for some time, and it is particularly frustrating to members on this side of the House that women in New Zealand have had to wait inordinately long for this framework to be established. In fact, it is emblematic of the approach of this Labour Government the way that this bill has been progressed. This is a Government that is very good at announcements and is terrible at delivery, because the process by which this bill came to the House is reflected in what is finally in it. The National Government saw the need for amendments to our existing legislation in order to allow pay equity claims to be made more easily and within a better framework that would mean that people were less required to resort to the courts. The feedback that National had got was that using the courts for these sorts of processes was cumbersome, provided a significant barrier, and meant that some cases were not able to be progressed. And that was the rationale for advancing legislation of the sort to provide a more practical bargaining framework.

So National had work under way and then Labour came to power. Denise Lee, I want to pay tribute to her because she is someone—she is one of the many women in this country who have championed the need for a bill of this sort, for a bill that allows for pay equity claims to be made, and she submitted a bill to this House. She brought to this House a bill very, very similar to the bill we are debating tonight, and I would invite the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety to articulate in any clear way what there is in this bill that we are debating right now that is superior to the bill that Denise Lee brought in, and what was in her bill that could not have been amended at select committee 2½ years ago. Denise Lee brought a bill to this House and it was summarily dismissed by the men opposite because they felt that it wasn’t a Labour bill and they wanted to take the credit.

If it seems to you that perhaps I’m exaggerating what happened there, I want you to think about when this bill was actually introduced. This Government bill, which, essentially, picked up Denise Lee’s bill and put it a Labour sticker on it, was introduced on Women’s Suffrage Day, the 125th anniversary. That was the day that Labour announced their Equal Pay Amendment Bill. What a feel-good coincidence that that could be Labour’s bill. And so the bill that we have here is important, absolutely, but the way in which it’s been co-opted by members opposite is disappointing and I think shows poor intent.

Then, of course, what happened is that we did consider it at the Education and Workforce Committee and I, like members opposite, do want to say how thorough that select committee process was. We did hear from a number of submitters, both those who felt that they had been subjected to unequal pay, whose work had not been valued appropriately by their employers historically or currently. We heard from women who were concerned for the future of other employees and who spoke of the need for a good process. There were technical issues which we had to consider. We were very aware of the weight these sorts of frameworks can have on employers in terms of them needing to go through these processes and needing to ensure that the way in which they determine pay is fair. So we analysed this. We received a lot of advice from officials. There were technical issues that we went through at length and I think we did a pretty good job.

So the select committee reported back, and on reporting back we had every expectation that the bill would be progressed forthwith. So it was genuinely surprising to National members on the select committee—and I don’t know how members from Labour felt—when this bill was allowed to languish for months upon months upon months. And the Minister has not given us an explanation in any detail about what was so wrong with this bill that we’re debating right now that emerged from select committee. He’s told us that it needs a clean-up in the form of a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). Well, of course, we don’t have that SOP before us, so I can’t presuppose what’s in it. But I do think that it’s fair, as a member of the select committee and a member of this House, that I would expect from the Minister that he would explain why it took months and months and months for him to make up his mind about what he’d do with this bill, and even when he does that, the SOP isn’t going to be provided until the committee stage, despite the goodwill and good intent of members on this side who want to work in a cross-party fashion, who want to work across this House, to advance the pay equity framework for women. So it’s very disappointing.

Not only that, but what we’ve seen in this clumsy and incompetent approach, in which people make symbolic announcements and then let things languish because they don’t actually know how to deliver on the detail of them, is that in that time we have seen that women have had to continue under the current framework for equal pay claims and for pay equity claims, which is the very framework that more than three years ago now was identified as being problematic and creating and making—there’d be too many barriers for women wanting to advance these claims. So the actual result of the Government dithering around on the delivery of this bill is that equal pay for women—pay equity for women—has not progressed at all. And I think that that is absolutely emblematic of the approach of this Government, which is to make the big announcement and worry about the delivery later, make it clumsy, make it incompetent. Great intentions—but when it comes to making it happen, just no good at it.

So when I look to this bill, I think about the future and I think, “Well, how do I want it to operate and how do I want it to be?” And I want this to be something that means that if any group of women, any group of employees, genuinely believe and can demonstrate that they are being underpaid on the basis of their gender, that even though they are doing work that is of equal value to a group of men—who may be doing slightly different work but they are doing work of equal value—that group of women can go through a process that is not overly cumbersome, that allows them to demonstrate that, to have an independent assessment of that, a fact-based assessment of that, and that they can then work with their employer to get fair compensation for that lack of pay.

Yes, I hope for that process. But the thing I think is much more important and that I really want from this bill, and that means that I wish that it had been progressed earlier, is that I want it to be very clear to every employer, to every employee, that we have an expectation in this country that gender does not play a role in the pay that people get. And what I am frustrated by, and what I think members on this side of the House—and certainly Denise Lee—are frustrated by, is that in the service of the timing of a press release, this Government has put the advancement of those objectives at risk. And I think that’s not good enough. It’s disingenuous and it’s unfair.

