Parliamentary debates: Tuesday, 6 May 2025

E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Āmene.

[Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility for the welfare, peace, and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]

Members, I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from, resigning his seat in the House with effect from 4 p.m. on Monday, 12 May 2025.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice to acknowledge the passing of His Holiness Pope Francis.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Thank you. I move, That this House express its deep sadness on the recent death of His Holiness Pope Francis and express its sincere condolences to the Holy See and to Roman Catholics in New Zealand and around the world, who are feeling a profound sense of loss and sorrow at this time.

It was with great sadness that we learnt of the passing of Pope Francis on Easter Monday. It was also my great honour to pay respect to His Late Holiness on behalf of all New Zealanders at his funeral.

The Pope was a man of enormous humility: a priest who had worked as a nightclub bouncer and a floor sweeper; a servant leader who saw his life’s work through a prism of service to others, not to his own self-aggrandisement; a Pope among the people, who embraced the poor and washed the feet of prisoners.

A man who described himself as being from the end of the world, Francis was the first Pope from the Southern Hemisphere, with his second-to-last pastoral visit to our neighbourhood in Papua New Guinea, Timor-Leste, Indonesia, and Singapore. He was also a moderniser, a man who wanted the Church to bend down to every person regardless of their beliefs or condition.

With nearly 100 heads of State and of Government in attendance at his funeral, we heard the Pope’s exhortation to build bridges, not walls. World leaders were reminded that this was a man of peace. He believed in negotiated solutions. He intervened himself to mediate conflicts, engaged in interreligious dialogue, and he felt personally the pain of those most afflicted by war. I have no doubt that the world leaders present heard his message of peace.

On behalf of the Government, I join other members in sharing the sense of loss and sorrow at His Holiness’ passing and also a profound sense of gratitude that we were graced by his leadership in this world. May he rest in peace.

On behalf of the Labour Party, can I also offer our heartfelt condolences to Catholics in New Zealand and around the world, as we join in mourning the loss of a spiritual leader whose impact extended across nations, bringing hope to the world and to the Church. Throughout his papacy, Pope Francis was a beacon of hope, compassion, and mercy. He embodied the values of humility, mercy, and devotion to justice.

He chose the name “Francis” after Saint Francis of Assisi, stating in one of his first speeches, “He is the man of poverty, the man of peace, the man who loves and cares for Creation.” Pope Francis lived out those values in both word and action. He called on world leaders and everyday people to take urgent action on the climate crisis. He wrote, “Caring for ecosystems requires a perspective that extends beyond the immediate, because when the focus is solely on … economic gains, genuine concern for their preservation is often lacking.”

He spoke out against systems of inequality and called for global justice. A lasting legacy is his request that his popemobile be turned into a health clinic for the children of Gaza—a symbol reminding the world that they are not forgotten. He apologised to indigenous peoples across the world for the Church’s role in colonisation.

May he rest in peace, and may we carry forward his message of mercy and compassion, and work towards creating a world that is more just, more equitable, and fairer for all.

It’s a privilege to stand and pay tribute to the Holy Father on behalf of the Green Party—the grief of so many people who share my Catholic faith but also the millions of others who are not Catholic who expressed grief at his passing. The Holy Father was a man who was a sinner, a prophet, and a peacemaker.

Let me begin with an acknowledgment of the Pope’s sins and failings. Perhaps it is fitting that some of his first words after elevation of the Chair of St Peter were “I am a sinner whom the Lord has looked upon with mercy.” I want to acknowledge the sexual abuse survivors, particularly those who suffered at the hands of the Catholic Church. While progress was made during Pope Francis’ reign, there was not enough and it was compromised by the blind spots that the Pope had. I also want to acknowledge the Rainbow community, particularly Rainbow people of my Catholic faith. The Church hasn’t always been the kindest place for you, and while the Pope went the furthest in affirming your human dignity, dining with trans, gay, and lesbian prisoners, calling the criminalisation of homosexuality an injustice and funding abuse shelters for trans people, the Church is still fundamentally a conservative institution with millennia of doctrine to evolve.

The Pope’s ministry has been likened to that of a prophet by others, like the Archbishop of Louisville, and, like the prophets of old, he was a man utterly unafraid to call out the injustices of a broken global system that throws away the most poor and marginalised. About one year ago, I was sworn in on Laudato Si’, the papal encyclical on care for our common home. In the papal encyclical, he calls for the end of the throwaway culture that throws away lives, that throws away the unwanted, and that throws away the waste, the refuse, of modern society. Pope Francis stressed that “The human environment and the natural environment deteriorate together; we cannot adequately combat environmental degradation unless we attend to causes related to human and social degradation.”, and that “the gravest effects of all attacks on the environment are suffered by the poorest.”

He condemned the short-termism and influence of elites in modern politics, saying that “A politics concerned with immediate results supported by consumer sectors of the population is driven to produced short-term growth. In response to electoral interests, governments are reluctant to upset the public with measures which could affect the level of consumption or create risks for foreign investment.”

Pope Francis always had a special place in his heart for the marginalised, the poor, and the imprisoned. One of his last acts was to defy medical advice to visit prison on Holy Thursday, the week before he passed away.

Finally, Pope Francis was a peacemaker and a builder of bridges. Throughout his whole career, he held a consistent record for facilitating interfaith dialogue between all peoples of faith and fostering a spirit of broad ecumenicalism within the Christian faiths. The Pope understood that the first step towards building peace was talking to and loving your enemies. I have always tried to keep this in mind as I engage in my parliamentary business, and I hope that colleagues all across the House do so as well. In his final public address, the Pope called for peace in this world, for the release of the hostages, and for an enduring ceasefire that ends the genocide in Gaza. He called for peace in Ukraine, South Caucasus, Africa, and all around the world.

I want to conclude with his words: “I appeal to all those in positions of political responsibility in our world not to yield to the logic of fear, which only leads to isolation from others, but rather to use the resources available to help the needy, to fight hunger, and to encourage initiatives that promote development. These are the ‘weapons’ of peace: weapons that build the future, instead of sowing seeds of death!”

Rest in peace, Pope Francis. Thank you for being a channel of the Lord’s peace as you lived. Rest easy, for it is in dying that you rise to eternal life.

Mr Speaker.

Sorry, I’ve—

Nicole McKee.

I’m sorry about that. I’m just slightly moved, given the nature of the debate. The Hon Nicole McKee.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party to acknowledge the passing of Pope Francis from Casa Santa Marta, the Bishop of Rome, the leader of the world’s 1.4 billion Catholics, our Holy Father Francis.

I went to Ss Peter and Paul School and also to Sacred Heart College before moving to Rotorua in my college years, and I recall seeing Pope John Paul II in photographs all over the schools and being in awe of this strange man who spread the word of God all over the world. Then, in 1986, he came to New Zealand—the only Pope to have ever visited—and the entire school of Sacred Heart College was a choir that sung at his Mass delivered at Athletic Park alongside 25,000 other Catholics excited at his arrival. The momentum and the movement were inspiring. Here was the picture on the wall in real life, giving us all his blessings. So I was saddened when he passed, and I’ve always watched with interest the popes that came after him and the messages that they gave us.

Pope Francis is not just a religious leader for the Catholics worldwide but also a symbol of continuity who walked a very delicate path between tradition and the modern world. He carried that responsibility with a unique grace, speaking often of mercy and championing the poor, while at the same time addressing issues such as the position of women within the Church. What seemed like small steps to the outside world were massive achievements as Pope Francis appointed the first woman leader of a department in the Church’s central administration, and the first female president of the office governing the Vatican City State.

In a time when so much feels fractured, the presence of a figure who spoke for the possibility of unity, forgiveness, and meaning is not something to take lightly. He reminded many, including some of us who no longer attend Mass, of the better traits of human nature and the importance of forgiveness, love, and faith—faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and in humanity.

To Pope Francis, thank you for your service, for your witness, your imperfections, and your efforts. May your soul rest in peace in the arms of our Heavenly Father.

I am grateful to this House to give time to recognise the passing of Pope Francis on Easter Monday, and honoured to be speaking on behalf of NZ First. This honour is an opportunity to pay respect not only to the Pope but to the Church, my faith, and the influence that this has on who we are as a nation and our place in the world.

With over 400,000 Catholics in New Zealand and nearly 1.5 billion Catholics throughout the world—representing 20 percent of the population—I am truly appreciative of the importance the Church and the papacy still has in this modern world. Our world leaders came together to pay their respects, and the international media honoured the Pope, and, in so doing, honoured the place that the Church and faith still has in our daily lives. Pope Francis, as with every pope before him, was called by his faith to serve. The Catholic faith has filled my life, and when I was last in Auckland on Anzac Day, I was able to visit my aunt, Sister Monica Costello, who is still the epitome of faith and service. She taught at Carmel College in Auckland from 1959 and became the second principal, in 1975. She was elected as a Superior-General of the Auckland Sisters of Mercy in 1982 and continued to serve well into her 80s. Finally, in her 90s, she has taken time to rest and be cared for, as she cared for so many in her life.

I talked with her about Pope Francis and the papacy. She reminded me of the impact that the leader of the Church has and why the ethos of service means so much. Her eyes lit up when she recalled meeting Pope John Paul II, who was the only pope to visit New Zealand. The strength of faith and the value of the Church is fundamental to who we are as a nation, and it is my hope that we will receive the next pope with the same reverence. It is this leadership that guides us, not just as Catholics, in a direction that honours God and provides a pathway to unity.

Pope Francis once said, “I think this is truly the most wonderful experience we can have: to belong to a people walking, journeying through history, together with our Lord, who walks among us! We are not alone; we do not walk alone. We are part of the one flock of Christ that walks together.” In our reflection around the world on the Pope’s passing, we, I believe, acknowledge that we are journeying together. The honour we afford to him today and at his death was greater than to the man but it is a tribute to the Catholic faith. It is this faith that is greater than any one person, and a foundation to the Church. The papacy provides this foundation as Matthew 16:18 “And I tell you, you are a rock, Peter, and on this rock foundation, I will build my Church, which not even death will ever be able to overcome.”

In closing, in honour of Pope Francis and the Catholic Church I wish to say: “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.”

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Today, I’m honoured to rise on behalf of Te Pāti Māori to acknowledge the passing of a figure of immense global and spiritual influence—Pope Francis—a spiritual leader of over a billion Catholics around the world. His death marks the end of an era for many, the loss of a guide, the voice of a conscience, and a symbol of continuity in a rapidly changing world. We extend our huge aroha to our Catholic whānau in Aotearoa, across the Pacific, and across the globe. Your mourning is shared. Your grief is heard.

For billions, we have seen his navigation around complex global crises—from wars, to pandemics, to poverty, to migration, to climate devastation, and to takatāpui issues. While his role was rooted in the traditions of the Catholic Church, it’s an influence that has reached beyond the faithful, affecting geopolitics, indigenous rights, and the spiritual lives of people across many cultures and nations. But, as we reflect on his life, we also take time to reflect on his legacy—not only that of the man but of the institution he led. That is where our responsibilities as leaders of people come into sharp relief.

The Catholic Church, under his watch, faced enormous reckoning. Survivors of abuse—many of them are indigenous people—continue to carry intergenerational pain that was often met with silence, bureaucracy, or denial. The Church’s relationship with colonised peoples—particularly in Canada, Australia, and, yes, Aotearoa—remains unresolved. Our histories, our lands, and our languages were often suppressed in the name of salvation. But we also acknowledge the mana of this pope. Unlike many before him, he did begin to name the pain. He apologised to indigenous peoples in Canada. He denounced what he called the “colonising mentality of the Church”. While it was not enough, it was a beginning. It was a beginning towards a movement of truth. Pope Francis was a champion for many of those who are left behind by global leaders and global movements—those who are marginalised. It is the humility of a great leader to remember those and never leave anyone behind.

Pope Francis showed strong support for Gaza through both action and advocacy. He donated his popemobile to be converted into a mobile health clinic for tamariki—children—in Gaza, providing vital medical services where the health system was devasted. He repeatedly—repeatedly—called for peace, urging a ceasefire, urging for the release of hostages, and urging for humanitarian aid to be able to get through. He personally supported Gaza’s Christian community, phoning the Holy Family Church regularly during the conflict. He respected peace and dignity for all. His final public appeal was a plea for justice and of compassion for the people of Gaza.

Let us use this moment not just to mourn but to commit to his legacy, to commit within ourselves as leaders of Aotearoa to upholding justice over silence, to protecting children and survivors over protecting power, to honouring indigenous spiritual knowledge without the need for erasure or conversion, and to ensuring that we have dignity for our takatāpui community. True faith, whether in Church and whenua or in w’akapapa, does not fear accountability; it embraces it. So we say haere atu rā e te rangatira [farewell, noble leader]. May you rest in peace. Kia tau ngā manaakitanga ki runga i ngā whānau katoa e tangi ana i tēnei wā. Haere, moe mai, moe mai rā.

[May all the families that are grieving at this time be cared for. Farewell, rest in peace.]

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate that this House condemn the terrorist attack that occurred in the town of Pahalgam, Kashmir, on 22 April 2025.

Have you discussed this with other parties in the Parliament?

Yes, it has been discussed, and there has been disagreement about some wording in the motion.

Yes, there’s Speaker’s ruling 28/1, which makes it somewhat disruly to seek leave knowing that it won’t be granted, but I’ll put the leave. Leave is put. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Members, I have received a letter from the Hon Jan Tinetti seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the announcement that the Government will seek to amend the Equal Pay Act 1972 under urgency. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. “The fact that another parliamentary means of debating the subject of the urgent debate [request] … is a relevant consideration for the Speaker to take into account in deciding whether to accept the application.”—I refer to Speakers’ ruling 224/1. The Government has indicated that it intends to progress the bill urgently, which will provide a parliamentary means to debate it at some length. On that basis, I do not think an urgent debate is warranted and the application is declined.

I have also received a letter from the Hon Willow-Jean Prime seeking to debate the Hon Erica Standford’s use of personal email addresses to conduct ministerial business. This is a particular case—[Interruption] These rulings, when I’m standing on my feet, are heard without any interruption at all, for fear that there may be a change of mind. Erica Standford’s use of personal email addresses to conduct ministerial business—this is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. The House has a duty to scrutinise the executive to determine if it retains the confidence of the House. The conduct of Ministers in relation to the Cabinet Manual is a matter primarily for the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office. I do not think this matter has reached the level of urgency and importance to warrant setting aside the business of the House today. The application is declined.

Three petitions have been presented for the Clerk to put in front of Parliament.

Petition of Marcelo Rodriguez Ferrere requesting that the House require imports of any animal products to be produced to standards that meet or exceed New Zealand’s animal welfare standards

petition of Qin Qin requesting that the House urge the Government to remove any “work for accredited employer” criterion from resident visa applications for post-study work visa holders

petition of Christian van der Pump requesting that the House urge the Minister to request that MBIE review Auckland Council’s performance as a territorial authority under section 276 of the Building Act 2004.

Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered two papers.

Government response to the petition of Kenneth Mulholland

the Controller and Auditor-General’s draft annual plan for 2025-26.

Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Eleven select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill

report of the Environment Committee on the petition of 350 Aotearoa

report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the petition of Geoffrey Mortlock

reports of the Governance and Administration Committee on the:

Racing Industry Amendment Bill

Statutes Amendment Bill

report of the Health Committee on the Mental Health Bill

reports of the Petitions Committee on the:

petition of Catrina McGregor

petition of Lance Priestley

petition of the New Zealand Nurses Organisation

petition of Rhodes Farming Partnership

report of the Social Services and Community Committee on the Social Security Amendment Bill.

The bills are set down for second reading. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.

Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill, introduction.

That bill is set down for first reading.

to the Prime Minister

Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Yes.

Why is his Government willing to accept women in New Zealand being paid less than men for doing the same amount of work of the same value?

We’re not. This is a Government that’s very committed to pay equity and ensuring that we do everything we can against sex-based discrimination.

Why should any New Zealanders believe that his Government is committed to ending gender-based pay discrimination when they’re unilaterally cancelling pay equity claims for 34 different workforces, covering tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people, mostly women?

Well, what we’re doing here is we’re making sure that we actually have a process that’s more robust, workable, and sustainable. The Act and the practice has moved away from what it was intended to deal with—sex-based discrimination—into a much broader set of issues around labour market conditions and other things. So we’re bringing it back to its core purpose: to deal with sex-based discrimination—that’s a good thing.

How does he think tens of thousands of teachers across New Zealand will feel to see their claim for equal pay unilaterally cancelled by his Government?

Well, what we’re doing is, it’s important that we have one robust system. We want a level playing field for everyone. We want to make sure that—it’s not practical to have two systems operating at the same time. We don’t want the uncertainty and we don’t want the unfairness. But I’d just say to those teachers, to the unions, to the individuals involved: they can make a claim under the new laws and we fully expect to be making claims under the sex-based discrimination laws under the Pay Equity Act.

Was the budgetary cost of settling pay equity claims considered when the Government made this decision?

No. This is about making sure that this legislation is actually fit for purpose and it’s actually much more sustainable, workable, and less complex.

Will this year’s Budget contain any changes to the level of financial risk that the Government is exposed to around the settling of pay equity claims?

Well, again, what I’d say is that we’ve put money aside to make sure that the Crown’s obligations are met for any pay equity claims that come together under the new law. I admit the changes will actually lead to lower costs for the Government. Obviously, those costs will be lower than what has been previously projected, but obviously that is Budget-sensitive information that will be revealed with the Budget.

Point of order.

Why should women across New Zealand—

A point of order, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

During the Prime Minister’s answer, at least 10 members of the Labour Party have been screaming out their own questions, even though they’ve got supplementaries that they can have allocated to them. Would you please ask them to keep quiet?

What I would just suggest to them is if they think the questions that are being asked are inadequate, they do take a supplementary at a different time. The Rt Hon Chris Hipkins might like to repeat his question.

Why should women across New Zealand be the sacrificial lambs in this year’s Budget, being told they have to accept lower pay for the same value work compared to their male counterparts?

Well, that is just—I don’t agree with that question and the way that that was phrased. We are staying very committed to pay equity and we are staying committed to sex-based discrimination. We’re making sure we’re just tightening up this law. If individuals or unions have claims to make, they can make claims under this new law. The Government has set money aside to meet those obligations and we’ll do that, but we want a much more workable, sustainable, robust system. [Interruption]

There is always a degree of robustness between the exchanges of the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister that’s been happening for years, but that barracking has got to stop. It’s far too much. It is certainly not inconsiderable, nor is it rare, reasonable, or witty.

Does he stand by his pledge to offer an average family with kids an extra $250 a fortnight; if so, why have only 304 families received that support?

Well, again, we worked very quickly to get money out to working New Zealanders who are wrestling with the early childcare costs, which are incredibly expensive in this country. We made some assumptions—the Inland Revenue Department made some assumptions on some incomplete information. But, having said that, I’m really proud that we’ve actually got money out to 56,000 working families up and down New Zealand, costing us about $42 million. We’ll continue to do that. I’d just say to that member: if you really cared about low and middle income working New Zealanders, you would have supported the tax cuts.

Why are only half the number of families he promised extra support getting anything at all under his complicated FamilyBoost scheme?

Well, I’m pleased to say that there are 56,000 families that have applied and received support for their early childhood education costs. Isn’t that a good thing? I would have thought the member would have been thankful that, actually, working families are getting money and support for their early childcare costs.

to the Associate Minister for the Environment

What has he seen and heard from recent engagement with farmers?

Over the last month, I’ve had the opportunity to visit several farmer-led river catchment groups in a range of spots throughout the country. I got to hear about and see examples of some wonderful land management from groups of people who obviously care deeply about the environment. I saw a range of techniques, including specially engineered wetlands and containment bunds, which will do a great job of filtering contaminants. In my local area, I saw a bioreactor which essentially uses wood chips to react with contaminants, like nitrate, and filter them out. It rammed home to me that the people that live on the land have the most interest in protecting it.

Did the Minister see any barriers to farmers making further environmental improvements?

Oh, yes. I was amazed to see the level of bureaucratic red tape that farmers have to battle to do something great for the environment. I saw one example of a farmer who wanted to fill in a few open drains and create a beautiful wetland rich in biodiversity, but would have been forced to go through a costly resource consenting process. I talked to a farmer who almost gave up on creating a wetland just because of the cost of the red tape. One landowner wanted to put a decarbonisation plant at the back of their property, but because there were a couple of rushes in the paddock, the council called it a wetland and they weren’t allowed to do anything. It just confirmed to me how broken our resource management system is.

We’ll have answers that are sort of matched to the conciseness of questions.

What is the Government doing to address these issues?

It’s absolutely vital that we make it as easy as possible for farmers to do the right thing. I’m a big believer in the potential of farm planning. It’s a much better way to manage environmental effects than these resource consents or local planning rules that are often far too one size fits all. That’s why we are reforming farm plans to make sure the cost and the amount of work that goes into them is based on risk. We’re also changing the law to avoid duplication by recognising the heavy lifting that industry groups, primary sector processors, and catchment groups do in supporting farmers to develop these plans.

What other changes is the Government working on to address this red tape?

Well, the Government is looking at replacing the Resource Management Act with a system based on the enjoyment of property rights. This system will have a tighter scope based around managing genuine environmental effects and the effects on the neighbours’ property rights. We will make it narrower and faster, replacing the default requirement for getting permission via blunt consents. By using other tools like standards that will lay out accepted ways of doing things like building a wetland, Kiwi farmers will be able to get on with doing the good stuff, not filling in paperwork.

to the Prime Minister

E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

[Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?]

Yes.

Does he believe his Government is doing enough to meet the growing demand for emergency food relief, and, if so, when does he anticipate his tax cuts for the wealthy will start trickling down to the one in four children now living in households where food runs out often or sometimes?

Now, look, sorry, you’re going to have to rephrase that question. You can’t have suppositions thrown into questions if you want factual answers. We went through this during the last session, and I’m going to be a bit strict on it from this point. Please have another crack.

I will rephrase: does he believe his Government is doing enough to meet the growing demand for emergency food relief, and, if so, when does he anticipate his tax cuts will start trickling down to the one in four children now living in households where food runs out often or sometimes?