So when my two daughters grow up, how will we know whether this bill has actually been successful? Well, we know that this bill’s been successful when we actually see that these sorts of claims are no longer necessary, because we’ve established a framework in which people don’t want to have to be doing compensation and that they pay people fairly to begin with. But we will also see that that gap between the pay of men and women, which currently sits at about 9.3 percent, is reducing in real time. But I would commend to this House that we remember that the contents of this bill, as good as they are—and who knows what’s on the SOP, but I hope, I hope, that the Minister has drafted that in good intent and it doesn’t gut the content of this bill that’s been worked so hard on—is not just this bill that will advance the pay for women. There are many more things that need to be done and they start with actually ensuring that women have the opportunities that men do, and I still believe there are many barriers to that. But this is a step forward. It’s just a shame it took so long for the Government to take this step.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare.

I’m very pleased to be speaking in support of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill tonight. This bill represents one of the biggest steps for gender equality in employment in over 40 years. And although we’ve had the Equal Pay Act since 1972, we still have a gender pay gap of 9.3 percent. That gap is much worse for Māori and Pasifika women, women with disabilities, other women of colour or immigrants to New Zealand. Actually, the gap is far worse than for Pākehā women, and we need to start focusing on that ethnic pay gap far more, I think, than the gender pay gap.

I’d really like to acknowledge first up, the work of the Education and Workforce Committee, for the many hours they spent hearing and reading submissions and developing their report. Thank you too, to all those, over 600, people and organisations who made submissions on the bill. The insights and expertise have been invaluable for improving the bill. It’s fantastic to hear that the Opposition will be supporting this legislation. I think that is a positive step. And I know that while many of the speakers tonight from the National Party have spoken in favour of the bill and have complained that previous legislation wasn’t accelerated faster, the irony is that legislation was actually literally putting up barriers to women taking successful pay equity claims. That’s precisely why we’ve had to do so much work during this term of Government to fix it, and develop legislation that would actually make it easier for women and all people in female-dominated workforces to achieve fair pay for their work.

The issue with pay equity is, of course, right across a profession or a type of work that has been female dominated, that’s why there is that pay gap. So it’s not just because they’re women but because the profession itself has been female dominated. And in 2014 the Court of Appeal found that the Equal Pay Act can be interpreted to require equal pay for work of equal value, leading to that landmark TerraNova settlement. And we have to shout out to Kristine Bartlett and the E tū union who were successful in their campaign to raise the pay of care and support workers.

I will get to the bill, but I do just want to address some of the points the previous speaker made because she did claim that no progress had been made on this issue while we’ve been working on the legislation. Unfortunately, she’s absolutely incorrect because as soon as our Government came in, we extended the claim to mental health workers—the care and support workers’ claim was extended to mental health workers—as it should have been from the beginning, which the previous National Government did not do. And while this process has been under way, the Government has been busy progressing many pay equity claims in the State sector, including social workers at Oranga Tamariki, and, most recently, the $348 million teacher-aide pay equity claim. Would this have happened under a National Government? No. So lots of progress is being made, and we are achieving much fairer pay for women. And you can already see that in the largest reduction since 2002 in the gender pay gap in the Public Service because this Government made it a priority, started working on it, and definitely the pay equity claims and settlements are starting to contribute to that.

Throughout the process of developing the bill and preparing it for second reading, my party has been ensuring that all women who may have a pay equity problem can access the process. This legislation aligns with the existing bargaining systems with which many employers and employees will already be familiar. As noted by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, a Supplementary Order Paper is planned to more closely align this bill with the Employment Relations Act, which is something that was brought to us by our social partners, Business New Zealand, the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and their affiliates post the select committee process, which is why it has taken some time to get the legislation right. But it’s more important that it is right. It has not been a barrier to us making enormous progress for women and on pay equity claims during the time that this process has occurred. So it’s just a little bit of a story that the Opposition is telling themselves. I’m sure they believe it, because they’re not really paying attention to reality these days; it’s too depressing for them.

But we still have a lot of work ahead of us. Even after this legislation is passed—and I’m looking forward to that time—we will still have a lot of work ahead of us to ensure that all women and girls in all of their diversity are financially secure and can thrive, are safe from violence, are recognised for the work that they do, and are able to be financially independent. Removing bias and discrimination, ending domestic and sexual violence, and paying women what they are worth are all different sides of the same issue.

So this bill is a milestone, and at the second reading, I just have to say that there will be a Supplementary Order Paper. We have had, during this process, the Ministry for Women working very closely with the officials at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). We’ve worked in absolute partnership with the Minister of employment relations, and there is something novel that this Government has done that the previous Government did not do, and that is that we had a genuine partnership approach with the Ministry for Women and the Minister for Women at the table as we ensured that this legislation was going to do everything possible to end this structural bias and discrimination against women and what they are paid. So I look forward to the next stage of this bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m very pleased tonight to rise to take a call on the Equal Pay Amendment Bill at the second reading.