Well, I thank the member for their question. What this Government’s doing is we are rebuilding the economy, and we are under strong economic management in very uncertain times. We are making sure that we have got inflation down to 2.2 percent. It was 7.2 percent under a Labour-Greens Government; now 2.22, 2.5. Interest rates are down 200 basis points. That means, for someone with a $500,000 mortgage over 25 years, that’s $300 extra a fortnight freed up to be spent in the economy and to support that family and those individuals. For the first time in a long time, our economy’s growing again.

What is his response, then, to the Children’s Commissioner’s statement that the latest annual report on child and youth wellbeing “shows a deeply concerning reality for the children of New Zealand. It shows that on the most basic things, like having enough healthy food, safe and healthy housing, and physical health, we are majorly letting children down. We are going backwards.”?

Well, I disagree that we’re going backwards, because our Budget 2024 is designed to lift 17,000 children out of poverty, unlike the last year of the Labour-Greens Government, that put 23,000 more children into poverty. So we know we have more work to do, but we’re working incredibly hard on all of these issues.

What does he say to Amber, a mother from Auckland who recently shared with Auckland City Mission that “Our cupboard can look so empty. Some nights I don’t eat. I’ll make sure the kids have eaten heaps and then I save some for tomorrow night.”, and what is he doing to address food insecurity faced by whānau like Amber’s?

Well, what we’re doing, as I said before, is we want to grow our economy. We’re fixated on growth, growth, growth. We don’t believe the degrowth approach of the Green Party, for example, is the way in which we can get more money to Amber so that she can be supported with her food needs.

I just equally suggest that reference to another party’s policy when the Government is being questioned should only be in reference to historic facts and not supposition.

Will he acknowledge that if his Government does not increase funding for food security measures in the upcoming Budget, things will get worse for the 54.8 percent of Pacific children, the 34.3 percent of Māori children, and the 41 percent of disabled children who are already disproportionately impacted by food insecurity?

Well, this is a Government that focuses and spends $120 million to directly support Kiwis in need of food through the hardship grants available through the Ministry of Social Development. But it’s also a Government that’s fixing the economic fundamentals to make sure that we can get cash into Kiwis’ back pockets. We’re doing everything we can to grow, grow, grow, to run a great economy so that we can get cash through to people so they can deal with the cost of living.

Will the Prime Minister commit to lifting all families out of poverty through ensuring everyone in and out of work will have a decent weekly income so all tamariki have enough to eat?

Well, we’re working incredibly hard to lift incomes, and the way we do that is through economic growth—it’s as simple as that. That’s why every decision that we take in this Government is through the prism of economic growth, because that matters above and beyond everything else. It’s the way that we get cash into families’ pockets.

to the Minister of Finance

What is the operating allowance for Budget 2025?

The operating allowance is the amount of net operating funding, on average, per year that the Government intends to spend on new discretionary policy initiatives in the forthcoming Budget. In the Budget Policy Statement last December, I said that the operating allowance for Budget 2025 would be $2.4 billion. Last week, I announced that the Government has reduced the size of the allowance to $1.3 billion. This has been achieved by a combination of spending restraint and reprioritisation. To put it in perspective, the operating allowance in Budget 2022 was around $6 billion and, in Budget 2023, it was $4.8 billion—two far bigger-spending Budgets than this one—which left New Zealand with a structural deficit that our Government is working hard to remedy.

What role do operating allowances play in New Zealand’s fiscal management approach?

They play a key role and have been used by successive Governments for more than two decades. Importantly, allowances are a net concept. Within the operating allowance, spending increases and revenue reductions are offset by savings and revenue-raising initiatives. The operating allowance, therefore, captures discretionary choices under the Government’s direct control. I would note, however, that some of the biggest changes to expenditure and revenue in the Government’s forecasts, such as revisions to tax forecasts and the increasing costs for things like New Zealand superannuation, are managed outside the allowance framework. This means that overall spending in the Budget will increase by more than the operating allowance.

What is the impact of a lower Budget 2025 allowance?

Well, it adds up to smaller deficits and less debt. As I said, we’re dropping the allowance from $2.4 billion to $1.3 billion. This means the Budget deficit will be $1.1 billion smaller each year, on average, than it otherwise would have been. Consequently, Government debt will be less than it would have otherwise been.

What reaction has she seen to her announcement of a lower operating allowance?

Well, one member referred to this as “slash and burn”. ANZ’s economists offered a more sober appraisal, saying, “The previous Government’s expansion was so unsustainably large that part of the cost to rectify that was always likely to include some tough choices.” They go on to say, “From a macroeconomic perspective, reducing the operating allowance in the face of a weaker economy is not going to exacerbate any economic underperformance caused by global factors. That’s because the Reserve Bank will respond to the growth and inflationary implications of fiscal developments with a lower-than-otherwise official cash rate, supporting households and businesses.” This is good economic management. It is not austerity. It is not “slash and burn”. It is responsible economic management that restores the principle that Governments should take fiscal care so as not to burden future generations with unmeetable debt.

to the Minister of Finance

Does she stand by her statement about FamilyBoost that “there are around 21,000 families who would get the full rebate of the $150 per fortnight”; if so, how many families have consistently received the full rebate of $150 a fortnight since the scheme started?

Yes. I was using an estimate provided by Inland Revenue (IRD). As the member will know from her time working there, Inland Revenue is a highly professional organisation that uses the best available information to cost policies. IRD advised me that the modelling for this policy was challenging as there was little reliable data about how much parents were paying for early childhood education. We now have much better data about that. IRD assumed more families were paying higher childcare costs than turned out to be the case. In answer to the second part of the question, I can advise that, in total, 57,736 families have so far received FamilyBoost. I continue to encourage more families to apply. In the third quarter of 2024, 1,646 families received the very maximum payment. In the fourth quarter of 2024, 1,189 received the maximum payment. In the first quarter of this year, 1,272 families received the payment. As you will appreciate, families’ circumstances vary throughout the year, so across those three quarters I’m advised that 349 families received the full payment in each quarter.

How is it IRD’s fault when they were forecasting the scheme that she designed and estimated to benefit 130,000 families?

Well, at the time that National was campaigning on this policy—and I’d note that that is not my ministerial responsibility—we estimated, and what was very clear was that up to 130,000 families would be eligible for the policy. We were clear that the amount of payment that families would get under the scheme would depend on two things: (1) their income, but (2) how much they were paying in early childhood education fees. To get the maximum payment, families would have to have more than $300 a week in early childhood costs. It remains my goal to ensure that more families are getting the benefit of this great policy to support families with the cost of living. So I have asked IRD for more advice on how we can make tweaks to the scheme to ensure it reaches even more families. I’d note that under the member opposite’s approach, zero families would have got this payment.

Why have only a fraction of those she promised received the full amount?

Well, as I’ve made clear in my earlier answers, when I was asked how many families we estimated would get the full payment, I relied on modelling and data provided to me by the IRD. I stand by that as a sensible approach. An alternative approach, I suppose, is for me to make up my own number rather than rely on the tax officials whose job is to inform me of their estimates and modelling. I think I did the appropriate thing by relying on IRD’s data, and I continue to stand by the fact that FamilyBoost has ensured that more than 56,000 families have received cold, hard cash in their bank accounts to support them with the cost of living.

Is it a failure that only 349 families, rather than the estimated 21,000 families that National made promises to, received the full amount?

I again reject the characterisation of the member’s question. National never promised a particular number of families would receive the maximum payment. We always anticipated that payments would vary depending on circumstances. I can advise the member that in the third quarter of last year, 13,713 families received more than $500 for the quarter; 9,556 received more than $600; and 6,344 received more than $700. The point here is that, while the amount of the payment varies, tens of thousands of New Zealand families have benefited to the tune of hundreds of dollars because of this policy. And I would remind everyone in this House that when it came to addressing the cost of living, our Government delivered and that party opposite opposed this policy to deliver cost of living relief to families with young children. Under their approach, zero families would have got those payments.

What broken promise is she most proud of: the $150 a fortnight for 21,000 families—

No—sorry. As much as the previous Greens speaker had to reword a question, for the same reasons you need to restart that question.

What is she most proud of: the $150 a fortnight for 21,000 families, the delivery of the Cook Strait ferries, or the over a billion dollars of savings for her Budget by making it harder for women to seek pay equity?

I am most proud that after 14 years of denying New Zealanders any tax relief, after a Government that delivered them sky-high inflation and rapidly rising interest rates, our Government delivered millions of New Zealand workers and families tax relief that supported them to meet their costs of living. Behind that commitment was a principle we hold dear, and that is: those who work hard should be rewarded for their effort, and the Government should respect the wages of working people.

After all that, not one clap.

There’ll be a right clap over there. Can I ask the Minister whether she’s done the financial analytics behind the thinking that somehow a ferry tender for two ferries at $400 million that blows out to $4 billion can somehow make common sense economically?

Well, the Deputy Prime Minister makes a good point, which is that there are a number of achievements that this Government should be proud of, and one of them is the fact that we actually faced up to the complete blowout that the last Government allowed to occur with their ferry project, which was beset by problems, and as a consequence we are delivering a much better deal for the New Zealand taxpayer, who deserves a lot more respect than they got under the last Government.

to the Minister of Justice

What actions has the Government taken to restore real consequences for crime?

The Government has been busy in its efforts to restore real consequences for crime. We’ve delivered on our promise to strengthen sentencing by restricting sentence discounts and by adding added aggravating factors so that offenders are more appropriately held to account. We’ve restored three strikes, and we’re making changes to ensure convicted adult sex offenders are publicly named and held to account, if that’s the victim’s wish. There’s much more to come.

What decisions has the Government made in relation to prison voting?

The Government has agreed to reinstate a total ban on voting by sentenced prisoners, reversing the changes made by the previous Government. Our country has rights and responsibilities. If individuals breach those responsibilities to the extent that they’re sentenced to prison for crimes that are serious enough to result in a prison sentence, it’s only fair that they temporarily lose the right to participate in the democratic process.

How have voting rights changed over the past few years?

Well, the previous National Government brought in a full prisoner voting ban in 2010. The Labour Government changed that in 2020 so that some prisoners—those serving less than three years—could vote. Those serving three years or more still can’t vote. The proposed change will establish a consistent approach to prisoner voting, regardless of the length of the sentence. The total prison voting ban for all sentenced prisoners underlines the importance that New Zealanders accord to the rule of law.

What feedback has he had on the announcement?

Well, I’ve had a lot of feedback, including one from Jenny online, which said, “It’s the victims that deserve rights, lots who will never get over what has happened to them because of people who committed crimes. It’s time to thank you, National, for being there for the voice of the victims.”

Does the Minister agree with the Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, who stated that people serving two years or less in prison should still be able to vote and that a total ban on prisoner voting is “extreme”?

No, I don’t agree with that sentiment, and, of course, with the passage of time, people and parties sometimes change their views on matters.

to the Prime Minister

E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

[Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?]

Yes.

Does the Prime Minister agree that his Government’s decision to rapidly and radically cut the size of Government from 34 to 30 percent of GDP without any appreciation of the limits of private investment’s ability to fill the economic activity gap has kneecapped the growth that he so often likes to tell us he’s aiming for?

No.

How exactly do you grow an economy, as the Prime Minister keeps saying is his goal, by cutting investment in people, a stable climate, public services, and infrastructure?

Well, I reject the characterisation of the question. What I’d say is, first and foremost, you have to make sure you’ve got an economy that’s being well managed, and we have stopped the wasteful spending. That in turn has lowered inflation; that in turn has lowered interest rates; that has driven GDP growth; and, important, that will keep people in their jobs. We have been through a challenging time. But the good news is we have turned the corner and now we cannot just watch a recovery take place; we get to shape it. I just encourage the member to look at our Going For Growth plan; make sure we get a world-class education system; embrace science, technology, innovation; have world-class infrastructure; make sure we get rid of red tape and bureaucracy; and, importantly, have more trade and investment.

Does the Prime Minister consider his Government’s self-imposed fiscal rules, resulting in a slashing in investment in public services, radical, given Treasury has said that this historically low expenditure would change “the fundamental role of Government in New Zealand”?

Well, I’m a little bit confused what the member’s talking about because this is a Government that has put almost $17 billion more into healthcare, on top of the normal almost $30 billion spent each and every year. This is a Government that has spent more on healthcare than any previous Government in the history of New Zealand. This is a Government that is actually fixing our education system to make sure that our kids have a shot at high-paying jobs down the road, by learning to read and to do maths well, and we’re getting them to school—thanks to two great Ministers doing an awesome job. This is a Government that’s wanting to grow our economy. Growth, growth, growth is great.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that far from the radical position which the member characterised spending at a rate of 30 percent of GDP as, it was in fact the case under successive National- and Labour-led Governments that spending as a proportion of GDP by the Government was less than 30 percent, including—as I recall—during the first years of the Labour Government, supported by the Green Party?

Yes, I can.

How exactly did the Government find $12 billion for military spending while it’s also telling us that there’s simply not enough money to invest in ending child poverty or climate action?

I disagree. We can do both things at the same time. We can walk and chew gum. I’d just say to that member: who do you think are the people that go and help the Pacific in climate-related emergencies? Who are the people that actually support peacekeeping around the world? It’s our Defence Force. So we’re very proud of the investment that we’re making in our defence assets, and, at the same time, we’re increasing expenditure on health and education, law and order, and also business growth.

When his Minister today announced stopping pay equity claims, saying, “The changes I am proposing will significantly reduce costs to the Crown.”, are we to take it that his Government expects working women to pay the cost of his landlord tax cuts?

Well, I reject the characterisation of the question. As I said in answer to earlier questions on this, we have money set aside to make sure we are meeting the obligations for pay equity claims under the new laws. The costs will likely be lower and, as a result, you’ll see what they will be in the Budget. But the thing is, money will be invested in health and education and core front-line public services, and that’s a good thing. [Interruption]

Yeah, we’ll just wait for a bit of quiet.

What changed between when his Government said the pay equity process was working well, and therefore it could abolish the pay equity task force, and today, when they’re now legislating under urgency to do away with 33 active pay equity claims, or is it simply the case that what they’re trying to do is desperately find a way to balance the budget because the tax cuts they delivered were unaffordable?

I’d just say to the member, I answered this before: we are making sure that we have a much more workable, sustainable, robust pay equity and sex-based discrimination system. We are very committed to it. We just need to make sure that, actually, there is evidence for the claims; we need to make sure that there are strong comparators that are relevant. We want specific claims, not broad claims, and we need to make sure that the reviews are appropriate. We’re just making sure that it’s a much more workable system, fair and level for everybody.

to the Minister of Health

Is his first priority as Health Minister still “focusing Health New Zealand on delivering the basics and achieving targets”; if so, why have wait times for first specialist assessment and elective treatments worsened?

Yes, you cannot manage what you don’t measure, and that’s why this Government reinstated health targets: to drive accountability and ensure access to timely, quality healthcare. Too many New Zealanders are waiting too long for first specialist assessments and elective treatments, and addressing this is a priority. Wait-lists have been growing over several years. Despite an increase in elective procedures and first specialist assessments being completed last year, the rate at which people were being referred on to wait-lists continues to outpace the rate at which people were receiving treatment or being seen. However, I’m pleased to inform the member that Health New Zealand advises me that the number of patients waiting for a first specialist assessment in the week ending 13 April has reduced by over 8,000 since the first week of January.

How can he expect others to be accountable for targets, if he doesn’t own up that there has been a 6 percent deterioration in first specialist assessments, and a 3 percent deterioration in elective treatments since the change of Government?

If we’re going to talk about percentages, we could talk about the 6,500 percent increase in the number of people waiting more than four months for a first specialist assessment when that party was in Government; or we could talk about the 2,500 percent increase in the number of people waiting for an elective treatment more than four months, while that party was in Government. The wait-list ballooned. We’ve put in place targets. Now we’re focusing the system on delivery so that people can get the healthcare they need in a timely and quality manner.

Who does he expect to do the additional procedures, when Health New Zealand’s last quarterly workforce report shows 310 fewer nurses and 47 fewer doctors employed in our health system?

There are more doctors and more nurses working at Health New Zealand than in 2023. We’re investing in front-line services and we’re focusing on ensuring that we treat the patients and get the timely and quality access to healthcare that is needed. As I said in my primary answer, I’m pleased to inform the member that Health New Zealand advises me that the number of patients waiting for a first specialist assessment in the week ending 13 April has reduced by over 8,000 since the first week of January. That is progress. Because of the huge wait-list that we inherited, it’s going to take time to deliver. I’m focused on delivery.

Does he stand by his statement “There is no such thing as a hiring freeze.”, or does he accept that official statistics now show hiring has been frozen?

There are more doctors and more nurses working at Health New Zealand today than there were in 2023. We’re investing in front-line health workforces and we’re focusing on delivery. We’re investing $16.68 billion over three Budgets, so we can invest in the front-line services that New Zealanders need.

Could the Minister confirm that with the last three answers on the statistical improvements that he gave in those answers, the primary question, or the questioner, was demonstrably, deliberately false?

We’re focused on delivery. We’re focused on outcomes. We have more doctors and more nurses working at Health New Zealand today than in 2023. We’re focused on outcomes. As I said in my primary answer, 8,000 fewer people are waiting on the first specialist assessment wait-list for the week ending 13 April than in the first week of January. That’s progress. We inherited massive wait-lists which ballooned under the previous Government, and we are focused on getting patients the care they need.

Why did he try to blame senior doctors for longer waits for treatment, when it is his Government’s hiring freeze that means New Zealanders are going without the care they need?

I was very clear when it came to the union deciding to go on strike, that they should have put the offer that was presented to them a week prior to the strike to their members to vote on, rather than going on a strike which has caused 4,300 elective treatments or first specialist assessments to be delayed. That’s unacceptable. We must put patients first.

Supplementary.

Question No. 9—just waiting for a bit of quiet.

Supplementary.

Oh, supplementary. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.

Thank you. How does the ministry’s decision to remove ethnicity as a factor in wait-times align with his targets to reduce wait-times when Māori are still waiting longer for treatment than non-Māori?

Our Government is very clear: we are focusing on need and we’re focusing on making sure that we are ensuring that patients get the treatment they need in a timely and quality manner, and that applies to all New Zealanders.

Point of order. That was a mischaracterisation of the actual question. The question, which is an equity-based, policy-based, needs-based—

Just ask the question.

—addresses Māori and Pacific Islanders, and there wasn’t actually an answer in that—thanks, Judith.

Well, the Minister could say the same thing again if he likes.

The Government is focusing the health system to treat people based on the needs that they have and ensuring that all New Zealanders can get the access to timely and quality healthcare.

Supplementary.

Supplementary question.

Supplementary—Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.

How did that go?

Because she was faster off her feet.

No, she wasn’t.

Yes, she was. I’m pretty sure. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer—it was like a blur; you could hardly see it.

Thank you. How will proposed cuts to Māori and Pacific health and immunisation providers, many of whom serve high needs and hard to reach whānau, achieve his target to increase immunisation rates for children to 95 percent at 24 months?

Well, this Government is very much focused on delivering on the basis of need. We continue to invest in providers who serve a variety of communities to ensure that we are reaching out into Māori and Pacific communities so that we can meet those targets. But as I said in the previous answer, we are focusing healthcare delivery on the basis of need so that all New Zealanders can access timely and quality healthcare.

Can I ask the Minister as to why on earth he hasn’t consulted with Ayesha Verrall, who’s an absolute expert on medical waiting lists and endless delays?

No. Is there another question?

Yes. How does his decision to cancel bowel cancer screening for Māori and Pasifika from the age of 50 align with his target of faster cancer treatment for 90 percent of patients when these groups have the highest rates of bowel cancer in the country, with 18 percent of cases diagnosed under the age of 50?

Well, we’re focusing on, as I said, healthcare delivered on the basis of need. We are lowering the age for all New Zealanders to be able to access bowel cancer screening to the age of 58. We are also making targeted investments to target those communities—Māori, Pasifika, Asian communities—where they have lower bowel cancer screening rates, to lift those rates so that we can save as many lives as possible.

to the Prime Minister

Does he stand by his Government’s statements and actions?

Yes.

Does the Prime Minister believe that Māori health outcomes have improved since his Government dismantled Te Aka Whai Ora?

Well, what I can say to the member is that we are making tremendous progress; we’re investing more, hiring more. We’ve set real clarity around the targets of what we expect to deliver for Māori and for non-Māori. Now we need a high-performing Health New Zealand to deliver it.

What specific action has the Government taken under his leadership to address inequities in life expectancy for Māori and non-Māori?

Well, I’m very proud of the five targets that we’ve set in healthcare. We want people to have faster access to cancer treatment, Māori or non-Māori. We want to make sure that under-two-year-olds, Māori or non-Māori, are immunised. We want to make sure there are less wait-times for emergency departments, first specialist appointments, and elective surgeries.

Does he consider it unacceptable that Māori die seven years earlier than non-Māori?

Well, we’ve got to continue to work hard to close that gap.

How can the Prime Minister claim to govern for all New Zealanders when Māori health outcomes are deteriorating under this Government?

Well, I would dispute the characterisation of that question. I said this Government has set clear targets about what we expect the healthcare system to deliver for patients, Māori or non-Māori. This is a Government that’s invested record amounts of money in the healthcare system. It’s a Government that’s expanding the workforce in the healthcare system, and it’s given tremendous clarity to the system as to what it’s to deliver for patients. Now we need to crack on and build a high-performing Health New Zealand.

to the Minister of Defence

What recent announcement has she made about funding for Defence?

On Sunday, at Whenuapai Air Base, with the Prime Minister and the foreign affairs Minister, I had the pleasure of announcing a substantial investment in the Defence Force. We’re committing around $2 billion to replace the ageing Seasprite maritime helicopters, and we’re investing an extra $957 million in defence force activities, personnel, and estate. These investments are the first step in implementing the Defence Capability Plan announced last week, which outlined $12 billion of planned commitments in the next four years. We’re building a modern, combat-capable New Zealand Defence Force to operate in a rapidly changing world which is inherently more dangerous, and we’re dealing with the world as it is, not the world we’d like it to be.

What are the capabilities of these helicopters and how does this benefit New Zealanders?

Well, these maritime helicopters will operate off Royal New Zealand Navy ships. They will increase the defensive and offensive capability and surveillance range of the frigates. The helicopters are a new generation that will be equipped with more advanced sensors, communications technology, and combat systems, all of which are critical for Defence to protect New Zealand and New Zealanders. In addition, they will extend the Navy’s ability to support non-combat tasks like search and rescue and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. We are a trading nation with a huge exclusive economic zone. We need naval and aviation capability that can support New Zealand’s defence, security, and trade objectives.

What will the additional $957 million of operating funding cover?

This $957 million is for the New Zealand Defence Force activities, personnel, and estate. This investment in defence equates to $239 million a year over four years and puts us on the path for defence spending to reach 2 percent of GDP by 2032-33. Our people are being called upon to go more places more often and for longer, and we must continue to pull our weight and play our part in contributing to global security. This funding will enable the Defence Force to do that. It includes $150 million for the Defence Force to sail, fly, patrol, and train more often; $39 million for personnel allowances for such things as deployments; $20 million for international deployments; $3 million to increase essential engagement with international partners; and $26 million for critical estate maintenance to improve accommodation and working and training conditions for our people, as well as $33 million over four years to provide for civilian staff pay increases.

What reports is she hearing from Defence Force personnel about these announcements?

Well, they’re just delighted. They are absolutely fizzing. They joined up to do stuff; they joined up to serve their country and to get stuff done. This Defence Capability Plan and Budget funding will enable them to do even more. They’re feeling supported and appreciated and they’re no longer leaving in droves. In fact, statistics from April show that Navy attrition has fallen to 5.8 percent from a high of 17.3 percent about two years ago. For the Air Force, it’s down to 6.9 percent, down from 13.1 percent, and for the Army it’s 7.8 percent, down from 17.7 percent. They’re hearing the message that we value them and that we want to help them to keep us all safe. And there’s another message for them: it’s just the beginning.

to the Minister of Education

Is she satisfied that she has complied with paragraph 2.86 of the Cabinet Manual?

I have used my personal email in the past. While the Cabinet Manual acknowledges that this may happen, I have now put in place practices so that, as far as possible, this is minimised in the future.

Has she ever invited people to email her on her personal Gmail account for ministerial business since becoming Minister?

Many people have my Gmail address, both from before I was a Minister and when I was in Opposition. Some of them still continue to use it. As I’ve said in my primary, I take steps as far as I possibly can now to ensure that that stops happening.

Point of order. That wasn’t my question. My question was “Has she invited people to email her on her personal Gmail account since she has become”—

Sorry, wait on. Are you taking a point of order?

Yes, that was not my question. I asked if she had invited people to email her on her personal Gmail account.

Well, presumably, if she’s given them that address at some point, they’ve been invited. That would be the conclusion you’ve reached.

But since becoming a Minister, I said.

Minister. OK, well, the Minister may like to have another crack at that.

I’ll reinstate what I said. Many people have my Gmail address, and I receive unsolicited emails. As far as I can recall, I’ve never given out my personal email, but, as I say, it’s freely available. Unfortunately, many people can find it online and they have emailed me at my personal email.

Has she ever used her personal Gmail account to organise ministerial meetings?

No. All meetings that have been organised have been organised through ministerial office, and they are all available in the proactively released diary managed either through my political staff or through my private secretaries.

Is everything she organised via her private email recorded in her ministerial diary?

I didn’t organise any meetings through my Gmail, and any meetings that have been organised have been organised by my senior private secretary, my office, and have been recorded in the proactive diary releases.

Does the Minister find it unusual that there are some members of Parliament who are so lacking in doing their duty as responsible MPs or Ministers that nobody writes to them? [Interruption]

Every question time, we’ve got to put up with this nonsense.

Well, I just hear from my left the suggestion that every question time there is a need to put up with so-called dis-nonsense. Unfortunately, it is a House where people do have the right to stand on their feet and say largely what they’re thinking, as long as it is not offensive to the House.

Point of order. So just to clarify, you are saying that members have the right to stand up and ask a question they know is not in order to make a political point, and that’s all good with you?

No, that’s not what I said at all. If you will then refer to Hansard, you’ll find out what I did say.

Has everything that has been through her personal email account that relates to her portfolios been recorded in accordance with the official record-keeping practices?

That’s exactly why we’re here. The Cabinet Manual says that any emails should be kept for the purposes of the Official Information Act. They have been; they’ve been disclosed, and that’s why we’re here. What I would say, though, is that I am absolutely, 100 percent focused on reforming the education system, which is why we’ve done so much work. All the while, the member across the House has spent her time trawling through my Gmails, and I’d rather she spent time perhaps reading the message that I sent her, inviting her to be part of the NCEA change package, which she has declined to respond to—but that sums up the Opposition’s priorities, which is not our kids.

Has she received assurances from the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB), New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS), Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC), Ministerial Services, parliamentary IT, or any other relevant agency that her Gmail has never—[Interruption]

No, look, sorry—a question’s being asked, and questions are asked in silence. We’ve had too much of that today on both sides. Start again.

Has she received assurances from the GCSB, the NZSIS, DPMC, Ministerial Services, parliamentary IT, or any other relevant agency that her Gmail has never been breached?

I have not done that, but I have made sure that there is two-factor authentication on my Gmail, which is one of the things that we’re required to do.

to the Minister for Trade and Investment

What recent announcements has the Government made regarding free-trade agreements?

Last week marked the one-year anniversary of the New Zealand - European Union Free Trade Agreement. As a result of its early entry into force many months sooner than had been forecast, goods exports to the EU from New Zealand have surged by 28 percent, delivering an additional $1 billion in export revenue in the first year. This is very good news for our hard-working exporters and, as the Hon Damien O’Connor has said, should be celebrated by every member in this House. This week also marks the first in-person negotiations for a comprehensive free-trade agreement (FTA) with India, one of the world’s fastest-growing economies, with huge untapped potential for New Zealand exporters—an important milestone in our relationship with that country.

What benefits has the European free-trade agreement delivered for New Zealand’s exporters over the past year?

In just 12 months, the agreement has unlocked major new opportunities for exporters and delivered improved market access to nearly 450 million consumers. That $1 billion increase in export revenue is already benefiting Kiwi exporters directly, particularly our farmers—for example, sheep meat exports grew by 29 percent, worth more than $200 million; kiwifruit exports grew by 69 percent, an additional $316 million; butter exports, 105 percent increase; squid exports, 66 percent, worth $25 million; and machinery exports grew 104 percent, worth an additional $173 million. Services trade also grew by 22 percent, meaning more jobs and better pay for Kiwis.

What is the significance of a comprehensive free-trade agreement with India?

With a population of 1.4 billion people and GDP estimated to grow to US$5.2 trillion by 2030, India offers significant potential for New Zealand exporters. Negotiations were launched on 17 March, and there has been significant engagement with officials since then. This week, as I said, marks the first in-person round of negotiations towards a comprehensive FTA, and they’re taking in place in India. This follows the highly successful visit to India by our Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, including to Gujarat last year, and the formal launch of negotiations by my Indian counterpart and me during the Prime Minister’s large and successful trade mission to India in March.

What else has the Government achieved in the past 17 months regarding trade agreements?

One in four Kiwi jobs relies on trade, and last year, our export revenue added a significant $100 billion to the economy, including a significant, huge contribution by New Zealand farmers. Strong agreements and relationships ensure better jobs, higher wages, and access to world-class public services for New Zealanders. It’s been a very busy and important year for trade and agriculture. Since the Government was formed, we have brought the EU FTA into force earlier than forecast; signed an agreement with the UAE, 99 percent of tariff elimination on day one; concluded negotiations with the Gulf Cooperation Council, also 99 percent tariff elimination over time; brought the upgraded ASEAN - Australia - New Zealand FTA into force recently; signed the ACCTS agreement on trade and sustainability; announced services on trade-upgrade negotiations with China; and now are launching negotiations for an FTA with India—all part of the Government’s agenda to grow the economy.

I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection?

For what reason?

You don’t—well, a small outline of the reason.

Well, I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer to a supplementary question to No. 1 today.

Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was asked whether the budgetary cost of settling pay equity claims was considered when the Government made this decision. What I should have said was that while Cabinet received advice on a range of considerations, our primary motivation was ensuring the regime would be more robust, workable, and sustainable.

The normal practice would be for a much more substantial reason. But can we now take 30 seconds while the House allows those who need to go to other business to do so.

I move, That the following sessional order be adopted:

Oral questions after urgency accorded

(1) During a sitting that is extended by urgency, oral questions will be taken at 2 pm on a Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, unless the Business Committee determines otherwise.

(2) Standing Order 59 is read accordingly.

This is a very short motion just to make clear that when the House goes into urgency, there will be question time on each actual day, even though, in parliamentary terms, it’s not a real day, but there will be question time during urgency. It just, essentially, makes sure that the Government doesn’t have to go through the Business Committee and get the Business Committee to agree or, indeed, move a motion like we are. So, hopefully, it will be one and done, and I suspect this will be an issue that gets referred to the Standing Orders Committee for permanent adoption into the Standing Orders into the 49th Parliament.

I move, That urgency be accorded the introduction and passing through all stages of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill, the passing through all stages of the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill, the remaining stages of the Social Security Amendment Bill, the second reading of the Racing Industry Amendment Bill and the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill, and the first reading and referral to select committee of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill.

The Government is moving into urgency for a range of reasons today. The first is that it is desirable to provide legal certainty in relation to the Equal Pay Amendment Bill, to provide legal clarity as soon as practicably possible.

In relation to the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill, I think it has been widely canvassed, certainly in parts of the media. The decision of the High Court, I think it was a few weeks ago, has provided real legal uncertainty in relation to a range of infrastructure projects. The recent court decision, I am advised, impacts over 300 applications to the Department of Conservation for permits under the Wildlife Act. At some point in the future, Parliament is going to have to turn its mind to the Wildlife Act itself, which is a law that dates from 1953. I think it is clunky, but, in the meantime, we need to provide clear legal certainty in relation to matters under the Wildlife Act, as a range of infrastructure projects are affected. That is why that is being taken through all stages under urgency.

The Social Security Amendment Bill needs to be enacted by 26 May, and the Government intends to make progress on some other bills that are important to it, including the Racing Industry Amendment Bill. Both of those are second readings, not passing through all stages. The Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill is a good bill and we’re keen to get that off to committee. It’s at the tail end of the urgency motion; if we get there, we’ll be doing well. Let’s wait and see how we go. With that, I’ll commend the urgency motion to the House.

I understand it is the intention of the Government to introduce a bill.

Equal Pay Amendment Bill, introduction.

The Equal Pay Amendment Bill is set down for first reading immediately.

I present a legislative statement on the Equal Pay Amendment Bill.

That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

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

The Equal Pay Amendment Bill improves the process for raising and resolving a pay equity claim. It provides a better framework for assessing whether there is sex-based undervaluation in remuneration in female-dominated occupations.

In 2014, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the Equal Pay Act did not only require the same pay for the same work, but also equal pay for work that is different but of equal value. A bill providing a framework for raising and resolving pay equity claims was introduced into Parliament in 2017, and a substantially reworked bill was passed into law by the previous Government in 2020.

The previous Government’s bill significantly lowered the entry threshold for pay equity claims, provided limited tools for employers to contest broadly scoped claims, and enabled parties to choose from a wide variety of comparators to support their claim. The settings the previous Government introduced have led to claims being progressed through the entry threshold without strong evidence of undervaluation. There have been broadly scoped claims where it is difficult to determine whether the differences in remuneration are due to sex-based undervaluation. For example, the DHB, Allied, and Technical health pay equity settlement covers 90 occupations including hospital dental assistants, physiotherapists, wheelchair technicians, and cultural advisers.

The current Act provides the flexibility to choose from a wide range of comparators, which has led to comparators being chosen even where the comparator’s work and skills are very different to the claimant’s. Health New Zealand admin and clerical staff, as an example, have been compared to mechanical engineers, Health New Zealand librarians have been compared to transport engineers, and Oranga Tamariki’s social workers have been compared to air traffic controllers.

The same comparators have been used repeatedly across several claims, despite several differences with the work of the claimants. Corrections officers, for example, have been used as comparators for nurses, admin support staff, and teacher aides. And review clauses that are required to be included in settlement agreements have considered factors that may not have been connected to sex-based undervaluation. In some settlements, review clauses have included factors to consider—such as the Consumers Price Index—that may not have been connected to a return of sex-based undervaluation.

This Government is committed to maintaining a process to raise and resolve pay equity claims, but we need the system to be robust, workable, and sustainable. Whether it is a public or a private sector employer, implementing a pay equity settlement means that employers will need to determine how to factor in additional costs. Parties, therefore, need to be able to have the confidence that the process to assess a pay equity claim is robust.

In order to provide a better framework for raising and resolving pay equity claims, this bill introduces a suite of changes, which includes a more robust process for raising a claim where claims need to have merit to progress; further tools for employers to ensure that claims are appropriately scoped; additional clarity and guidance on how to choose an appropriate comparator and on comparison methodology; changes to enable employers to meet their pay equity obligations in a manner that is sustainable; and changes to ensure that the parameters for the Employment Relations Authority relating to fixing remuneration provide the right incentives to resolve pay equity claims.

The bill will apply to existing unresolved claims and to review clauses in existing settlements. Existing pay equity claims will be discontinued, and they will need to be raised under the amended legislation, whether they have been raised with the employer or filed at the authority and are not yet determined. The Government is doing this because we consider it’s important that everyone is on the same playing field from the start, rather than allowing for two systems to operate at the same time for a period of time. The review clauses in existing settlements will also become unenforceable. The short time frame of the review cycle in the Act has made it difficult to determine whether any differences in pay were due to pay equity issues having reemerged or to short-term labour market dynamics. These transitional provisions are necessary and justified to meet the policy objective of maintaining a process to raise and resolve pay equity claims while providing a better framework that is workable and sustainable. They will provide certainty for people involved in pay equity claims.

We are progressing this bill under urgency because we have to move quickly to make the changes to the Act to ensure that the system is workable and sustainable.

Overall, the bill will provide greater confidence that pay equity claim assessments will focus on any sex-based undervaluation and remuneration, and that any non-sex-based factors are appropriately accounted for. These changes will provide greater confidence that genuine pay equity issues will be correctly identified and addressed. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I found that incredibly insulting towards women, that speech. How dare anybody pour shade on the work that has happened since 2020 that had 13—13—pay equity claims be successful in this country, when prior to that we had very few successful pay equity claims. How dare anyone pour shade on a process—and here we are, in urgency, going through all stages of a bill and totally, totally taking away the democratic rights of women in this country to have their say on something that is incredibly important to them. How absolutely shameful. And why is not every woman on that side of the House hanging their head in shame and standing up and saying that this is not good enough?

This is absolutely disgraceful that we are here today, when nobody—nobody—other than the executive knew anything about this bill until a few hours beforehand. The fact that this would come through and cause many, many people to come at short notice to stand outside and protest against this bill says it all. What an absolute disgrace.

For the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety to stand up and say that claims have been able to progress without strong evidence of undervaluation, does she even know what the process looks like? Did she listen to Tessa today, who stood outside there as a librarian who has been through four years so far progressing their claim—four years of robust discussion, four years of working through those comparators, four years of making sure that their claim was going to stand up so that they were going to be valued how they have always desired to be valued? All she said is that “We want to be paid for our work—the value of our work.” Four years she has been working through that, and for the Minister to stand there and say that there is no strong evidence of undervaluation is absolutely shameful—absolutely shameful.

This is a disgraceful affront to women’s and workers’ rights, and I am absolutely disgusted that this House is even having this conversation. We should be moving forward, and this is taking us backwards. It is taking us backwards to a time when women were undervalued for their work, and now we are starting—I thought this was something that we agreed upon across the House. I thought that this was something that we would not have arguments about, that we would stand here together and say, “Women need to be valued.” But what this smacks of is that we have a Government that cannot make their Budget balance, and so this is a way that they are actually having to go desperately, to grasp desperately, to make their Budget balance.

So what are they doing? They are throwing women under the bus. Women are the people who are absolutely paying for their inability to make their Budget work. Women once again in this country are being put in a position where they are having to pay for other people’s work, for other people’s inability to make their Budgets work. Women are paying for tax cuts. That is the bottom line here: women are paying for tax cuts. It is a shameful, shameful day. It is outrageous, dishonest, and an absolute backward step—absolute backward step.

This Government is simply extinguishing what are very legitimate pay equity claims for tens, if not hundreds, of thousands. When you think that the teacher pay equity claim is covering 94,000 teachers alone, and there are 33 claims in progress at this current point in time, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of women who this is impacting upon. And it’s the claims to come. But not only that; it’s the claims that have been, because what the Minister is taking away in this shameful piece of legislation is that she is taking away the review rights. So she is condemning women to be at lower levels of pay for a long, long, long time. It is shameful.

The Government getting back into surplus should not be at the expense of women. Women are being asked to once again pay the price. This is an absolutely shameful day in the history of this Parliament. I have never felt so disgusted in what I am seeing right now.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I am disappointed, I am absolutely disgusted, but I am not surprised that this is the action this Government takes. Now, the first person I want to mention in my speech is Kristine Bartlett, who won New Zealander of the Year, who has been recognised for outstanding contributions to our country, who took the first claim under the Equal Pay Act about the discriminatory pay that she and so many other people received as aged-care workers.

The reality is that the hardest and most important caring work that holds together our society is underpaid and undervalued, and it has been for decades, and that was recognised by the National Party in 2020 when we passed the amendment to the Equal Pay Act. On 22 July 2020, the National Party stood up, and Nicola Willis said she was proud to stand in the House that night and say that National would support the final reading of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill—“I’m proud [of what the National Party] … contributed to crafting this legislation and bringing it to the House.” Erica Stanford said that she was pleased to take a very short call. She spoke of the dreams she had for her daughter and her grandchildren, that they would grow up in a country where the work that they do is equally valued and compensated equally to that of their male counterparts, and that bill set up the framework that we need to achieve that outcome.

Now, I, as Minister for Women, oversaw this in conjunction with our Labour colleagues, but we had the support of the National Party. We had the support of Business New Zealand and the unions. There was a tripart working group that went through and developed the process, and the whole point of it was to make it easier for pay equity to be achieve. That means that people, whether they’re male or female or gender diverse, working in historically female-dominated industries, whether they’re teachers, midwives, nurses, admin and clerical workers, cleaners, aged-care workers, care and support workers—they don’t get paid enough, and that’s because of gender-based discrimination.

What the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety has said and made very, very clear in her public media today is that this is about saving money for Government. Who pays the price of that? Our essential workers, who are predominantly female and who are struggling to make ends meet, going out there and doing the hardest work that actually holds together society, all right?

Like, the highest-paid people in our society right now are not the ones doing the hardest work. Let’s just be honest about that. We have a broken economic system that rewards people who go out and make money by ripping people off or by playing the shocks and the training system, and not the people who actually look after our tamariki, who look after our aged people, who look after our disabled people—and that’s predominantly women, and they’re predominantly employed by Government because the work they do is for public good, and that needs to be recognised.

The whole point of this very long process that we went through to ensure that pay equity was acknowledged and had a process that everybody could agree to under the Equal Pay Act was so that we could rectify that historic discrimination, which means that single mothers who are doing some of the hardest work out there are able to be properly paid and recognised for their contribution and their mahi, as they deserve to be.

There are so many women that I’ve heard from, or people just working in these sectors, for whom the pay equity cases have made a life-changing difference. It is the difference between being able to put food on the table—healthy kai. It’s the difference that they might be able to save up a little extra and be able to have a proper holiday, for example, or be able to take some well-deserved time off; to be able to live in a warmer, drier house, which may have higher rent.

There is no question—the Government has made it very, very clear—that the overriding driving purpose for the changes that have been introduced and will be passed today is not justice, it is not fairness, it is not about ensuring that the Crown is a good employer; it is about saving money so we can give more money to the people who already have the most. That’s what this Government has prioritised: tax cuts for landlords, the people who already own the most wealth; tax cuts for tobacco companies. That’s what women in this House have made their work, is to look after the people who donated to the Government parties, rather than looking after the women who are underpaid and doing the most critical work. Those are the workforces in which we have shortages. We don’t have enough teachers, and we don’t have enough midwives, because we do not pay them enough.

I rise to speak on behalf of the National Party in support of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. This will, of course, amend the Equal Pay Act 1972 and provide a better framework to assess whether there is sex-based undervaluation of workers covered by a pay equity claim.

This piece of legislation is not about collective bargaining. It is not about where wages are low. This is a piece of legislation to provide a framework that allows us to determine where there is sex-based undervaluation. And this is where things went astray with the 2020 legislation, because, all of a sudden, the Government in power wanted to wrap a whole bunch of other issues into a piece of legislation that removed it from its core purpose, which was about pay equity. So our Government is returning it to be about pay equity.

I want to remind the House that in 2017 the then National Government settled with Kristine Bartlett. I applaud her determination and her courage in taking that case, and the $2 billion settlement that resulted. The legislation that we introduced in 2017—really, we’re going back to a more pragmatic approach, which means the process is more robust. It is more transparent. It is more workable and sustainable for all parties involved.

I do want to just correct a couple of the nonsenses that the Labour and Green members talked about in dramatising this and scaremongering. The first is the blatant—blatant—inaccuracy that this is removing review rights. It’s not. It’s just putting review rights in a 10-year interval. What we do want to do—and here’s the thing: if there is a sex-based discrimination case that works the way through its process and leads to change, why is it that we think in only three years there would still be sex-based discrimination? It wouldn’t work if that was the case. So 10 years is a realistic interval in terms of that change being made.

The other thing I do want to put on the record, because I think it is important in terms of National’s support of the 2020 legislation—I just do want to remind the House that the Labour Government rammed through a massive Supplementary Order Paper that had no scrutiny by anyone, and many of the issues that we are fixing today in this piece of legislation, brought by my colleague the Hon Brooke van Velden, fix those difficulties.

This piece of legislation is about sex-based discrimination. I’m proud of the National Party record and what we have done in terms of equal pay, in terms of introducing legislation and recognising pay equity in 2017. I accept what members of the House have said about a range of New Zealanders whose pay is too low. That is why we want a growing economy that lifts wages. But that is a very different issue to sex-based discrimination. So let’s keep the debate about the issue of the day, which is pay equity. It’s not about low wages. It’s not about issues that the other side want to scaremonger. It is about pay equity, so let’s focus on that, because it’s about historical undervaluation of areas that have been traditionally dominated by women.

One of the other really important components of this legislation is when we are using comparators, and the Minister outlined some of the comparators. If I think about the concerns that have been raised with me by workers and by employers across the board, people want to understand comparators that make sense and, unfortunately, what we’ve seen with the current system is just an absolute stretching beyond of what is logical and reasonable in terms of a comparator.