I wasn’t, at that stage anyway, a member of the Education and Workforce Committee, the select committee that scrutinised this bill and did such a wonderful job. They had—what?—almost 600 submissions to read through, many that they saw in person, and I know that they did a lot of hard work. It’s shame I couldn’t be on that committee; I’m on it now. But I would like to just commend their hard work.

On this side of the House we are delighted to finally have the chance to stand up and support this bill after it’s sat on the Order Paper for more than a year. The reason this Government has scheduled the second reading of this bill tonight is not so much to address the gender pay gap as it is really to address the Lees-Galloway PR gap, and that’s a big gap, cavernous, some would say. That’s what happens when you give residence to someone who’s in jail for bringing in drugs. But despite this being an excellent bill, that we support, the purpose, really, that it serves is fluffing up this Government’s image, and I’ll talk about that a little bit more later on.

But firstly, I would like to just say that I am disappointed that my very good friend and colleague Denise Lee isn’t able to speak to on this bill tonight. Because Denise has done some excellent work in this area, putting forward her member’s bill, the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill, back at the start of the term, which built on the previous National Government’s pay equity legislation. Unfortunately, Denise’s bill had a very short lifespan before it was defeated by the Government. Did they have a radical alternative plan for pay equity and equal pay policy? No, they just wanted to play politics. Because this bill that we’re here tonight to debate has had a long and winding journey. The new Labour-led Government, when it came to the end of 2017, outrageously decided not to reinstate the previous National Government’s pay equity bill. And when Denise Lee put up the same legislation as a member’s bill at the start of 2018, they voted that legislation down.

💬 Dan Bidois: Lost opportunity.

Yeah, it was a lost opportunity. And the Government has had the gall to reconvene the Joint Working Group on Pay Equity Principles, which largely reconfirmed the findings of the original Joint Working Group on Pay Equity Principles that we set up.

So the Government have introduced their new bill. They introduced it on 19 September 2018, which, by happy coincidence, was also the 125th anniversary of women’s suffrage, which was a PR dream. There were some lovely news stories around the time written about Minister Lees-Galloway and Minister Genter, about the wonderful work they were doing to close the gender pay gap. You might be thinking that 19 September 2018 sounds like an awfully long time ago, and wondering what’s happened between now and then.

Well, after going to the Education and Workforce Committee the bill was reported back to the House on 13 May 2019, and that was it. Since being reported to the House it’s languished on the Order Paper for over a year. Late last year, Minister Genter actually forgot that it had been reported back, saying it was still in front of a select committee, and actually it had been three months since that committee had finished dealing with it. Since then, still, nothing. Given that there has been cross-party agreement that the law around pay equity and equal pay needs to be changed, the new Government could have carried over National’s first bill. They could’ve voted for the second bill. But instead they dumped this issue on a second working group, came up with a third bill, which is a 90 percent carbon copy of the first one. And now we hear, tonight, that they’ve got a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). They’ve had two working groups in over a year and an SOP. We don’t know what that is, I hope that it’s something that we can support. But they’ve had plenty of time.

Back in March, I read a glowing op-ed by our Minister for Women, the Hon Julie Anne Genter, published in The Guardian for International Women’s Day. The headline was “In New Zealand, we are starting to value women’s work fairly. It’s time for the world to follow”. Well, I can tell you, where would the world be if they followed this Government’s lead in closing the gender pay gap? They might as well give up and go home. At the time, Minister Genter wrote her fluffy column, no doubt earning her and the Government international plaudits, this bill had been waiting for its second reading for 10 months. As much as I enjoyed reading her lovely column, the reality is this Government has set pay equity progress back by at least two years because it wanted to play politics. It wanted publicity stunts. It wanted the credit because it suited their image.

This is an excellent bill, and I do applaud the Government for bringing it to the House so we can finally make some real progress on the issue after a farcical process. But I would like to finish with this point; while the Government fluffed around, and used this bill for PR stunts, and forgot how far along it was in the process, the gender pay gap has remained exactly the same as it was in 2017, 9.3 percent. This Government has talked big, delivered nothing for pay equity in three years. Despite that, I commend the bill to the House.

I want to make a brief and positive contribution, one is to acknowledge and thank the Opposition for coming around on this issue, having spent their last nine years in Government resisting through the courts every equal pay claim that was brought by working women and their unions. I want to have a shout out to the trade unions who have been at the forefront of this issue for decades and who have won pay equity claims and who have worked constructively with this Government in recent times to actually get pay equity in place for tens of thousands of workers.

Finally, I want to acknowledge the two Ministers who have spoken in this debate this evening, Ministers Lees-Galloway and Genter, because they’re the people who have worked across party lines, across sectoral lines with business and with unions, to make this piece of legislation a reality. The Labour Party on this side of the House, with our partners on both sides—

I’m sorry to interrupt the member but it’s come time for me to leave the chair. The House is suspended until 9 a.m. tomorrow. Pō mārie.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 12 midnight to 9 a.m. (Friday)