So we want to see pay equity claims that are successful, that are based on merit, and we must have a system that is more robust, workable, and sustainable so that we can achieve greater pay equity.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill.

Standing up for women’s rights!

This is an important piece of legislation because we are standing up for women’s rights. When we take the emotion and the noise out of this conversation, the key point that we are talking about—and the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, when introducing the bill, mentioned that this is having remain the ability to raise the sex-based undervaluations but, more importantly, resolve them through a framework that will be effective and efficient and that will have a really clear connection to the core purpose of this legislation, which is about sex-based undervaluation. We are seeking to support meritorious claims, and when members across the House can muddy the water with a whole lot of issues about pay gaps and underpaid workforces, this is blurring the line about the point of this piece of legislation, which is to raise and resolve the claims.

Members across the House talked about four years of fighting an equity claim—four years shows you that the system needs to be resolved and improved. The system needs to be made more effective, because otherwise we will spend years working through legislation because we’re too afraid to say that perhaps this isn’t achieving what we wanted it to achieve.

It is about having a workable and sustainable solution into the long term. It is about having logical and effective ways of ensuring that we can raise these sex-based undervaluations and resolve them, and that is the key point that we are doing in this piece of legislation. This is why it is important to have the confidence, the ability, the common sense, and the bravery to actually stand up and go, “Hang on, let’s take a look at this. Is it achieving what we want it to achieve?”

I have worked nearly my entire working life in male-dominated roles, and I think we can say proudly in New Zealand that we have progressed effectively to ensure that women’s work is valued. Are we at the end destination? No. There is work we can do, but the work has to be about the ability to resolve these claims, to recognise where they sit—differentiated from general concerns about pay rates—and actually deal with the specific conversation about sex-based undervaluations so that we can achieve the equity goals that we want to, and not blurring it with a whole lot of emotive language about all of these things and how we’re selling women down the road, and all of this emotional language which will make it easy to get some points.

Why is she trying to make this emotional—we’re talking about women, and it becomes an emotional issue?

But here we have this point where we have emotions being shouted across the House. This is about the point of exactly what we’re trying to achieve. It is a common-sense piece of legislation that will address and adjust what we’re trying to achieve, which is sex-based undervaluation claims being able to be raised and then resolved. That is the direction we need to do and that is the direction this Government is taking.

We are not removing the ability to raise these claims. We are not removing the ability to deal with the issues. We are working through a process to ensure that this ability to raise exists and the ability to resolve is a priority, and that is why New Zealand First is commending this bill to the House.

She should be ashamed of herself. Shame!

Takutai Tarsh Kemp. Sorry, we’ll just wait for the next—I don’t think we need personal attacks, right? I’m going to get it clear from the beginning of this that this is a Government bill, and we don’t want those sorts of comments passed to Ministers personally.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. I’ve been here a long time, and interjecting with the term “Shame!” to another member across the House has—

No, it wasn’t the word “Shame!”; it was the words you used—“You should be ashamed of yourself.”—to that member.

Actually, I said, “She should be ashamed.”

Well, I think you used the word “you”, but I can check that out. But this is a Government bill, so let’s try and do it with the—we know that it’s going to be a bill that’s going to create a lot of angst and a lot of emotion, but let’s try and keep the personal attacks out of it.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. Te Pāti Māori opposes this bill in the strongest terms. It is emotional, because we stand by wāhine, we stand by the rights of our wāhine, and we deserve better. This bill will make it impossible for people in female-dominated professions to be paid fairly. This is an attack on working women and will lock in gender discrimination for years to come. Why is this Government so determined to erase equity and entrench inequality? This bill will stop 33 current claims immediately, under urgency, because this Government can afford to give $3 billion to landlords and $13 billion to the military but we cannot afford to pay our wāhine fairly.

For every $1 a Pākehā man makes, a Māori wahine makes 81c—get that. A Pasifika woman makes 79c—even more shameful. An Asian wahine makes 88c, and Middle Eastern, Latin American, and African women make 88c as well. Where is the equity in that? That means that over a lifetime, taking inflation into consideration, the average Māori wahine will earn over $400,000 less than Pākehā men. Asian women, too, have earned over $400,000 less, and Pasifika women have earned nearly $500,000 less than Pākehā men. This illustrates the intergenerational impact of pay discrimination on whānau. These aren’t just numbers; these are tamariki, these are mokopuna.

I want to share an example. I worked in an organisation where this occurred. This happened to our team of workmates, to the wāhine in this team—high-performing wāhine, I’ve got to say. We did the same job as our male counterparts, but we were never paid the same equal, fair-pay rate as our male teammates. Every year, we would go to the performance review, fight and prove that we could reach our key performance indicators just as much as our male counterparts. Did we ever get that pay rise? No. Did we ever get the same pay rise, actually, as our male counterparts? No, we didn’t, and for years we felt undervalued. For years, it felt demoralising.

Yes, it is emotional, because you put your heart, sweat, blood, and tears into your mahi because you love your community, and all you ask for is fair and equal pay, the same as your male colleagues. Te Pāti Māori oppose this bill, and we won’t be supporting this bill in the House. Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. My colleague the Hon Louise Upston made it very clear in her speech earlier that this today is about sex-based pay having equality and that National is committed to this and has been committed to this throughout. In fact, National led the introduction of legislation to this House in 2017. We have Labour crying foul this afternoon, when it took them three years even to get their legislation into this House. During urgency, they introduced a Supplementary Order Paper that fundamentally changed that legislation for the worse. This afternoon, we have come to the House to fix that. That does not take away from the importance of ensuring equality in pay based on sex.

I want to correct the previous speaker who spoke a lot about equal pay. The bill that has been introduced to the House this afternoon does not make any changes to equal pay. Equal pay is receiving equal pay for equal work. Pay equality is about ensuring—

It’s called “equity”, mate.

Pay equity—thank you. It’s about ensuring that people doing different work in different organisations of similar value are paid at a similar level.

We do know that.

Well, clearly, the Opposition doesn’t, because the previous speaker got that wrong. I think, in order to have an effective, appropriate, respectful conversation as we fix this, this afternoon, and ensure that those with claims are able to go through the process in a robust manner, that we have a sustainable and workable system—are able to do that with the sorts of changes we are making this afternoon to enable that to occur. Because of that, I commend this to the House.

I don’t think anyone should be mistaken: this is a war on women. They are fundamentally doing this because they cannot afford their Budget. They promised tax cuts that they were told were unaffordable. They told New Zealanders before the last election that they would be better off. Now they can’t afford them and who do they expect to pay the bill? It’s going to be future women, women who will no longer have their pay equity claims addressed. In fact, they won’t even be able to take those claims up.

This just goes to show where the priorities of that side of the House lay. They were more than happy to give $2.9 billion to landlords, more than happy to give the tobacco industry a tax break, more than happy to pay out tax cuts that they were told were unaffordable and that would disproportionately go to those who were on higher incomes. Now what we see is that women are going to have to continue slogging it away in the workplace, earning less than their male counterparts, and it is wrong. And I do not resile from the fact that I’ve said previously that it is shameful—shameful for that side.

You know what really gets me, to every woman MP in this House, is that whenever we’re standing up at those forums—the New Zealand Parliamentarians’ Group on Population and Development (NZPPD), the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Inter-Parliamentary Union—any forum where women are expected to sit on the panels, women members of Parliament from across this House, including those in Government, are the ones that sit on those panels, stand up and do those wonderful speeches about things like pay equity in New Zealand, the claims that we have settled. They make wonderful speeches about representation of women in this House, but they are not the ones that have ever delivered for New Zealand women in any way whatsoever. They have always deprioritised the health of women, the working wages and conditions for women, the education for women, even representation in this House. Because of them, we’re no longer at 50 percent. So, please, I do not want to see the women in this House stand up at those forums—

Point of order!

Is it a point of order? Laura McClure—

What? Her feelings are hurt.

Thank you, no, this is more of a personal reflection as opposed to the contents of the bill, to ask the Speaker to consider the relevance—

I’m not sure that I heard any personal message from the speaker, so carry on.

And we heard from the member earlier that this is, according to that member, an emotional issue. Well, clearly it is to some. But I don’t want to deem it an emotional issue, because we’re not, on this side of the House, crying over what has happened here. All too often, when it’s a policy that involves women and women are outraged by it, it is referred to as something that’s emotional. Well, me being angry is not me being emotional. Me being angry for the women who have fought for these pay equity agreements, who have fought for fair pay—me being angry for the Māori and Pacific women who continue to be the people that are paid least in this country is me being angry for the right reasons, actually, and it’s not me being emotional.

We, of course, are opposing this, and we are absolutely shocked with the process that we’ve seen here. They have announced it today and brought it here in urgency to go through all parts, with no ability for the legislation to be interrogated by the general public, let alone women, who this is going to affect. This is a shameful way to conduct business as a Government, and so they should be ashamed. This bill is going to take progress back for women by decades. This bill is not only going to be bad for women, but it is going to be bad for their families and for their children.

This is a reflection of a Government who do not support workers, who do not support women, who do not support children, who do not support New Zealand families, and we need to be clear and make sure that we got that on the record. We will not be supporting this bill, and I will not apologise for being angry about it.

I think we just need to go back to first principles of this legislation, the Equal Pay Amendment Bill, for those who might have just tuned in. I reflect on the explanatory note, which is always a good start: “The purpose of this Bill is to achieve a better regulatory framework for parties to a pay equity claim to assess whether there is sex-based undervaluation, by ensuring that there are: a robust process for raising claims; clarity on the appropriateness of comparators to assess sex-based undervaluation; sustainability for employers to meet their obligations; and the right incentives to encourage parties to resolve pay equity claims.” Then we go to the legislative statement—and, again, it’s important to stick to the narrative around this legislation inside the bill and inside the legislative statement—“[This] Bill maintains a process to raise and resolve pay equity claims, while ensuring that the process is workable and sustainable.”

As others have articulated, the National Party has a proud record on pay equity. It was the National Government, as others have mentioned, that made a $2 billion settlement back in 2017 with the care and support workers. It was National also who introduced the bill to formally legislate for pay equity in 2017. Labour decided not to progress that bill in 2017, when they came into office. The changes we are making through this bring us closer in line with that original 2017 bill. In fact, we look back even further to the landmark legislation of the day, which was the Equal Pay Act 1972, which aimed to eliminate sex-based discrimination. Now, it’s 1972. This side of the House here will jump to the incoming Norman Kirk Government, but can I just finish with this: it was the Jack Marshall National Party that saw this bill through the House in 1972. It achieved Royal assent and had a commencement date of 20 October 1972, with the Labour Government elected on 25 November 1972. National has a very proud record in this area, and we will continue to.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. This bill is good evidence that we have a two-faced Government. With one face, they tell Kiwis that they’re going to put more money in their pocket. They tell them that there is a cost of living crisis and they are going to do the right thing. The very words of Nicola Willis in this House were that she said she was proud to stand in this House and say that National support the final reading of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill and that she’s proud to be part of a party that’s contributed to crafting the legislation. Whereas today, in this House, we unpick the very fundamental fabric that gives women a fair go.

I don’t think that the National Party have fully thought through the consequences of what they’re doing today, because this will come with ramifications. This will come with the women of New Zealand standing up and saying, “We do not accept a Government that puts us second. We do not accept a Government that takes money out of our pockets, that makes it harder to feed our children, that makes it harder to buy shoes for them in winter, and that makes it harder for us to pay the rent. It wants us to work longer hours for less money because we are women.” And that is not fair.

This bill signifies the devaluation of women’s work in New Zealand. It sends a message politically and socially to our women and our communities that their work is not valued and that this Government does not value their work. It ends active claims to make pay more equal for women. In fact, it starts right from scratch with those 33 active claims being scrapped. Those women who have been waiting to receive the pay they deserve for the hard work they do, this Government has told them today that they have to go back to the start of the queue, and they’re going to shift the goalposts so it will be even harder for them to receive the pay they deserve. The truth is, while we’ve had the words from one face that, “Oh, we’re going to make this more robust. It’s got nothing to do with the Budget. We’re just going to make it a bit more robust.”, the reality is that the new law and this bill raises the bar for evidence required to prove historic undervaluation for women’s work. Many roles traditionally held by women, like caregiving, nursing, support, and education roles, have complex histories where direct evidence is difficult to find. This bill makes it even harder to find.

The next reason is the narrow definition of comparator jobs. New rules limit the ability to compare women’s work to better paid, male-dominated roles straight away making it harder for women to prove that they should be paid a fair wage, and it’s shameful. Without these comparisons in place, it is harder to show that women’s work has been undervalued just because it is a female-dominated profession. It places financial barriers for workers. Gathering the stronger evidence now required, like historic wage data and independent job evaluations, will be expensive and more difficult to prove. Individual workers and small unions may not have the money or even the expertise to compile the sophisticated cases that are now needed to do this. They have made it harder for female workers to get the pay they deserve, and that is unfair.

David Seymour today has applauded Brooke van Velden for finding billions of dollars just weeks out from the Budget, when it’s most needed. Those are the words used out there on the tiles today, while the Prime Minister has said it’s got nothing to do with the Budget. The reality is this Government borrowed for tax cuts. They borrowed for tax cuts they could not afford in order to get them votes. Now, who is paying for those tax cuts? Who is paying for the inability to make the Budget balance? It is women workers, who do not get pay for hard work. It’s absolutely disgraceful.

We have members opposite who don’t even know what pay equity is, let alone what it stands for. This is a dark day for women in New Zealand, who once again have been put to the back of the queue by a Government that doesn’t care about them and that is more interested in making sure that landlords and tobacco companies get a back pocket pay, but not those women who look after the very fabric of our society. Those ones that are working hard just to be able to see their family before the sun goes down, you just made their lives a whole lot harder and a whole lot more difficult to feed their families. You’ll reap the rewards come election day.

Madam Speaker, thank you. I rise to take the last call in this first reading for the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. Look, I think it’s fair to say that the National Party has a proud history of supporting pay equity. It was a National-led Government that first introduced the bill to legislate a pay equity system, and we still support pay equity.

The Government is now committed to addressing sex-based discrimination in the workplace, and we’re amending the Act to make the process more workable and sustainable. As our colleague the Minister Louise Upston said, this is not about a collective bargaining tool or where wages are low; it’s about a clear framework to assess where pay discrimination is as a result of gender. It is the Government’s view that the previous system became too wide and unsustainable, and we are now correcting that.

This is about pay equity. We support pay equity, and we applaud the work that Kristine Bartlett did in this, and we’ve always done that. The Opposition can dramatise this all they like today, and they will, but this is a pragmatic approach to a clear framework, and we support the bill.

This bill is set down for second reading immediately.

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

The Equal Pay Amendment Bill improves the process for raising and resolving a pay equity claim and provides a better framework for assessing whether there is sex-based undervaluation and remuneration in female-dominated occupations. Pay equity is about women and men receiving the same pay for doing work that is different but of equal value. Pay inequity is caused by systemic sex-based discrimination leading to the undervaluation in the remuneration of work that is predominantly performed by women.

The Equal Pay Act provides a process for raising and resolving pay equity claims. The fundamental principles of the Act will remain the same once this bill is in force. If an employee or a union considers that their work is subject to systemic sex-based undervaluation, they can raise a claim directly with their employer. Their employer has to consider whether the claim meets the requirements for raising a claim and, if the employer decides it does, the parties proceed to bargaining. The parties then work through the pay equity bargaining process, including undertaking an assessment of the work of the claimant and the work of the appropriate comparator. If a pay equity issue is identified, parties will then bargain to determine a settlement that does not differentiate on the basis of sex. The agreement is recorded in a pay equity settlement. This process is supported by a disputes resolution process, including mediation or facilitation, and the ability to take disputes to the Employment Relations Authority and Employment Court.

While the fundamental principles remain the same, the bill amends legislative settings that are too permissive and have resulted in the pay equity framework not working as intended. The bill will: increase the threshold for raising a pay equity claim, including by requiring claims to have merit; provide employers with the tools they need to ensure an appropriate scope of claims; introduce a hierarchy of comparators and add more prescription to comparison methodology; remove the ability for a settlement to include a review clause and limit when claims can be re-raised; provide for phasing of pay equity settlements, changes to when and how the authority can fix remuneration; and remove the provision for the authority to award back-pay.

These amendments maintain the fundamental principles of the pay equity regime while ensuring there is a robust process for raising claims, clarity on the appropriateness of comparators to assess sex-based undervaluation, sustainability for employers to meet their obligations, and the right incentives to encourage parties to resolve their pay equity claims. These amendments will achieve a better regulatory framework for parties to a pay equity claim to assess whether there is sex-based undervaluation and ensure that the pay equity regime is workable and sustainable. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m having to have some calm-down time because I’m still incredibly angry about what we are doing in this House today. This is a bad lawmaking process. Nothing is worse than taking away people’s democratic rights to have their say on a bill that is going to take away their ability to be able to get their pay equity claims through, as they were able to do under the amendment Act that came through in 2020.

At that time, we had a number of groups around the country that had their say around what they thought that law should look like, and that was followed through. And now we’re taking that away and we’re creating a much more difficult process, and we’re going to see, we know, less pay equity claims coming through. And if people on the other side of the House don’t think that is reality, go back and have a look at just how many pay equity claims were successful before the amendment bill was passed in 2020. Go back and have a look, because the reality is that we had a process that wasn’t working. It absolutely wasn’t working. And what we’re doing is we’re going back to the future, today.

We are taking this country backwards. We are taking women’s rights backwards—no, not we; you are taking women’s rights backwards.

Not me.

Not you, Madam Speaker. I should point to them over there. I would hate to put that on you, Madam Speaker.

As I’ve said, this is bad lawmaking. It is unfair to thousands of women nationwide. Normally what we would be doing at this point in a second reading speech is we would be going through and prosecuting what happened at the select committee process.

But where’s that?

But where is that? There is no process to go through because we are here in urgency passing through something that as David Seymour has said today in the media, “Minister Van Velden has saved the Budget for the Government.” Taking credit, even though the Prime Minister today said, “Well, it’s not about the Budget.”, the soon-to-be Deputy Prime Minister is saying that the Minister has saved the Budget for the Government. So who is right?

Well, we on this side of the House know that this is all about making that Budget work and that Budget square up. And as I said in my first reading speech—and so did many others—once again, women are having to pay the price. Women are having to pay the price in this country for bad fiscal management, and enough is enough. We saw that today out the front of this Parliament. We saw people say, “Enough is enough.” We have been waiting far too long for women to get what they are due, for women to be valued in their roles, for work that has been traditionally seen as women’s work to be valued. And only when we do value that work, at that point, will we see that it won’t solely be women’s work, that we will see other people, other genders, men going into that work as well.

When we have people that are standing up outside and saying that they feel like their legs were cut off today, feeling like their breath was knocked out of them because they had no idea that all the work that they had put into working through their pay equity claims would be all for nothing—and not only that; standing outside today and saying we’re not even having the opportunity to speak about it, to come and put our case forward.

So that is what we are here, on this side of the House, to do: to put their cases for them today so that they know that we are hearing them and valuing their work and valuing the work that they have done to ensure that their work is valued overall by society. And one of the most important ways that we can do that is by paying them appropriately.

One of the aspects that was always very frustrating to me in the pay equity space when this Government came into power was that they got rid of the Pay Equity Taskforce. Now, the reason that they got rid of the Pay Equity Taskforce, in their own words, was that they said the pay equity claim process was working really well and so there was no reason to keep the Pay Equity Taskforce. At the time, I was very sceptical of that fact. I thought that perhaps it was more about saving the cost of what the Pay Equity Taskforce cost to run. But now we see what the real reality is. It is all about cost saving, because if their words were true back when they first came into power and got rid of that Pay Equity Taskforce, why now is the pay equity claim process apparently not working?

They can’t have it both ways. It either was working really, really well, which I know to be true because we had a large number of successful claims with the help of the Pay Equity Taskforce, or it’s not. But then I go back to say that the real reason is about saving money, and the real reason is about making a Budget work that, again, is seeing women paying the price for bad fiscal management. Women are paying the price in this country for tax cuts and tax breaks for landlords. That is the absolute bottom line of what is happening here. And I go back to saying that all those women who would have come and all those—it’s not just women; it would have been men too. All those people who would have come into a select committee process to submit on this particular bill would have said, “Leave that alone because we are getting claims through. We are getting the work done, and we are seeing the work being valued.”

It appals me, and I listened to the first reading speeches from the other side of the House. It absolutely appals me, the weak reasons that they have given for passing this through. It is smoke and mirrors when you say that it is about putting a better framework in place. Improve the framework if that’s the case; don’t get rid of it. Don’t get rid of it so that there’s nothing there at all. Start from that base and add to it.

We’re not getting rid of it.

If that member over there is saying, “We’re not getting rid of it.”, go and read the bill, because that’s exactly what the bill says. And it also says in that bill that that side of the House is stopping all current claims. That’s 33 claims that are being stopped with this introduction of this bill here today. Some of those claims have been in process for four to five years. How do those people and how do those sectors suddenly feel that their work is being valued? I can tell you right now that they are feeling really angry.

So if that side of the House thinks that this is going to quietly go away, I really feel that they need to think again and hang your heads in shame or stand up and do something about it. That side of the House still has time to put this right. Just because that side cannot make their Budget work, women should not have to pay the price for that. They have been paying the price in history for far too long, and this should end now.

Again, I go back to my first reading speech, and I shall end with this. This should not be something that becomes political. Women should not be used as a pawn to actually work their Budgets out for them. We should be working this through together. And you know what? In 2020, we did. We came together for women in this House.

Until you put an AP through.

What a shame, Mr Bates, that you can’t, now, support women, and that you would rather put politics first than support women to get a fairer wage, a fairer pay for their work. I absolutely condemn this bill.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. This is really about what we value—what we value as a society. It’s very clear that the coalition Government does not value the people doing some of the most important and difficult work in our entire society. Look, to be fair, it’s been centuries of this, and so it’s really just perpetuating the status quo.

But there is a reason why we needed to put in place the process that we did in 2020, as part of the Equal Pay Act, in order to close the gender pay gap, which was not closing. The gender pay gap can be because of individual discrimination or unconscious bias in individual workplaces, but the wide sector-based discrimination, which has meant that the work that was predominantly done by women was undervalued, is based in evidence, and that’s why the process that was put in place in 2020 was evidence-based and supported by Nicola Willis of the National Party, and Erica Stanford. Nicola Willis said she’s “proud to stand in [the] House tonight and say that National will support [the] final reading of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill.”, proud of the contribution, and that they do think that if there are reasonable grounds to believe that work has been historically undervalued based on their gender and that they have been underpaid because of that, they should be able to make a pay equity claim. That is the fundamental fairness-based principle under which we had cross-party agreement on the bill.

Now, if the Government really believed that there were just some technical improvement processes and a slightly better framework that would result in something that was more fair and reasonable, why are they doing this under urgency? Why not send it to select committee? Why is there a rushed process where the bill is literally introduced today and going through all stages of the House? It’s because this isn’t about fairness. It’s not about making the process better; it’s about saving money in the short term, which will cost us more in the long term. I guess that is a hallmark of this coalition Government: seeming to save money by doing things that will actually increase the costs to everyone in society over the long term. That’s the fundamental problem.

But what do we value? Do we value the work of early childhood education teachers? Do we value the work of midwives and nurses? Do we value the work of teachers? Do we value the work of aged-care and support workers, those looking after people with disabilities, those looking after our elderly in their final stages of life? Do we not value that? How can we as a society say that those people do not deserve to be paid properly for their work? Isn’t it shocking? Isn’t it a surprise that we have a hard time recruiting teachers, that we have a shortage of early childhood teachers, that we have a shortage of nurses and midwives, and they can go to Australia and get paid so much more? That’s because of decisions made by subsequent Governments but particularly this coalition Government, which is looking at those people doing this important, caring work that supports everyone in our society to thrive, viewing them as a fiscal liability rather than an investment in our society. An investment in early childhood education and midwives and nurses is an investment in a future, a more equitable society, one where people actually have what they need to survive and thrive, and then we’re all better off as a society. But instead they just look at it as a short-term cost.

The thing that really kills me about this is that there is no limit to the amount of money that these people will spend on a road. There is literally no limit to the amount of money they will spend on a road, as if some tarmac somehow magically creates economic growth—

Absolutely, yes, it does. It invests in people.

—but investing in people doesn’t. If the member opposite knew or understood anything at all about economics, he’d be able to look at the cost-benefit analysis and see, “Oh, actually, that road costs more than it benefits us.” It does. It costs more than it benefits. That’s what the official economic evidence says, and multiple economists have come out and, basically, slammed the case for the Northland road in particular, because we already have a road to Northland. The issue is we’re not maintaining it and improving it, and we’re not reducing the amount of fuel that we need to use.

It’s disgusting to me. There’s always jobs for the boys and jobs for the machines, and billions and billions of dollars for a bit of tarmac, but they do not fundamentally understand that the thing that actually supports our society to be able to do things is investing in our people, our children—our children—investing in early childhood education and teachers. But it is a product of an economic system and a way of valuing things that does not understand that people are an asset that we can invest in. We invest in concrete and tarmac as if we could sell it on the open market, which is not true, by the way. We cannot sell those things for money. But we don’t look at investing in people and their work and making sure that their livelihoods enable them to pay for rent, pay the bills, pay the electricity.

Actually go out and talk to some aged-care and support workers. I challenge every member of this Government to go out with the aged-care and support workers, like Kristine Bartlett. See what their day is like and tell me that they are not worth more than what they are paid. Go to the retirement villages—

We did. On Wednesday, the Prime Minister was with me in Whanganui. We did. I’ll show you the photo.

—and talk to the people who are working and tell me that they don’t deserve to earn more money.

Mr Bates, I see you’re on the speaking list later on, that might be a good time.

This decision, which is being rushed through in urgency with no opportunity for a select committee to process and for people to show up and actually debate the issue and understand the proposed changes, is being pushed through because the Government is trying to find short-term cost savings because they have promised more than they can actually deliver. The fundamental trade-off they’re making is going to hurt the lowest-paid women and all those working in female-dominated industries. It’s going to make it harder for them to make ends meet. It’s going to make it harder for us—and I say “us”, like, through our public services, we need nurses, midwives, teachers, care and support workers, disabled-care workers, admin and clerical support. We need all of those people. We need them to function as a society, and it’s harder and harder to recruit them, because they don’t have a pathway to fair pay.

All of this is because of historic gender-based discrimination, which Ministers in this Government, like Erica Stanford and Nicola Willis, at the time when the bill was passed, professed a great passion for in support for the idea that we should actually rectify that historic gender-based discrimination. They did support it, but now in Government: “Too hard, too hard. Let’s just make it easier to underpay people and ignore the fact that that’s going to create more problems for us down the road.”

So the Green Party is not supporting this bill. We don’t support it going through under urgency. I would really like to say that people watching this outside, people looking at this, should see who these people really are, see who this coalition Government really is. They’re people who went out and made extravagant promises about being able to deliver better public services while delivering tax cuts to the wealthiest people. Yeah, they gave up to 20 bucks a week to some households, but, actually, the lowest-paid people don’t get the full benefit of the tax cut. The lowest-paid people get the least out of the tax cuts. So, once again, a series of decisions that make it easier for the wealthiest, who already own a lot of property, to get richer and richer and richer while those who are doing the most important work—looking after our tamariki, looking after our disabled people, doing the clerical and admin work, going out there and doing the cleaning, delivering the babies and looking after māmās in the middle of the night—those people are going to be forced to carry on not getting access to an evidence-based process that would result in them getting paid what they are due.

It’s shameful. It’s hypocritical. I am not at all surprised, because it was clear before the election that those were their priorities and that the promises they were making about better public services or better pay for nurses and midwives were absolute rubbish. They would never be able to afford to pay for them, but we see when the rubber hits the road, when the really hard decisions have to be made, we see who this coalition Government prioritises and supports, and it is not the hardest-working, most marginalised people who are out there—our essential workers, who deserve fair pay and they deserve not to be forced to have to be underpaid just because of gender-based discrimination.

Unfortunately, I am going to have to repeat some of the things I said in the first reading because clearly the Opposition weren’t listening. So the first thing that I want to confirm is the fact that this piece of legislation is not about saving money. This is about a piece of legislation to ensure that sex-based discrimination cases that have merit, that have claim, are able to progress through the system in a robust, transparent way. The reason it’s being passed under urgency is so that we don’t have claims in different processes under different regimes. So it’s pretty simple. It’s pretty clear. It’s something that Governments do to ensure that the courts aren’t frustrated, but more importantly so that those who want to have a claim are not trying to operate in two different systems.

The other thing that I want to say very clearly is there is no claim that will be blocked. That is another myth that the other side have repeated in their speeches. The other thing in terms of the Government—because the previous speaker, Julie Anne Genter, talked specifically about nurses, about carers, about midwives. I would invite the other side just to reflect on our Government’s record level of investment in health. Who do you think operates the health system if it’s not nurses, midwives, carers? So I would just hold your horses on that side of the House.

When we think about the level of investment, when we think about things like FamilyBoost that ensure more parents get access to support so their children can get access to early childhood education, our focus in education is to ensure that actually teachers can focus on teaching the basics brilliantly. The amount of resources that have been rolled out to teachers to make it easier for them to do their work has been a significant part of the Government’s investment.

The other thing that this bill is not about—this bill is not about an alternative way for workers to negotiate pay rounds. It is a very different conversation from sex-based discrimination.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t think it’s standard practice in this House to stand up and do a speech in the second reading on what this bill is not about. There have been a couple of points made on that line by that member, and I think she should stick to what the bill is about.

We’re in a second reading. Both sides have drifted from the main purpose of a second reading, which of course is to speak about what happened at select committee. There hasn’t been a select committee. That has opened it. It’s why I haven’t redirected any of the comments from the left, but it does give the opportunity to reply to some of them. However, the member has been here. She does know the general rules of second reading. Carry on.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is also the job in a second reading, in a debate in this House—this is a debating chamber—to put the myths and the incorrect statements that the Opposition are stating to bed. That’s my job as a Government speaker, and I will not refrain from that.

So I will reiterate, this bill is not about—because, unfortunately, what happened under the previous regime, and all of the speeches that I’ve heard so far confuse the two points about when there is union bargaining for pay rounds, that is a very different concept to sex-based discrimination. It would be really helpful if the Opposition could understand the difference between the two. That is actually part of why we are here debating this legislation today, because we want pay equity legislation to be about pay equity. As I said in my previous speech, there are of course many workers across New Zealand—male and female—that don’t earn the levels they would like to earn. That is a separate issue from sex-based discrimination.

The other thing I want to come back to is the comparators, because this is a really important part of the bill to make it really clear about a framework for comparisons for comparators and actually getting us more in line with our international countries that we would normally compare ourselves to. Some of the feedback, for example, that we had received with the previous legislation was fisheries officers being compared to librarians. Now, I think most people, if you ask them on the street, “Would you expect that those are jobs of equal value and equal conditions?”, would not accept that that was a suitable comparator. So we need to have a pay equity process that is clearly understood, that is robust, that is sustainable into the future. That is why I’m proud to support this piece of legislation in the second reading.

I rise again as part of the second reading debate to speak on behalf of New Zealand First in support of this piece of legislation. Yet again, I think it is right, as my colleague Minister Upston referred to previously, to bring back the discussion to some form of reality. This is not removing the ability to proceed with a pay equity claim. Yes, we will be withdrawing all the current claims under this legislation to allow them to be reapplied—again, for clarity, so that all of these claims are processing under the same environment. It is the reason why this bill is under urgency, to ensure that we minimise the disruption that this change will bring about.

But, again, we have to emphasise that it is unfair to create this impression that somehow we are taking away the right to deal with sex-based discrimination in pay rounds. This is a change that will not remove anything. It will allow us to be able to process the claims and bring about resolutions where they are meritorious. This is an important part of the process.

When we talk about the idea of recognising valuable workforces, as has been spoken to previously, there are pay rounds, there are processes by which we can address pay conditions and the value of work through the pay round process. This is not impacting that process either. This is about bringing a sensible process to ensure that we have resolution to the equity claims. This is the ability to ensure we can move forward in this process, but it is to bring it back to the conditions that make sense. This is about comparators that make sense. This is about a system that makes sense and is workable.

It is really unfair to suggest that this is anti-women in any way. This is absolutely incorrect, and this idea of soapbox speeches that say that this is robbing something of women when the system will continue to exist—the system will still be available, and the equity claim process will still exist. It is irresponsible to suggest that that is being stolen away when the system will continue to exist.

This is about moving forward with a piece of legislation that will make the process clearer, fairer, more robust, and absolutely ensure that the system continues to exist. This is, again, about sex-based undervaluation of jobs, and this is a system that will continue to exist. Therefore, I have no hesitation of commending this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. What an absolute day of shame—an absolute day of shame. What an absolute debacle this bill is. This is another example of the wrecking ball that this Government is wreaking on workers’ rights, and in this particular case, low-paid wāhine workers. It is absolutely shameful and disgraceful. Everybody deserves dignity and decent jobs, and that includes low-paid work, which is predominantly held by women workers. I want to draw the point that actually amongst women workers as well, Pasifika and Māori women are paid even less compared to Pākehā men.

There was a rally outside, which was called in two hours, where people showed up to show their anger to this Government, with them undermining workers’ rights once again. I also want to acknowledge the work of Kristine Bartlett, the aged-care worker who successfully brought a pay equity claim through the process as well. As I read through the media, it said that she was crying; she was gutted. She was gutted for those low-paid workers as well.

But there’s another issue here that we need to discuss as a Parliament and that is the confusion—the confusion of the Government speakers who say that this will not hold back pay equity, that this will not hold back gender-based discrimination in the workplace. That is absolutely false, absolutely wrong. Thirty-three of these claims are going to be scrapped. Some of these claims have been on the workbooks for four years.

Outside we had Tessa, who was a librarian, and as she spoke, she talked about how she had spent four years working on their claim—four years’ worth of work in the garbage because these guys don’t want to acknowledge the work that needs to be done. It is absolutely a disgrace and shameful.

Even more shameful is the Prime Minister going to the media, saying that they’ve found the money. They’ve found their money for their Budget—billions of dollars they’ve found. Guess where they’ve found it: by taking away that money from low-paid workers, taking that money from women workers, taking that pay from those that deserve it the most. The people that deserve the most support from this House are being denied, are being put down by this Government, and it is an absolute disgrace and absolutely shameful.

The confusion is palpable on the other side of the House because they don’t know what this is about. Here’s the thing about the process: we could all actually deal with it if we weren’t doing this under urgency. So to people that are listening to these speeches today, we’re in urgency. The details of this bill landed on that Table just after question time, so we’ve only had an hour, I think, or two hours to get to grips with the details of this bill. So the ability to actually scrutinise this bill has been absolutely curtailed by this Government. We should have been able to get this piece of legislation early. It should have had a full process where we could take it to the select committee, where those people that are directly impacted could come and talk to this Parliament, could talk to this House and in many ways confront the Government—confront the Government in terms of the trampling on their rights, the trampling on workers’ rights, and the undoing of years and years and years and years of work.

It is an absolute disgrace, and you can count on the Greens to stand up for the workers. You can count on the Greens to back the unions, who’ve been working incredibly hard on these issues. The Greens absolutely disagree with this piece of legislation, disagree with this process, and we’ll work together with our friends in the unions, with our friends across the Opposition benches, to make that known very, very publicly.

But it is very important for those people out there across our communities, across our society, to question your local MPs, to question your Government MPs, because this is an absolute shame. It is an absolute disgrace. It is another example of a Government that cares more about profit than for people. You hear them talk about “There aren’t enough lollies. We’re not going to have a lolly scramble.” It’s because certain Ministers have gotten all the lollies, and none of them are for the workers. None of them are for the low-paid workers. It is an absolute disgrace, and the Greens oppose this bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m not going to have that stand on the record without correcting factual inaccuracies within that last speech. National supported the pay equity Act in 2020. We supported it. But we supported it, and may I quote the Hon Maggie Barry: “So I commend the bill to the House but we oppose Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 548 for very good reason.” The Hon Nicola Willis spoke in that debate, and she said, “We support this bill, but we have grave concerns about that SOP because it didn’t go to select committee.” Yet the Opposition stand up today, in this House—in this House—and argue that the problem is it’s not going to select committee.

This afternoon, we have had the Opposition say, “Let’s not make this political—let’s not make this political.” Yet that is exactly what they are doing. It is about time that the Opposition recognised, like so much of what they drove through the House in the last Government and the one before, that their approach, their policies, their legislation didn’t work. It was this side of the House, it was the National team, that pointed that out to them and said, “This isn’t going to work. It’s not going to be effective. It’s not going to be robust. It’s not going to be sustainable.” I back our Minister of Finance with what she said in that debate, and now we are fixing it. We are making it sustainable, we are making it robust, and we’re making it practical.

So let me end by just giving one of the examples of how that’s going to be the case. You settle a pay equity claim. You settle it. National had said in 2017, we need to settle these things. We need legislation to do that. We led the charge. You settle these things, and then we’re saying you give the industry 10 years before—if the same conditions, the threshold of conditions are met—you can raise another claim. But not after three years. I commend this bill to the House.

Camilla Belich—a five-minute split call.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is an absolutely shameful day for this Parliament. Kristine Bartlett took a claim to the courts of New Zealand and the interpretation was that the Equal Pay Act that has been in place since the 1970s applied to claims for work of equal value. At that time, the National Government that was once proud to stand on behalf of low-paid women at that time settled her claim for the first care and support workers’ settlement. I was there across the road when the event for that happened, and I saw National MPs come in and I saw them be congratulated for standing up for working women. What I want to ask is: where is that National Party today?

On this day, where—and no matter what anyone on the other side of the House has said, this bill makes pay equity claims for low-paid workers much harder. It takes the threshold to 70 percent. It means that you can’t bring a claim for 10 years. It gives employers the entire right to decide a comparator and whether a claim is meritorious. It’s retrospective. It gets rid of existing pay equity settlements. It is a blow to every working, low-paid woman in New Zealand that works in a female-dominated role. These people are midwives, allied health professionals, librarians, social workers, nurses, teacher aides. These are the people that this National Party is attacking by bringing through this regressive, retrospective bill, brought in under urgency at the very time that they knew that we were all having our caucus meetings. Snuck in. Only provided on the Table one hour ago, and we are meant to support this type of bill.

This bill will make every aspect of claiming an equal pay claim harder. The hierarchy of comparators which is put into this bill, which I bet no one else has had the opportunity to look at yet because it’s complex, was initially suggested by the National Party when the National Party wanted to settle pay equity claims after the Kristine Bartlett case. That was roundly rejected. The reason for that is because when you look at a hierarchy of comparators, you’re essentially saying that you need to find a comparator in your workplace. And if you can’t find a comparator in your workplace, you need to look at similar jobs. And if you can’t find similar jobs, you need to look at similar industries. It’s like an onion; it goes out and out and out. The bureaucracy of trying to find a comparator, which is already very difficult, when you implement this hierarchy of comparators, will make—mark my words—this legislation completely unworkable for low-paid women.

This legislation introduced today is the ACT Party getting away with taking away women’s rights. And the New Zealand First Party and the National Party are sitting here, letting it happen. This will mean that there is no closing of the gender pay gap. It will mean that people like care and support workers continue to be on the minimum wage—absolutely shocking. I don’t know how you can sleep at night, bringing this legislation through. It is absolutely shameful.

What about the process? I looked at the Cabinet paper. Under the heading of human rights, every single part of that was redacted. I ask: why was it redacted? I think we know the answer to that: because this bill goes against human rights. Women’s rights to be fairly paid and for equal pay are human rights. I bet—even though I can’t see it and this House has not been given the opportunity to see it—that that Cabinet advice is exactly what that says and that’s why it’s been redacted. Absolutely despicable process to sneak this through the House.

Additionally, I have had a look at the departmental disclosure statement, which states that there was not sufficient time for a regulatory impact statement. What is going on with this Government that you will bring in legislation under urgency, repeal it in one single day, not even have a regulatory impact statement, not allow us to see the advice on human rights? It is absolutely a shameful way of running a democracy.

I just want to emphasise, because I don’t have a lot of time left, that existing pay equity settlements that are already settled—already settled now—will be disestablished. And those people will not be able to make another pay equity claim for 10 years, no matter what happens. So the existing settlements: the nurses’ settlement, the social workers’ settlement—all of these jobs that we value so much that are female-dominated—no matter what happens in the next 10 years, under this legislation, they will not be able to bring another equal pay claim. This is an absolutely despicable way of bringing human rights legislation to the House. It is taking away the rights of low-paid, working women throughout New Zealand and the National Party, the New Zealand First Party, and the ACT Party should be ashamed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want the members on the other side to go away and re-read the comments just made by my colleague Camilla Belich, who has worked on pay equity here in New Zealand and the UK for most of her working career. I bet the National Party members, who have given some of the most deluded, terrible speeches today, have no understanding of what they are voting for. This woman over here does, and I urge you to listen to her.

I have been so angry at so many things this Government has done, particularly Nelson Hospital, but nothing compares to this—nothing compares to this. Bringing this under the cover of urgency to undermine the women of New Zealand is a disgrace, and shame on the National Party. Today, the Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, said the quiet part out loud. He admitted it. He then came back and corrected it. But he admitted—he admitted. Here is what he said when he was asked: “I admit the changes will actually lead to lower costs for the Government.” There will be less money for teachers. There will be less money for nurses, less money for midwives, less money for our aged-care and support workers, less money for our social workers, less money for all of the female-dominated industries in New Zealand that rely on pay equity legislation to ensure that they are paid equal pay for work of equal value—and I’m going to get to that now, because National Party members have gone on and on about the legislation they introduced when they were in Government. It did not work.

They talked about comparators. The comparators were too narrow. In fact, lawyers, like the wonderful Peter Cranney, who took the Kristine Bartlett case, said that under National’s legislation, Kristine Bartlett would not have secured the settlement, because Kristine Bartlett’s pay equity claim compared aged-care workers—and I hope you listen over there, the women members on the other side; I hope they listen. Peter Cranney has said that Kristine Bartlett would not have won her case under National’s legislation—that is a fact—because, under Kristine Bartlett’s case, they compared aged-care workers to corrections officers. Now, the Minister got up and pooh-poohed that, and she talked about some of the comparators in place and scoffed at them. How dare she do that. Aged-care workers do heavy lifting; they deal with really challenging, difficult work, and absolutely they should be compared to corrections workers. But the National Party is reverting to the type of legislation that would have stopped that comparator being made, and there would not have been a settlement for Kristine Bartlett.

The other thing—the other nasty little thing that was put in that settlement—was that workers weren’t able to take a claim for years and years and years. Again, listen to Camilla Belich, who has said that this is going to stop people from being able to take claims for 10 years. That is an absolute disgrace. I say on record today: this is a war on women; this is a war on women workers. I have already had emails from people saying, “We are going to march in the street over this.” Women are outraged, and I say to every National MP sitting there, hanging their heads in a shame right now because they didn’t know about this either, in marginal seats: you should be very afraid of what will happen to you at the next election, because this issue galvanises women. They will be knocking on your door. They will be demanding to know why they cannot come to select committee and tell their story. They will be demanding to know why you are going to make it harder for them to get pay equity. They are going to demand to know why National has, today, cancelled all of the existing claims and said, “They are over; they are gone.” Those women workers, who have been fighting and putting up robust arguments over the last few years for pay equity—their claims are gone, stopped. They have to come into this new mechanism that has tougher thresholds that make it harder for them to do it.

National members have talked about pay equity legislation gone by. It used to be about man lawyer versus woman lawyer, because, once upon a time, male lawyers were paid less than women lawyers, and we outlawed that. This is about equal work of equal value, looking at a women-dominated job versus a male-dominated job. That is the point. That is actually the point of this, saying, “This group of women workers are, collectively, undervalued because the work they’re doing is done by women, and this is a male-dominated industry that is comparable.” That is the point—that is the point—and National are undermining this today, and shame on them. Bring on 2026, or earlier.

Just referring back to the bill and its legislative statement, which is on the Table for us all to peruse and absorb, I think it’s important to go back to the fundamentals of what this piece of legislation is seeking to achieve. Officials say here that “The proposed changes to the Act will improve the process for raising and resolving a pay equity claim and provide a better framework for assessing whether there is sex-based undervaluation.” The bill maintains a process to raise and resolve pay equity claims while ensuring “that the process is workable and sustainable.”

As my colleague Carl Bates has alluded to in a previous speech, National did support the 2020 Equal Pay Amendment Bill, but our colleagues of the day did not support the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that was rushed through—the SOP that was put there with amendments without notice. In 2020, the Hon Nicola Willis and the Hon Maggie Barry raised grave concerns as to the impacts that those amendments on that SOP at the last minute would have. So, in our view, they have been borne out, and we are now here, as a party and as a Government committed to pay equity, but it must be based on solid evidence, reflect international norms, and be sustainable in the long term.

The Hon Louise Upston—to finish with—also looked overseas, didn’t she? She looked at the comparable countries that we often line ourselves up against as a comparison, and, unlike most comparable countries, New Zealand allows unions to pursue claims across multiple employers. These reforms that we are putting down today will bring us closer in line with international best practice, where claims are typically made against a single employer.

As I’ve said, National supported the 2020 legislation without the last-minute amendments. It was National who settled the $2 billion case in 2017, when Bill English was Prime Minister, and we legislated then. It was National in 1972, under the Jack Marshall administration, that tabled and passed through three stages the Equal Pay Act 1972. National has a very proud history in equal pay and pay equity, and we will continue to have that. Thank you.

This is a five-minute split call.

I want to quote a speaker from the third reading of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill back in 2020: “I’m proud to stand in this House tonight and say that National will support this final reading of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. And I’m proud that our party has contributed to crafting this legislation and bringing it to the House. We support the simple concept that people should be paid the same for the same work, regardless of their gender, and we support the equally important concept that, if someone has been doing work and there are reasonable grounds to believe that that work has been historically undervalued based on their gender and has been underpaid because of that, they should be able to make a pay equity claim. So we support this bill”—Nicola Willis, speaking in the House a few years ago.

Where is she today?

Yeah, where is she?

Where is she? Hiding. So why the change? Why the change at this point? Coming into the House today, the Prime Minister said—and it’s quoted on Radio New Zealand—that this change that the National Party and their minions are putting through will save billions of dollars; billions of dollars. But, if we go to the Cabinet paper which has been released, and we can have a look at it now, something that has been redacted is all the financial recommendations, all the information about the finances. They’re not telling us how much this is going to save.

I tell you who it’s not going to save money for: it’s not going to save money for the aged-care workers, who desperately need every penny they can get at the moment; it’s not going to save money for teachers, who have a pay equity claim in there at the moment and have been historically underpaid—those teachers are losing money because of that; it is not going to save money for teacher aides—people we need in our classrooms to help with looking after especially children with extra learning needs; it’s not going to save money for cleaners, also underpaid in the long term. And all these jobs are jobs historically done by women. That Government really does not care about women workers, and it does not care about low-paid workers. All it cares about is balancing the Budget, and it is doing it in a way that kicks the lowest-paid women in this country. That is appalling; it is an absolutely appalling thing to do to our workers.

In terms of thinking about this speech today, I recalled Professor Judy McGregor. Judy McGregor was our first Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner, and one of the things that she did was go undercover as an aged-care worker to find out what the work was really like. Let me quote what she said—she produced an amazing report Caring Counts, which really led the charge for pay equity—in terms of aged care, “When I did the job myself, I realised the immense emotional labour that goes into it, the skill, the technique, the fatigue.” She recognised just how hard that job was. And, at about the same time, Kristine Bartlett, with the aid of her union E tū, took a pay equity case. Today, Kristine Bartlett is nearly crying, and she said, “What’s going to happen to these low-paid workers? It’s hurting—it’s really hurting.”

These are people who are ignoring the evidence, and ignoring the evidence just in order to balance the books. The previous speaker, Cameron Brewer, said that the National Party had, in the previous debate on this, supported the pay equity legislation. It had some rules and one of the things was that it had to be “sustainable in the long term”. That’s the exact words used by the previous speaker. Sustainable for who? That’s the question. Sustainable for who? We already know that working families in this country are having to go to the food bank to get assistance, because wages are simply not high enough. We already know that 30 percent of New Zealanders had to get food assistance last year, and yet this Government is turning around and taking away one of the key protections for low-paid workers. What an absolute shame.

Just before I call the next speaker, the comments about members not being here—I’ll take that as a metaphorical question about absence. However, some of the comments from the sidelines were not so metaphorical—just a reminder for subsequent speakers about that rule.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in this second reading speech for the Equal Pay Amendment Bill, a bill shepherded by the Hon Brooke van Velden. What I think is very important to do is to just get us back to basics to a great extent, because what I’m hearing from across the House, I feel is actually unfair in the characterisation. There are some things that we’re missing and some people are refusing to acknowledge this is the case.

Equal pay is essentially when women and men are paid the same for the same work. So this is when workers in the same roles are paid the same, paraphrasing. Pay equity is when women and men are paid equal amounts for equal work where they’re in different roles, even if the roles are not identical. We speak about the framework of comparisons—the comparator factor—and I just want to ask the House a question: we’ve reached a point where a fisheries officer is compared to a nurse. Now, someone on the other side of the House said some of these examples that we’re mentioning are embarrassing. Is it embarrassing to say, essentially, what is a fisheries officer? A fisheries officer gathers information on aspects of the fishing industry and enforces fisheries laws. So they gather information. These officers, with all due respect to them, are being placed in the same category as a nurse, a healthcare professional. Is this logical? Is this reasonable?

All we’re trying to say is there’s a lot of unreasonableness in where we’ve reached because, as usual, everything that the Labour Party puts their hands on becomes murky, becomes nebulous. All we’re doing is we’re making it more reasonable; more clarity. I commend this bill to the House.

This is a five-minute split call.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I think the debate so far has highlighted the fact that the main speakers on the Government side are Carl Bates and Cameron Brewer—those long-time proponents of women’s rights and equal pay! And now we have Rima Nakhle, who doesn’t even understand what the basis of what pay equity is. I think that reflects the bill that we are debating right now, the bill that has no regulatory impact statement.

For a party—ACT—who is all over regulations and trying to have some “What is the change that we are trying to do to make sure that we have a clear understanding of why we are changing the law, and the impact that this will have, to know that it’s valued?”, there is no regulatory impact statement to understand what this bill will do in New Zealand. In the actual official documents, the entire section on human rights has been withheld. We’ll be challenging that, because I reckon the New Zealand public would really like to know what the human rights implications are for this bill.

We know, on this side of the House, that it detrimentally impacts women in the lowest-paid jobs. We have a Government that has the gall to say that they’re going for growth, that they’re actually putting more money in New Zealanders’ pockets. The truth is that they are taking it out of the most vulnerable, lowest-paid workers in New Zealand—those people who work long hours in carer roles, in administrative roles, and cleaning roles; those areas that get paid the least—because this Government is quite happy for them to clean their toilets and clean their floors and do all their dirty work, but they’re not prepared to pay them what they’re worth.

That is going to come back and bite this Government at the next election, because there is one thing that women are good at, and that’s being unified. All women in New Zealand are going to sit up and pay attention to what underhand business this Government is doing today under urgency, with no regulatory impact statement, withholding information on what it’s doing to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and no select committee process—no ability for New Zealanders to comment on taking away pay equity claims in New Zealand. Tonight in the House, 33 active pay equity claims are being written off with this bill, with no course for any woman, any person in New Zealand being able to have a say on that.

Those members opposite, particularly those women who have let other men step forward and try and argue that this is more robust, that this is going to provide more clarity, that we’re all suddenly going to be a hell of a lot better off with this great new invention that you’ve tabled at the last minute with no select committee process, that somehow this will give us the certainty that will drive us forward as a nation and make us more productive—by paying women less and holding them back, the very women that we rely upon to make our country work, to make sure our children are looked after, to make sure there’s food on the table, to make sure they have shoes when they go school—those are the women who put every last penny into making sure we have a country who cares. This sad, miserly, selfish Government will take the money out of the pockets of the women that keep our country working, that keep our country ticking over.

If I was sitting on that side of the House, I would put up Carl Bates and Cameron Brewer because I would be too ashamed to stand up and speak to such a disgraceful bill. There is no way this Government has the ability to stand up and say they are going for growth, that they are interested in productivity, and that they are putting more money in the pockets of New Zealanders, when the blatant truth today is that they are doing the exact opposite. They are looking to those who earn the very least and they are making their lives harder. In the same brief, they are lining the pockets of their rich mates. It is a sad day in New Zealand when we see you taking from those who work hard, who do not have enough to pay for bills, and you turn around and have a Budget that will reward those and find money where they could not account for it themselves. I do not commend this bill to the House. It is a sad day in New Zealand for women’s rights.

I vividly recall visiting rest homes in my electorate of Wigram and talking to rest home workers and carers who had received pay increases under pay equity. They told me stories of being able to afford the bus to travel to work for the first time. They told me stories of not having to walk home for 40 minutes at the end of a shift because they simply could not afford other forms of transport. They told me about the dignity of being able to supply their families and their kids with some treats from time to time. This is the difference that paying women workers their fair share makes to lives.

We have a disgraceful move from a Government, today, that is stripping away the rights of 33 groups of largely women workers to progress their pathway to dignity. That is what this Government is stripping away. We see a sea of suits sitting opposite us. I challenge every woman in the Government parties to come down, take a call, and explain to other women why they think it is their right to legislate away their pathway to dignity and to being valued what they are worth, because that is what the members opposite are doing today.

Make no bones about it; the Prime Minister said it on the tiles on the way into question time today. He talked about the money savings that are going to come from this legislative change. David Seymour was just about leaping with delight about the billions of dollars that his Minister had saved with this legislative change. Those dollars are being stolen out of the pockets of women across this country. They are not theoretical dollars. They are dollars that would allow women to be able to afford to take public transport to work or to get to work some other way than adding a 40 or 45 minute walk at the end of a hard shift.

We are talking about some of the women workers in this country that do the hardest graft day in and day out. They are the dollars that this Government and every member opposite is going to have to front up to those women across the country about and tell them why they thought it was OK to take those dollars out of their pockets and instead use it because they spent too large on tax breaks for landlords and in terms of putting subsidies in place for the tobacco industry.

So we cannot underestimate the injustice that is being done to women today. We’ve been told “It’s OK. We’re just putting in place a less complex system. It’s too difficult.” We might compare industries with industries that don’t make sense, but make no mistake, this is about saving money.

We heard the Prime Minister had to correct his statement at the end of question time because when asked whether they’d received advice on it, he said, “Oh no, it’s not about that.” But within less than an hour, the Prime Minister was having to backtrack on it because when Cabinet came to make this decision, we know that they received money about the savings. Every time we talk about those savings, I want every member in this House to reflect on where that money could have been, and that is in the pay packet and pockets of some of our lowest-paid women in this country that have been historically undervalued for their work.

Sometimes Opposition Governments do things we don’t like a little bit, but I remember being in this House and looking up at Kristine Bartlett’s face when we passed the pay equity legislation—the difference that we as a House and the National Party at the time who supported it could make to the lives of everyday women. Instead, we have a caucus full of National Party members and ACT and New Zealand First who have sold every low-paid woman worker in this country down the river today. This day will go down in history. This will be the day that women know that this is a Government that has turned their back on them, and most of their women MPs aren’t even in the House to acknowledge that.

Madam Speaker.

One more speech before you, Mr Xu-Nan.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, what on earth? I just have to say, what we’ve heard today is a little bit of Labour—I don’t know what actually, but I’m going to say: take a little bit of a story, twist it round, make it into a drama, and talk a load of nonsense. This bill is not about taking away the fight for pay gender equity. It’s not about that. This bill is about clearing up what is happening in this system. It is about making the system clearer and better—end of story. It is not about all the women of the world getting paid less—it’s not. That’s not what this is about. But if you listen to the rhetoric from the other side, that is what you will hear.

You’ve been sold a lemon as well, then, if you believe that.

Well, it might take a lemon to know a lemon. There you go.

What I would say is can I remind everyone that there are an enormous number of very good employers in this country out there paying women well. A lot of them are women; they do a great job. So let’s not just tarnish every employer in the country with this. We have a lot of women doing a great job, getting paid well. We are not giving up the fight for gender equity in pay.

What we are doing is returning the pay equity system to its intended purpose in 2017. Since then, it became too broad and needed to be brought back to a place where it was clearer, and it’s become difficult to tell recently if pay differences were due to sex-based discrimination or other labour market forces. So what we want to do is clear that up.

Read it like you mean it.

The rhetoric has already started. You’ve heard it—that women will be paid less as a result of this. What a load of nonsense that we’re throwing out pay equity. We are not doing that. I repeat, this is simply not true. The Government supports women, it supports gender equity, and it supports equal pay.

The National Party began this journey in 2017 to introduce the legislation, and we are not turning our back on our commitment to pay equity. We support this bill and commend it to the House.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan—and I’ll just say that this is a split call, too.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is incredibly concerning that we are seeing a bill of this nature being introduced under urgency with no preparation, no awareness, no select committee, and no way for the New Zealand public and the people of Aotearoa New Zealand to contribute on something that affects them in a significant way. It is shocking and appalling that this Government would like to take the form of an authoritarian Government and a dictatorship to allow something like this to go through without the proper democratic process—shameful! The Green Party will not support this bill, because it will make it more difficult for groups of women workers to raise pay equity claims, and the fact that you’re also halting all current claims—it is absolutely shocking.

This legislation was introduced by—our own—the Hon Julie Anne Genter, as the Minister for Women. It was widely supported, and it was also supported by the National Party when it was introduced. We saw people who stood up and said how much they wanted it and who also actually criticised people for not raising this early enough, and now you are turning your backs on the very thing that you agreed to because the National Party, at the end of the day, is pandering to their coalition partners. This is not something that is needed.

We hear members from the other side of the House talking about the fact that “Oh, women are not being paid less in the workplace.” We are seeing women being paid less in the workplace. In every scrutiny that we do—everything we do—when it comes to public services, we ask what their progress is towards pay equity, and you see all of them, consistently and shockingly, say that there is still a lack of pay equity. I can’t think of anyone before the select committee, and also in the portfolio that I’m involved with, who can actually confidently say that there is no gender pay gap in public services, and this is going to make it harder and harder for us to move towards that.

We did see, like I said, the support that we had when the legislation was first introduced. We have heard today from the people of Aotearoa outside Parliament expressing themselves because, again, that was the only opportunity that the New Zealand public had to be able to express themselves when it comes to this legislation, and I think that we are going to be taking their voice into the committee stage coming up later today because, again, with this bill, there’s no regulatory impact statement. There is nothing—there is no work, there’s no evidence.

Everything in this entire bill is vibes—they are hot takes. I don’t even know where the source of this information is coming from.

There is no evidence that supports that this legislation is needed in the first place, and we would love—love—to scrutinise and also ask questions of the Minister during the committee stage on every part of this bill because, again, we have not given the people of Aotearoa New Zealand the opportunity to express themselves through the select committee stage. That is disgraceful.

Finally, I want to say that in this week, this Sunday is Mother’s Day. Well, happy Mother’s Day to all of the mothers with this particular bill, which looks to further discriminate against women in the workplace. Despite the fact that they do similar work, comparable work, they are being paid at a lower rate. We know that it is happening, and we have seen other bills being introduced in the House that call for pay transparency, but those were also not supported by the governing parties.

So the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand will not support this bill, because it is badly put together. It will put women workers at more risk of lower pay, and we would love to ask the Minister some more questions during the committee stage.

This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill.

Members, the House is in committee on the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. We start with the debate on Part 1, which is clauses 4 to 49, “Amendments to Equal Pay Act 1972”, and the Schedule. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I wish it was a pleasure to take a call in this debate, but it is absolutely shocking to be in the position of being in a committee stage where the Government is looking at making significant changes repealing rights for women and the bill has only been available to us for less than a few hours. So absolutely shocking to be here.

I wanted to ask the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety why she decided to take away, through this legislation, the rights of women to be able to take equal pay claims. This is in relation to Part 1 because in Part 1 we have one of the most significant changes to the Equal Pay Act, as we know it, and that particular change is to change the workforce requirement to 70 percent. Now, we’ve heard many comments in this House around the fact that allegedly this bill, according to the Government members, is not taking away the rights of women and is not making it harder for them to take pay equity claims. I ask the Minister: how does she reconcile that with this specific clause which requires 70 percent of the workforce, which is a higher number than previously required, in order to take a pay equity claim? Does she not think—and if so, what evidence was provided to her—that a workforce of 60 percent or a workforce, indeed, of 50 percent or 50 to 60 percent would not be predominantly female?

The other thing that I want to know is that there is a requirement here that this has been—in clause 4(2)(b)(ii), that that “has been performed by a workforce described in [the immediately preceding paragraph] for at least 10 consecutive years immediately before the date on which the claim was raised”. Now, I cannot see a reason for the inclusion of these restrictions, apart from to solicit fewer pay equity claims in New Zealand, and thus fewer low-paid women are able to take pay equity claims, and thus fewer low-paid women receive recognition from being in female-dominated work that has been historically undervalued. I can see no other reason for that. I would like the Minister to elucidate, if—allegedly it is the case, which I do not believe for one second—this bill is allowing pay equity claims to go ahead, why has she put in those two criteria that objectively make this much harder? I, in fact, intend to table an amendment on this which would remove the requirement for 10 consecutive years.

So I want to know from the Minister: what advice did she receive on that and what is the purpose of these two clauses which, on any objective basis, from any ideological perspective, make it harder for low-paid women in female-dominated work to take pay equity claims? I think I know the answer to that, but I’m interested in the Minister’s response to that. I think the answer is the reason they want to make it harder is because they don’t want to pay out pay equity claims, and they want to have that money—that was set aside for low-paid women who deserve to be paid what they’re worth—available to use for other matters which are not low-paid work of female employees.

I want to ask the Minister, because we haven’t had a select committee stage to be able to hear from members of the public on this bill, what does she say to a young mother that I met last week at the Maranga Ake protests who is a care and support worker who was seven months pregnant and is on the minimum wage? I would want to ask the Minister: what does she say to that woman who is on the minimum wage, who was speaking at that protest about how important it is for her to have her pay recognised as part of the equal pay claim that she’s a part of? What does she say to her when, today, she is extinguishing that settlement and she is not allowing that to go ahead on the same basis? Only making that much harder and much less likely that that young mother, about to have a baby, on the minimum wage, is going to receive any pay equity settlement anywhere in the near future for her work. So what does the Minister say to that woman and many other people who have not had the opportunity to provide submissions to a select committee in this process?

Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank the member Camilla Belich for her contribution. One thing I do want to make clear right from the start is that we are not taking away a pay equity regime. We still maintain as a Government that we wish to not see discrimination based on sex. That is why the pay equity system will still remain in place.

However, there are some changes to be made, and the member touches on two: we are putting in place a threshold of 70 percent female-dominated occupation, and also that in order to take a claim you’d need to have 10 years of being at 70 percent female domination in the workplace. This change provides greater confidence that the pay equity process is identifying situations where there may be sex-based differences in the pay of work predominantly performed by women. What we’ve seen under the previous regime’s pay equity system is that there has been a muddying of the waters between labour market forces, other things like inflation and Consumers Price Index, and some sort of conflation of collective agreements and pay equity and systematic discrimination based on sex.

What we are aiming to do here is make a robust, workable bill that goes back to the original intention of pay equity: that it is genuinely about sex-based discrimination. Tightening that threshold will make sure that it is better to prove genuine sex-based discrimination.

What I would say to the young mother—and I thank you for bringing this example—is I very much thank her for the work that she is doing. Caring and supporting people who need it is a wonderful thing to do with your life. What we want to ensure is that for everybody who wishes not to see discrimination for the work that they do based on their sex, they can genuinely say that the claim that they have received is to extinguish sex-based discrimination, and that is what this does. This Government is committed to extinguishing that sex-based discrimination in pay equity.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have spent my afternoon—since I have found out about this particular bill going through—going through the different clauses of this bill. So before I ask my first question of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, I just want to outline how I intend my prosecution at this stage—the committee of the whole House—to proceed and then I will ask the Minister my first question.

So what I’ve done is I’ve gone through the bill itself and gone through the different clauses and highlighted what I see are the most important parts to the different clauses, and then I have some questions for the Minister in the different clauses. Now, along the way, I know that I have some Amendment Papers that I want to talk to, but I know a lot of my colleagues here have Amendment Papers that they will want to talk to as well. So that’s what we have done. The reason that I’ve done it that particular way is because we haven’t had the select committee process.

I have to say that since this was announced, I haven’t seen my email blow up like I’ve seen it in the last few hours. That’s from people who are incredibly disgruntled around the process that has happened here. So some of the questions that I am going to ask are on behalf of people who would have normally come in to submit to that select committee process.

First off, I want to look at clause 4, and my colleague Camilla Belich did talk a bit about clause 4, because that is the clause that does talk about the relevant work that is performed by the workforce that is at least 70 percent female, so it’s increased that threshold. But it also talks about the work that has been performed by a workforce of that kind for at least 10 consecutive years before a claim is raised. I have some real concerns around this. I feel like this is fundamental to the attack that was talked about in the first and second readings of this bill, around that of women’s rights and workers’ rights. As my colleague said, “Women that are in workforces that have 60 percent, does that not count as a female-dominated workforce anymore? Obviously it is.”

So my first question puts both of those areas together, the percentage of women in the workforce and also the consecutive years. That question is around: what happens to a workforce that is performed by 65 percent of women for nine years that has pay equity concerns in it?

Now, this is the ridiculous situation we have here. Obviously, all of us in this Chamber would say there are concerns around that that need to be addressed—65 percent female-dominated workforces have been an issue for nine years with pay equity concerns. Do they not deserve a path to pay equity? Surely the answer isn’t to say, “Well, no, because they’re 5 percent short of that 70 percent threshold.”, or, “No, they have to wait a year.” To me that seems ridiculous, Minister, and is that what you were aiming for, to make it so hard and so difficult to raise a claim that those workforces—and they will exist—would not have a pathway to a pay equity process?

It’s a very serious question that came through from a number of people today to me very, very concerned about the changes that have been made. They see themselves in a female-dominated workforce but suddenly they’re looking at this legislation and not seeing a place for themselves and seeing themselves marginalised even further. If that’s what you meant, Minister, then that is a massive concern for this country and an absolute change to labour law of the likes we haven’t seen for many, many years.

I thank the member the Hon Jan Tinetti for her contribution. There’s been a number of points made within her contribution about time periods and the threshold moving from 60 percent to 70 percent for female-dominated occupation. One thing I want to make clear is that part of the reason why we have made these changes is that we are moving away from having arguable claims, to claims that have merit, which means that there must be an evidential basis for sex-based discrimination. I think that’s really important, because to make a claim—which is a very serious claim—that you’ve been discriminated against on the grounds of your sex is quite serious. So there needs to be a justification for this claim. What we’re saying is that there needs to be evidence that you work in a predominantly female workforce for 70 percent, that there needs to be a time period in which to justify or find a basis of evidence that you have been discriminated based on your sex.

Part of what we’ve done here is we’ve also moved from having it as just a historic sex-based undervaluation, to suggesting that in order to bring a claim, you need to have historic sex-based undervaluation and current sex-based undervaluation. That’s where this threshold for having 10 years makes sense, because if there is a justification and an evidential basis for sex-based discrimination, that needs to be able to be proved over a period of time, which means there is a time frame.

In terms of the 60 percent moving to 70 percent, there is always going to be arguments of where that threshold should be met. The National Party’s original intention when they introduced the law had a threshold of, I believe, 66 percent, which was lowered by the Labour Government down to 60 percent. It is also the case that having a 70 percent threshold is not out of alignment with what we’ve seen internationally. If you look at Manitoba, Canada, they also have a 70 percent threshold for sex-based discrimination.

So this will make it a more clear, a more robust, and a more workable regime. But, more importantly, it will actually become easier to justify, to find evidence, and to make a basis for sex-based discrimination.

I’d like to ask a very quick follow-up question to that. I didn’t really get an understanding there from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety’s answer about the time frame—the 10-year time frame. There was a lot of talk about the percentage. So I’d like that to be addressed. But I want to know: as a Minister, you get lots of advice. What other options were presented to you, Minister, and what were your reasonings for going with the 70 percent that you did? I’m not convinced from what you’ve said, because I don’t know what else—we haven’t seen what else was presented to you. So I think it’s only fair that we have an understanding of, and the people out there have an understanding of, the options that you were presented with and why you chose not to go with those options.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to first pick up some of the questions that have already been asked, and this is with regards to clause 4, subclause (2), in terms of the definition. But I just want to check: in terms of the “predominantly performed by female employees”, what the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety has done is added a second part of the requirement where both must be met, which means 70 percent and 10 years.

I would also like to, I guess, push back on the Minister’s response that there are no clear guidelines, where the current section in the legislation which is section 13F of the equal payment Act actually does have a definitions framework of how they work because, again, what we are seeing is that we shouldn’t be using a blunt tool of 10 years. That’s very restrictive whereas there are various mechanisms in the existing legislation that already allow for that.

But I want to ask the Minister: what other evidence has she been presented with when determining the increase to 70 percent? The Minister made reference to Manitoba, Canada. That’s one example, one area. The world is kind of big; what other regions has she explore in terms of that, rather than just one particular area? I also wanted to check: what is the evidence for having 10 years? Because, again, we have no regulatory impact statement—there is no RIS. We have no idea what has been presented.

So, I wanted to check in also then with the Minister on this point. Two things: number one is considering other bills—again, no legislation operates in a silo—some of the bills that are also introduced make it easier for employers to fire employees. What are the chances of making changes in year 10 to reset the timer, so in that way it takes another nine years, 10 years, before this claim can be made again, is my first question. What are the risks around if employers are able to fire employees easily and you have an incredibly high threshold at 70 percent for you to fire or to make voluntary redundancy or whatever mechanism that is used to bring it down below 70 percent to say, “Oh look, it is no longer 70 percent anymore, it is 68 and 69.” Therefore, you no longer meet the requirement for this claim. “But then after two years we’ll bring it back up.” So what are some of the risks for this and have those scenarios been considered?

So those are the first questions I would like to ask the Minister for clause 4. Actually, I’m going to stop there because there are quite a few questions there, but there are going to be further questions I would like to address under the Purpose section. But I think if the Minister could respond: What other evidence has she been presented with other than Manitoba, Canada? Why has she decided to use “and” in (b)(i) and (ii)—that both criteria must be met and not just one of them? What are the risks of employers using various manipulation tactics to reset the timer on that? Because, again, this is a blunt tool that the Minister has just introduced. Finally, when determining that new definition of “predominantly performed by female employees”, what employee organisations, workers’ organisations, and unions has the Minister consulted with when determining that?

There’s a lot in those contributions, so I’ll just stick to one that I have heard from both sides of those parties, which is about the 10-year time frame and looking for more information. Look, the 10year time frame provides greater confidence that any differences in remuneration are due to sex-based discrimination rather than any differences that may present due to labour market conditions or the workforces.

The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee will resume at 7.30.

Members, the committee is resumed. When we rose for the dinner break, we were debating Part 1. Once again, the question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve got some questions about some of the parts of the proposal which seem to go utterly against the intentions of something like the ACT Party. My understanding is that in that party, there is a value given to a freedom to contract, and yet here we seem to have a whole lot of agreements that have been settled by people and they have gone through a process that would’ve been really expensive and would’ve taken a lot of effort and it would’ve been something that workers would’ve relied upon. We’re talking about people who can’t necessarily afford a great deal, because the nature of the problem is that they’ve been underpaid. They’ve done all that work, they’ve come to an agreement, and my understanding is that the proposal put forward by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is to jettison all that work, to basically break those contracts and agreements by overriding them in this piece of legislation.

My understanding is also that the Minister proposes to go on and say, “In these agreements that you make in the future, you will not be able to put a clause in the agreement which says, ‘We’ll settle this now, but we’ll review it as time goes on so you never fall behind again.’ ” Now, that, to me, seems like the most sensible thing you could possibly do as an employer. A good-faith employer says, “We’re not going to let this happen to half or more of our workforce again—never again, because, actually, people not being paid a decent amount is hurting them and it’s unjust, and we are not that kind of employer.” By making those agreements for regular review, that’s what they’re doing, and yet here I understand the proposal is that we’re not going to do that anymore. We’re not going to allow people even the freedom to make those kinds of decisions themselves about how they will manage a problem that’s ingrained in our society, that we’ve recognised as ingrained.

I also wanted to ask the Minister about the history of this, because, again, the same issue is in play, I think, of understanding in the context why this is so devastating for people. I had a mother who worked as a teacher in the 1960s. She was paid a quarter what the male standing next to her was being paid for the same job because she was paid as a single person and the male was assumed to have a family of four, and the rate was set to actually be for the family of four. So along come the 1970s, where my mother has worked her socks off and not been paid; there is a piece of legislation put in place which says you must be paid equally. Nobody really does anything—don’t notice, don’t actually act on that for quite some time. Then someone comes along with the bright idea of actually enforcing something in the law. They hard-won it—they absolutely hard-won it.

We come along as a legislature and we say, “Right, we are going to look at this again. We’re going to make sure this works in a different way—trust us. Trust us—this is what we’re doing today. We’re going to compromise your rights. We’re not going to let you all just go through the courts and make your decisions and get the court to look at this objectively and decide if you’ve been paid the right amount. But trust us: we’re going to put in place a formula that works for you and works for us because it was already a compromise.” My understanding today, Minister, is what you are doing is compromising on a compromise on a compromise, and you are again eroding the justice—sorry, Madam Chair; the Minister and the Government are again looking at eroding a fraction of the rights of the people involved here.

So I would like to know: was there any kind of historical analysis of the loss that actually accrued to the people whose claims are now being compromised again? Was there any advice given to the Minister of the actual amount of money that those people are out of pocket because they’ve been treated badly over years and years? And was there any analysis of what that did to the rest of us, who have to pick up the pieces, when women cannot save enough money for their retirement, because we know the stats—

The member’s time has expired.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just before the dinner break—and I am sure you know this, but I just want to remind people—I’d asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety a question around clause 4 and around the advice that was given that led to the 70 percent. What I really wanted to know was what other advice—because, as a Minister, you do get alternative advice. What was the alternative advice that was given, and why didn’t the Minister go with that? The reason I bring this back up is that we didn’t get an answer to that. Because we have no idea what advice was given to the Minister, I have actually written a tabled amendment in my name, to clause 4, that goes back to the 60 percent.

When we had that 60 percent threshold, we were successful in getting pay equity claims through, which tells me, in the absence of knowing the advice that the Minister saw, that things were working in this space, and are working. It reeks of ill winds, really, that the Minister has changed this purely—and I want to be convinced here otherwise—as a cost-saving measure, particularly when I see the comments that have been made today in the media, and I would think quite unfortunate comments for the Minister, on behalf of the Minister, saying this was all about saving billions of dollars. So I would really like to know what alternative advice was given to the Minister, other than that 70 percent threshold, and why did she not choose to go with that?

As I said, in the absence of that, I think we should be staying with the 60 percent, because we know that it has been successful to date. We know that we have seen successful claims go through. And I think, when you look at the successful claims of support staff in schools, of science technicians in schools, all of those claims that came through, we saw a change in those workforces. We saw that predominantly female workforce change for the better because of those successful pay equity claims. My concern is that raising it to 70 percent makes it much, much more difficult. I can’t remember the place—where was the place that the Minister had said—

Manitoba.

In Canada—Manitoba. That’s right. All we’ve been told is that they have it in Manitoba, in Canada, and I just don’t think that’s a strong enough case for the 70 percent. So, please, I really do want an answer as to why we haven’t stuck with the 60 percent or other alternative percentages that the Minister would have got from her officials.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I also want to echo the sentiment of the previous speaker, the Hon Jan Tinetti. We did ask a number of questions to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety before the dinner break and did not receive an answer other than it would “give confidence”. I guess, from that, I want to ask the Minister: confidence for whom? It’s certainly not for the workers, who were caught by surprise by this particular piece of legislation. So if the Minister wouldn’t mind elucidating to the committee, what does she mean by confidence?

But just to remind the Minister again of the questions that we’re asking and the fact that we are having to ask these questions because there’s no information and no context for this bill and no analysis that we know of that’s been done. So we really need to know from the Minister what analysis has been done for this.

So again, going back to my questions for clause 4(2), I asked the Minister questions around risk and around cost-benefit analysis, both in terms of the 70 percent threshold but also in terms of the 10 consecutive years. What confidence does she have that employers and corporates aren’t going to manipulate the legislation in a way that will always not quite meet the threshold on year nine, for example? In year 10, they change the system a bit. Is the system going to be reset? It says 10 consecutive years, which means that a company could reasonably change the system in year 10 to reset the 10 consecutive years for them to start again from year one the next year, and there’s nothing that employees can do about it. I can see the Minister smiling, but at the same time, I don’t know. I genuinely don’t know if that is something that has been considered because that could, in all likelihood, like anything else, be a scenario that could eventuate. So could the Minister respond if that has been considered or if any other analysis has been done from a risk perspective?

I also asked the Minister who she consulted in terms of this particular legislation. Has she consulted with any workers’ organisations or unions on this legislation before introducing it to the House? And like the previous speaker, the Hon Jan Tinetti, has also mentioned, what other areas has she modelled this legislation on other than Manitoba, Canada? But that’s one part of my question.

I would like to ask a few questions, and this is more broadly around clause 6, under “Purpose”. Now, the purpose section has also fundamentally changed from the current purpose of the existing legislation, but I want to pick up on a few keywords in this new purpose section, and particularly I want to pick up on what the Minister means by “process”. The current definition is actually very clear in terms of the fact that there needs to be a simple process, whereas there’s nothing in here, there’s no adjective that gives me confidence that this process isn’t going to be increasing the blue tape and yellow tape of this Government and is going to make it a really complex and arduous process for people to claim pay equity or gender-based pay equity. I also wanted to check with the Minister—in light of the definition in replacement section 2B, inserted by clause 5—has she received any legal advice on whether the purpose section can potentially override the definition of clause 4(2) when it comes to the definition of “systemic” and “predominantly”? Again, one of the things that we have been talking about is the fact that the “systemic” has been presumed to mean 10 consecutive years and “predominantly” has been presumed to mean 70 percent, but has that been checked by legal to also suggest that people cannot challenge it? As the Minister would understand from statutory interpretation, the purpose may override other definitions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. There are a few things that I was going to say I find confusing about this piece of legislation, but I’m not personally confused. I worked for an organisation that championed pay equity and spent an awful lot of time working with comparators, working our way through a process that was very clearly laid out and was achievable at the end. But there’s something about what the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety has responded to in questions so far that doesn’t quite sit well with me. For those paying attention at home, or for those who have been listening to the two or three contributions that the Minister has made to date, she’s talked about sex-based discrimination. She said things like “if you feel you’ve been discriminated in your workplace”. It kind of reeks of this classic libertarian kind of concept of the unit of analysis being the individual, and that is completely at odds with what the pay equity legislation was designed to do, because it was about rectifying historical undervaluation of what tends to be woman’s work but is certainly not exclusively woman’s work.

If we look back at the history of that—suffice to say, a history lesson—there were two types of work in our economy, historically: the productive work that tended to be done by men and was therefore valued as such and paid accordingly, and reproductive work that tended almost exclusively to be done by women. Over the years, that work moved into types of occupations like nursing and caring and all of those things where women may have worked outside the home but were still involved in what was considered reproductive work, caring work. Throughout history, throughout the world, those forms of activity, those forms of genuine work, have always been undervalued. Hence the fact that in the same organisation in the 1960s or the 1970s, as Helen White has previously pointed out, two people could do the same work and if one was a man they would receive what was called a family wage, whilst the woman would receive tokenism, essentially, because she didn’t “need” to be paid. It’s the same sort of argument we hear when we talk about youth rates from this Government.

But as a modern society, as a contemporary society, we’re supposed to redress that. Those are antiquated, old-fashioned ideas. It’s taken years to try and address that. That’s why some perfectly, incredibly valuable work that’s skilled and has autonomy, that may have budget responsibilities, that may have life-and-death responsibilities, is still underpaid compared to what has been traditionally male-dominated work that doesn’t have near as much responsibility, or, arguably, doesn’t necessarily add as much value—you know, even if we want to be cut and dry about it in a productive economic sense.

So when the Minister talks about this as if it’s some sort of contemporary problem—going forward, she wants to see this rectified to make it easier—she’s completely denying and completely overshadowing the fact that we’ve still got a lot of work to do to even the playing field and to fix up that which has not been appropriately sorted. So to change the rules and to make the criteria so much more strict—so much more not even very well-thought-out or practical solutions to a problem—just defies belief, really.

Thinking about that and taking that into a contextual sort of background, I have several questions for the Minister. The first one, though, is that we have 33 current pay equity claims, so by virtue of the fact that we haven’t been through a select committee process and we don’t have a regulatory impact statement, can the Minister take us through all of those 33 existing cases? Can she talk us through the analysis and the advice that she’s been given on each of those, individually—about what the costs to the Government are, what savings the Government will make what workers and people—not just women but men who are now currently working in traditionally women-dominated fields, who are also getting paid an undervalued wage? I want to know more details about that, because without a proper process we’re flying blind, and it’s up to the Minister to provide that information, tonight.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to go through a few of the questions that we’ve had so far. Firstly, in response to the member Helen White, about why the Government is overriding settlements that have been made, I want to make it very clear to anybody listening that that is not what the Government is doing. Settlements that have been made are still valid. It is only the review clause that is no longer enforceable, and then the follow-on question is: why are we not allowing those review clauses? In many of these settlements, the short review period made it difficult to determine whether any remuneration differences were actually due to pay equity issues having re-emerged in such short time frames or, simply, too short-term labour market dynamics. There’s also the case that aligning the timing of reviews with collective-bargaining rounds risked conflating pay equity and collective-bargaining issues. They are distinct issues, and they address different issues, which is why we believe in having a 10-year review date.

We have been asked, also by Helen White, about the historical analysis of what women will be losing and why we’re compromising the system. It’s not the case. There is always going to be those settled claims—they’ll continue to be settled. There’s still a process for raising and resolving pay equity issues. The current settlements stand; they don’t lose any gains. But we are making changes to ensure that the pay equity process is workable and sustainable going forward, and that will be a better process, for all parties, to assess whether there is sex-based undervaluation when they’re working through that claim.

To the member Jan Tinetti, speaking to her tabled amendment, the changes that we proposed in the bill provide greater confidence that the process is identifying situations where sex-based differences in remuneration exist and remain. Of course, there is always going to be people who would want to change the threshold of 70 percent or 60 percent or 50 percent, 40 percent—you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere, and I believe that having the higher threshold of 70 percent makes us have greater confidence that the analysis that we’re seeing is based on genuine sex-based undervaluation. It makes sense that the higher the threshold is, the more likely it is based on genuine sex-based discrimination.

We’ve been asked, by the member Lawrence Xu-Nan, what evidence we have for changing the 70 percent threshold and requiring the 10 years. Look, I have wanted to make it clear—with the claims—that they can only be raised when there is sex-based discrimination, rather than differences in labour market conditions. I think those two changes to the thresholds go hand in hand to achieve better outcomes and more confidence in the pay equity system overall, that they are focusing on genuine sex-based discrimination rather than labour market conditions. And that’s going to be my same answer to that same question if we get it throughout the night.

There is also a question on risks of employers attempting to game the system for the new requirements. There is still an obligation under the law for good faith to apply, and dispute-resolution processes are available to all parties. If a union or an employee disagrees with a decision on whether or not the requirements are met, that’s not changing. There is also a question on who was, ultimately, consulted. I think that’s also quite clear today: that we have needed to move quickly to make the changes to the Act to ensure that it is workable and sustainable.

There is another question as to who this is giving confidence to, and I think that the answer to that is very clear: it gives confidence to people bringing a claim. It’s for employers, unions, and employees. We’ve also got a question about which other countries I have looked into, in comparison to other jurisdictions, rather than just focusing on Manitoba. New Zealand’s pay equity system is actually quite unique in terms of international comparisons. The UK and Ireland don’t allow multi-employer claims. They also don’t allow any claims to be made outside of a person’s or the claimant’s workforce—so we are very unique in that regard. Australia does allow multi-employer claims, but they are usually progressed through a different system—again, that we don’t have in New Zealand—which is the awards system. So it is actually quite difficult to compare ourselves internationally to what other jurisdictions do.

Thank you, I’m gratified for that. And just aware that this bill has just been foisted on us recently, so I’m wanting to make some relatively general comments, but largely around process. And the first thing I want to know from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is: where is the Attorney-General’s report? Because the departmental disclosure statement, under the heading “Consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act”, indicates that there has been an assessment of the bill and whether it’s consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. So that advice has been provided to the Attorney-General.

Now, if you’re going to introduce a bill with an hour’s notice, then we should be seeing on the Table the advice on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. And it is shameful that the advice exists and yet it has not been tabled. I want to know what the expert advice of the Attorney-General and the Minister of Justice is on this, particularly because there are changes to offences in this piece of legislation and there are retrospective provisions.

Now, you are a member of a party which prides itself, or purports to pride itself on, its adherence to the rule of law. And, frankly, to come to this House in this kind of haphazard way is absolutely contrary to the rule of law, particularly when you’re introducing retrospective provisions. I am appalled to see, when your leader is pushing a regulatory standards framework which talks about consultation, that there has been no Treaty analysis done whatsoever. It says here in the disclosure statement, “Due to ministerial time constraints”—the Hon Brooke van Velden was busy—“no analysis on whether the bill is consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi has been done.” Why not? Because we know many of our lowest-paid workers are Māori, and in terms of doing right by Māori and ensuring that they are paid appropriately—our wahine Māori are directly affected by this bill and the Treaty analysis was absolutely necessary.

I also note towards the end of the disclosure statement that this bill is retrospective, that is to say that under urgency—and to be perfectly honest, on this side of the Chamber, we don’t understand why it’s so desperately urgent—you are introducing a retrospective aspect, in particular—

The Chair is not introducing it.

Pardon?

The Chair is not introducing that.

Sorry, Madam Chair. The Minister is introducing a bill with a retrospective aspect. In particular, there are clauses in contractual agreements which are being struck down, namely review clauses. These are clauses which parties in many cases have reached by agreement. They have negotiated these review agreements—sanctity of contract is something that the ACT Party talks about all of the time, and yet here they are legislating away contracts that have been struck between the parties. The process here is appalling and I want to know why the Minister thinks it’s appropriate to retrospectively change contractual agreements.

And I guess the other thing in terms of that disclosure statement is: why was the Ministry of Justice not consulted around the criminal provisions? This is not a difficult thing to do. It is not difficult when developing policy—I see other ministries: the Public Service Commission was consulted, Health New Zealand was consulted, the Ministry of Education was consulted, Treasury was consulted. But when you are changing criminal offences, it is absolutely appropriate and necessary to take the advice of the specialist ministry, which is the Ministry of Justice. Clause 3.4.1 of the disclosure statement says, “No”, we didn’t consult the Ministry of Justice about those offences.

And then there’s this: in terms of regulatory quality, the standard of our legislation, rule number one, which David Seymour and his Ministry for Regulation trumpets, is consult with the people affected. Who was consulted? Why are you so rushed that you didn’t consult the people affected by this? We know that that Minister is allergic to unions, but why did you not talk to the Council of Trade Unions? Why did you not talk to the groups of workers who are currently negotiating these agreements? How is this good process? How can we pretend that legislation under urgency, with that shabby process, has any quality whatsoever?

Madam Chair, thank you. I do also have some questions to ask around the process. It’s a little hard to pin it to a particular clause in the bill, but it is important that we discuss this, given that we didn’t have a select committee process.

Now, in terms of the papers that were available to us when the bill was tabled, as the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety was beginning her speech introducing the bill this afternoon—so, literally, we couldn’t get our hands on the bill until after the Minister had started talking. But amongst them, we were able to come across this, or maybe I got it from a colleague. It’s the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s (MBIE’s) paper Reviewing policy settings, from March 2025—which is a pretty vague title, isn’t it? But it is all about this bill, and, in particular, it’s the Cabinet paper, or the MBIE paper, on the bill, and, in particular, I think we need to talk about the financial recommendations. We need to understand the costs and benefits of this bill that the Minister is bringing to us today, and it turns out that this particular report is just full of great big grey redacted paragraphs.

So I want to know what advice—now, obviously, the Minister is not going to tell us exactly what the advice was, because it’s all redacted. But I want to know what sources of advice the Minister asked for and consulted in terms of looking at the financial implications of this bill. We already know that the Prime Minister has said that it’s going to save billions of dollars for the Government, so that’s an interesting little bit of analysis we got from the Prime Minister and it’s a shame that we haven’t had any more elaboration on that yet. But in terms of the financial recommendations in the financial analysis, I want to know what financial analysis was done for the impact on workers. How much do we think that workers’ wages are going to be affected by this bill?

We need to know whether perhaps some anticipated pay rises will now be foregone because of this bill. In particular, I’m thinking of teachers, teacher-aides, and anyone who works in that space where there is a claim that is now being set aside and just abandoned. What’s the impact on their future income?

So that’s the first part of that question, and it’s the direct financial implications for the workers who are affected by this bill. How much are they going to lose out of their back pockets? Of course, we’re talking about future pay rises that will no longer occur now, but they had a reasonable prospect of getting pay rises because of the pay equity legislation and their claims. How much are they losing now because those claims have just been set aside? So that’s the first question.

But there is some other really interesting information around in terms of wages for women, and I want to know whether the Minister has taken this into account, as well. I have here a briefing paper from the Institute for Women’s Policy Research. It’s an economic analysis of what happens when women’s wages are increased, and the particular paper is entitled The Impact of Equal Pay on Poverty and the Economy. Very roughly—very roughly—what it shows is that increasing women’s wages for every—I think it was an 8 percent increase. No, it was a 4 percent increase in women’s wages—let me see if I can get the numbers exactly right. Providing equal pay to women cuts family poverty “in half,”—now, this is US numbers, and it might be different in New Zealand—“falling from 8.0 percent to 3.8 percent.” So that’s over half in terms of family poverty—there was a cut of over half in family poverty when women get equal pay.

So I want to know in terms of the financial analysis that has been so blocked out in this report not just the impact on the workers but the impact on poverty in New Zealand. We know that pay equity tends to go to reward the lowest-paid workers. We know that that is money that would have flowed through to families. What is the impact in there? Did the Minister get advice on that as to how workers and their dependants, and broader issues like family policy are affected by the changes that she is bringing into effect?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish to take the time to answer a few of the questions received so far.

In response to Lawrence Xu-Nan, who asked about the legal advice I’d received through this process, any legal advice I receive is legally privileged, as is normal.

To Dr Tracey McLellan, asking about what analysis has been done on the costs or savings associated with the current claims and the changes to this law, this is Budget-sensitive information, which I cannot disclose. What I can say, though, is that pay equity claims have been concentrated in the public sector, and costs to the Crown have become significant. My policy changes will have a significant reduction in costs to the Crown.

There has been a question from, I believe, Dr Duncan Webb about the Attorney-General’s advice. I understand that the advice has actually been published on the Ministry of Justice website, as is normal. I understand it has been up for a little while this evening.

“Why has there been no Treaty analysis?” also asked Dr Duncan Webb. My understanding is that an improved pay equity system will still be available under this law, and I consider that it is consistent. Also from Dr Duncan Webb, there have been concerns about the retrospective impact of the bill. I consider that it’s important that all of the claimants are on the same playing field, rather than allowing for two systems to operate at the same time.

There is only, really, one element of the amendment Act that is retrospective. It is that the review clauses in existing settlements and employment agreements will become unenforceable. This is because the short three-year time frame in the review cycle does make it quite difficult to determine whether any differences in pay are due to pay equity issues having re-emerged over a short time frame or whether they are to short-term changes in the labour market.

I’ve also got another question here from Dr Duncan Webb, on why we didn’t consult Justice on changes in the penalties. The penalties in the Act are civil penalties, not criminal, and the new penalties are consistent with the existing penalties.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. This is my first contribution in the committee of the whole House stage. I have a series of questions for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety that I’m hoping she’ll be able to answer, so rather than giving it as a speech, I’d like to just be able to put the question: I’ve seen a lot of reporting on the 33 claims that will be discontinued by this legislation but I haven’t seen a list of the 33 claims and which workers are involved in those. Does the Minister have such a list of the 33 parties who are the claims and who it affects? If so, can she share it with the committee?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m not wanting to step on what the previous member, the Hon Julie Anne Genter, was just asking; if the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety wants to answer, I think the previous member was wanting an exchange. I don’t have my glasses on, so I can’t quite see what the Minister’s face is doing—which is a terrible ageing thing! Would the Minister like to have the exchange with the previous member? Yep, I’ll come back later. Thank you.

I thank the Hon Julie Anne Genter for the question. Look, I don’t have the specific 33 claims in front of me at this stage, but I’m sure you can google a few and find them.

I will take the time also to answer Dr Deborah Russell. What financial impact will there be on workers? Look, I think it’s really important for us here not to conflate the two issues of collective bargaining and pay equity. When we’re talking about wages that people earn for the work that they are doing and whether or not that’s keeping up with the cost of living, day to day, year to year, with inflation, those issues should be addressed through collective bargaining and through settlements with employees through that avenue. The pay equity system is not about that. It is about sex-based discrimination of a historic and current nature. That is a very different question than to whether or not people’s wages year to year keep up with inflation.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for that. Always good to have those interactions between questioners and Ministers in a committee stage. I’ve got a couple of fairly short questions that I would like to put to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. The first one is in clause 6. There’s a replacement section 13A, which is the new purpose. This is really just a drafting question that I have for the Minister. So it’s a replacement purpose for this part of the primary legislation—of the Act. It’s gone from being a purpose that is to facilitate claims to one that is “The purpose of this Part is to provide a process that facilitates the resolution of pay equity claims”.

So the question is: is that language purposeful? Is it on purpose that it’s important now that there’s some sort of policy change that what this part of the Act is doing is all about process, rather than the final result, if that’s why the drafting has changed? Because it did used to say that it was to facilitate—“(a) setting a low threshold to raise a claim”, and some more words, and “providing a simple and accessible process to progress a pay equity claim.”

I note why this caught my attention in particular is because in the recently passed Fast-track Approvals Act, the purpose of that Act, at section 3 of that Act, “is to facilitate the delivery of … projects”. And when the Fast-track Approvals Bill was going through the House, there was this word “process” in that purpose clause. Now, this piece of legislation is doing the exact opposite of that fast-track in terms of the purpose clause didn’t used to be all about process, it used to be about an outcome, and now it’s becoming about the process. So that’s my question—really a legislative drafting question—for the Minister.

Next question, moving on to clause 11, which replaces section 13F. It’s the “Meaning of has merit”. So “(1) A pay equity claim has merit if”—all these different factors. And you cross the page, and at subclause (2) there is “The reasons for historical undervaluation of work … are as follows:”, and there’s a list at subclause (2). What I’m interested in is at paragraph (d)(ii). That is that “(d) the nature of the work requires an employee to use skills or qualities that have been—(ii) regarded as not requiring monetary compensation.” It’s this phrase “regarded as not requiring monetary compensation” that I am interested in. I’m interested in this because that seems like quite a binary statement that something has never required monetary compensation.

I understand that in the context of the historical factors and how women’s work has been seen, it might be that it hasn’t been valued as much as other work, but there’s still been some sort of monetary compensation. So it might be that cleaners have been undervalued and many people might say, “Well, people do cleaning in their own households so it hasn’t, perhaps, required much monetary compensation.”—but rather than no monetary compensation. This seems like a higher threshold than is necessary, given the policy explanations that we’ve had during this debate so far. So could that subclause (2)(d)(ii) be regarded as not requiring very much monetary compensation or regarded as low value in terms of monetary compensation, or something to that effect, is my second question, and I’ll leave those two questions there.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for allowing me to take this call. What I want to cover now is just, perhaps, to carry on from my colleague Dr Duncan Webb’s questions around process. So, Madam Chair, you will note that the bill in front of us has two parts, and the Schedule is part of Part 1, and then Part 2 which is much smaller, and then, obviously, we have the title and commencement section. So there are relatively few parts for a bill of this magnitude. We have, as far as I can ascertain, only covered a few of the first initial clauses in the first part of this. I do have a lot of comments, and I know that other colleagues do as well, to make on Part 1, which is the substantive part. I also have nine tabled amendments in Part 1 and the Schedule, which I am hoping to be able to speak to as well.

But I also wanted to refer you to the Speakers’ ruling 125/8, which, essentially, allows—and this is what I’m intending to do in this call—to have wider questions in the instance that—and this previous example that’s in the Speakers’ ruling was urgency when there hasn’t been a select committee. So we’ve got questions for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety that are relevant to the bill, of course—because otherwise it would be out of order—but may take into a few different sections, which I understand is permissible under this Speakers’ ruling. So that’s just flagging to you that it’s my intention to make some wider comments; it doesn’t mean I don’t have specific comments, but I do have some bigger questions initially.

Also, we have been somewhat inundated with emails, following the surprise tabling of this bill, from people who would have commented and submitted to select committees but have been unable to do so. So, obviously, we would be quite keen to highlight some of those. I will do, if I have time, one of those emails today on this.

But the question that I first wanted to ask the Minister, overall, is that I have seen, reported in the media, comments that have been made by the Hon David Seymour congratulating the Minister on this bill, and saying that she has saved the Budget and would save the Government billions. I wanted to ask the Minister to reflect on that statement and ask if she had any response to that, because, from reading that, I would say that it would be most New Zealanders’ perception that the reason that the Minister is implementing this bill is to do exactly what David Seymour has suggested, which is to save the Budget and also to save billions. So we have had some questions around the advice that the Minister has received around the savings of the 33 claims. I also understand that we are also waiting for the Minister to go through those 33 claims as well. I’d note from my own research that there are around three claims which are already settled. A question for the Minister is: how many of those claims have review clauses that will now not be able to be utilised because of the retrospective aspect of this particular bill? So I wonder if the Minister could follow up on those particular wider questions in relation to advice.

I also wanted to ask—there are people in this country, many of them are low-paid workers, who have spent years and years and a lot of time working on pay equity claims which will be extinguished as a result of this legislation that the Minister has put forward. I wanted to know if there was any transitional support in place for those people with existing claims in the system—those unions, those low-paid women workers. Has the Minister considered that? Has she been provided with advice on that?

Additionally, she referred to legal advice and said that that was privileged. Legal professional privilege exists to the person who the advice is provided. So it is within the Minister’s power to make that legal advice public. That is her prerogative as the Minister and as the person receiving the legal advice. I want to ask her: can she, please, make that legal advice public? We are doing the best we can to scrutinise a bill which is very detailed, which we have only had for a few hours, and we would very much appreciate to be able to do the best advocacy we can with the benefit of the advice that’s been received. Currently, a lot of the advice has been redacted within the departmental disclosure statement and we’re unable to comment on that. So, please, if she would make that advice available.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to seek a quick call to ask the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety a couple of questions around the topic that my colleague Camilla Belich has already explored. I’m really interested in the question around those low-paid workers with current claims in the system—or, basically, anyone with a current claim in the system who the Government’s currently in negotiations with. My question is: at what stage were they told that the legislation was going to change? I mean, I guess, from a natural justice perspective, I would have thought that they would have gotten a heads-up ahead of the Minister announcing it via press release. So my question is: when were the claimants to existing claims told, and when were the unions that were party to those claimants told? Was it just this morning? Did they find out via the media release? When did the Minister and the department inform them?

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety previously said that I could google the 33 claims, but I just want to reflect on the fact that there’s no select committee process for this bill. Every single worker involved or who could’ve been party to one of those claims would have an interest, probably, in the legislation that we’re debating right now in the committee stage, which was only brought to this House a matter of hours ago. The Minister has a number of officials behind her. Could the Minister ask the officials to provide a list of the 33 claims, if she cannot get them now, and table it so those of us in the Chamber can look at it?

Could the Minister also give us any advice she’s received about the number of workers in each of those sectors? It’s really vitally important for the debate today, because, presumably, if we’d gone through a normal process and there hadn’t been a rushed, urgent process, probably a lot of the unions and the workers involved in these fields who are going to be directly impacted by these legislative changes would’ve liked to come to the select committee and tell their stories and explain how this would affect them. They are being denied that opportunity because of the process the Government has chosen to take, so at the very least the Minister could turn to the officials behind her and get the information and provide it to us so we can talk about the real people who are affected by these legislative changes.

I also want to reflect on the fact that—and other colleagues have raised this—many of these claims had already been in process for years. Can the Minister tell us how many of the 33 claims that are being extinguished by this piece of legislation were close to being settled? Were they going to be settled in the coming financial year, in two years, in three years? How many of them, because we’ve had 10 claims already settled; 33 now having to completely start over, if they’re even able to. It makes it very clear in the legislative statement that they’ll be extinguished and that they may have the opportunity to recommence, but only if they meet the new threshold. I just think it’s worthwhile for the committee to be able to have this information in front of us.

I did do a quick cursory google; it is not immediately available on the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) website or in any one place, a list of the 33 claims. We know that 75,000 primary teachers are affected. We know there’s a large clerical and admin claim, and I believe the midwives have a claim. Thirty-three is a lot—that’s a lot of different workers. When we saw in the news today the Hon David Seymour and Prime Minister Chris Luxon saying this was going to save the Government billions of dollars, and David Seymour actually said this decision saved the Government’s Budget, I just—like, the reality is that the Government has chosen to deny probably tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of workers in female-dominated professions a pay settlement that they were due in order to save money, which means they will continue to be underpaid based on gender-based discrimination, or sex-based discrimination, as the Minister keeps saying. And for how long, because if it took four years to get to the point they’re at now and now the claim’s being reset—how many years is it going to be till they can maybe access some of this historical underpay?

In the legislative statement, it also says that back-pay will no longer be able to be awarded by the ERA. So what is the rationale for that, Minister? Could you tell us what the rationale is for denying an ability for the Employment Relations Authority to award back-pay? We understand that the parties could decide to negotiate back-pay, but if the ERA is no longer able to award it, like, where is the justice in that? Let’s say with your new process that people have gone through, it’s been determined there was historical underpayment because of gender-based discrimination, because of sexism, and you’re taking away a tool for people to receive compensation for the work that they’ve done and been underpaid for—just, please, I really, Minister, would love answers to all these questions.

Madam Chair, thank you. I just want to follow up on that first, and I’ll come back to some of my other questions. The issue of back-pay is really interesting because there have been people waiting in the queue. There are a whole lot of people this has happened to, and I’d like to know from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety whether she accepts that they have been injured and they have lost out and why it would be appropriate for them now no longer to get back-pay if they’re found to have a legitimate claim in that situation, and what information she has been given about the actual money that we’re talking about. This is a loss to ordinary New Zealanders. Has she been given financial information about the liability that it looks like, going forward in the kind of pipeline of back-pay? How much money are ordinary New Zealanders losing out on—that the Minister is aware of—and has she asked for that information?

Related to that question is an issue, really, about—we talked about the issue of the review clauses going. I understood from the Minister’s answer that she was saying it was OK, because they could still bargain, and she didn’t want those things to blend. Well, with respect, they already did, because people would have made a bargain based on that fact. Even in the pay equity space, they would have been negotiating—and I did this for a job for a long time and negotiated things, and you’ve got eggs in different baskets; you’re making a deal which is a holistic deal. If you’ve got a review clause in it that means that things are going to be different in a few years, you’re not asking for the same basket of eggs. What has the Minister done or been advised with regard to the justice of the claims that have been made on the basis of a review that suddenly won’t have a review in them? They are a very different settlement by nature, and that has been done ignorant of the fact. Is there an estoppel?

I wanted also to ask about the opt-out clauses, because one of the things that’s happening here is that usually, for the sake of the fact these are expensive claims and they’re systemic in nature, they’ve been wrapped up in an industry. You’ve had a whole industry bargaining together, but now one of the proposals is that anyone can just opt out of them. Well, why wouldn’t they? If there’s been an expensive process go through and they’re about to be liable for money to pay forward, etc., why wouldn’t an individual employer just simply opt out? And will that render the entire process a complete waste of time for all those involved?

I still haven’t had an answer back about all of the cost to ordinary New Zealanders who have gone through this process so far. Is there an answer to that question? There would have been an enormous amount of money and resource spent in this situation. And then I’d also like to know about—and I did ask some questions about this, but I want to take you in a slightly different direction. I talked about the cost to women in terms of savings, and I asked for your figures—and I haven’t had an answer to that—but has she spoken to the Retirement Commissioner about this move? My understanding in our last meeting in a select committee with the Retirement Commissioner was that she was very concerned about the level of savings. If women continue to not earn at this level, because they are hampered by this—maybe they’re in the 60 to 70 percent group; they’re not even going to be seen as having merit anymore in their case, even though their wages are lower because they’re in a systemic situation. So, in that situation, is there an extrapolation? Is there a cost-benefit analysis here in terms of what it’s going to cost those women and the top taxpayer in terms of settlement?

I’d ask you also to consider this issue about the 10-year period. My understanding is that if you’ve got a settlement, tough; you’re out for 10 years. You can go back and review in 10 years’ time. What is the provision—and what is the way that the Minister has dealt with the fact—that, during that time, there’ll be no KiwiSaver contributions at the appropriate level? Say you’ve got a scenario—this is my scenario for the Minister. Madam Chair, I’m about to come to the end of my 20 seconds and I’d love to have another call to finish this. My scenario in this situation is that you have systemic discrimination going on and it’s happening now, and somebody has settled and they have to wait 10 years to have another look at this situation, because you have got rid of the review period that they put in. And they did that, so that’s probably impacted on the amount that they settled for, by the way. Then we come into the 10-year period and you find evidence that there has been systemic discrimination—I call it “abuse”—in that period, and all that time they should have had a KiwiSaver at a much higher rate if they’d been paid the right amount, if they hadn’t been discriminated against. What happens with regard to all the savings that have been lost in that time, and is the Minister proposing that that is just tough? Or is the Minister saying, well, the taxpayer should be picking up the bill—because they really do; if people have no savings at that point, or very little, it’s actually the taxpayer who ends up paying it. Is that the way this is supposed to go here? That’s what it seems, to me, to be doing.

The biggest issue here is: what evidence is there that the Minister has sought with regard to this? It seems to me, when I go through this very new piece of legislation, that I keep on coming across “a narrowing”, “a narrowing”, “a narrowing”, “a narrowing”, making it more expensive, making it more expensive, making it more difficult. Now, we know civil litigation is one of the most expensive processes, and what you’re dealing with is people who, by their very nature, are low-paid workers. If you do that process, if you have narrowed the gap so far, what do you intend to do about the low-paid women who, in fact, get lower paid as a result at the end of the period where they are working at all? Ten years is actually—we only, really, have about four or five of those, maybe, in our lifetime. That’s a long time to not have an accrual of the right kind of pay. And then you’ve got the issue that you’re not allowed to actually award back-pay anyway. So you’ve got a gap where you’re expecting people to be underpaid and then no back-pay. That just seems, to me, like having your cake and eating it too if you’re the employer in the room, because you don’t get the back-pay but you can’t take a claim, in any kind of ongoing way, to stem the damage done. That seems very unfair.

Now, I’d just like to ask you, also, about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report that has come in. We’ve only just seen this, and we’ve only just started to go through it. I’m sure my colleagues will have questions, but I can see that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report talks about the remedy for people being—that is supposed to save this piece of legislation—that they can go to the High Court for a breach of section 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It seems to me, and you can tell me if I’m wrong—I appreciate I’m just whipping through this thing now, because that’s what we’ve got to do—what it’s saying is there might be a breach, but you can go to the High Court to sort that out. Is that the Minister’s understanding of that? That’s at paragraph 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report. Is that the way that things are supposed to be sorted out? And, if that’s the case, is that an acceptance that there is a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act here? And, if that’s the case, how extensive is that? How possible is that for the ordinary human being?

There’s been a lot of writing recently on how where we’ve gone wrong in modern society is that we have loaded up processes. And I think I’ve heard echoes of this from the Minister’s parliamentary leader; that there’s supposed to be an issue with red tape. This looks like red tape to me. If you have to go off to the High Court, who’s going to do it? Only the rich. Your clinical psychologist might be able to do it, but your cleaners won’t be able to. I would like to know from the Minister: is this really something that she has considered? How practical is this pathway for a low-paid worker? And is this really a breach that she’s accepting happens but that that is the pathway for sorting out any breach? The same thing is true later. There’s a suggestion that this is saved by the High Court’s power of review. Does she accept that the High Court’s power of review is much narrower? It’s not a substantive right; it’s a different kind of right. And what kind of advice has she had on that? Madam Chair, just to finish—

The member’s time has expired.

I’ll take the opportunity to answer quite a few substantive items. Rachel Brooking had a question on why the wording changed from “facilitate” to “a process to facilitate” in the purpose clause. The word “process” was not the substantive change in this clause; the substantive change to the purpose was to require evidence of systemic undervaluation, and I consider that the amended purpose statement more accurately reflects the purpose of the pay equity regime in this part of the Act.

The second question from Rachel Brooking I believe relates to clause 11 amending section 13F(2)(d)(ii). The text has not changed; it has been copied over from the current Act.

We had a question from Camilla Belich about whether or not the Government is passing this law to save money. That is not why I have brought this bill. It has always been clear that there have been errors within the current system, which I am here to clear up, and the changes are being made to ensure that the pay equity process is workable and sustainable and that there is a better process going forward for parties to use to assess whether there is sex-based undervaluation when working through a pay equity claim. When it comes to comments that David Seymour has made, I think they’re very generous comments, but, ultimately, I guarantee that my reason, which is what I set out for the Prime Minister when I first came into this Government—that I wanted to do work in this area—still remains. I did want to do the work and I have done this work.

When it comes to the member Julie Anne Genter’s question about the list of the claims, I have asked our officials and I would also refer you back to Google and then back to the parliamentary website—

Oh, for goodness’ sake!

Excuse me, I haven’t finished my contribution—back to Google to then find the parliamentary website, because I have answered the question in a written parliamentary question. So you need to find written parliamentary question No. 17121 (2025), and that, hopefully, should answer your question about having a list. I believe it is around 30 claims on there.

To the member Camilla Belich—I believe she also asked about whether I’d release the legal advice I had received—no, I will not be waiving my legal privilege.

Camilla Belich also asked how many of the settled claims have review clauses. All of the claims would, as the Act currently requires them to include review clauses. However, the short review periods made it difficult to determine if remuneration differences were due to pay equity or other short-term labour market dynamics.

Julie Anne Genter also asked how many claims were close to being settled. I actually don’t have that information. The changes are being made to improve the system rather than in response to any one individual claim. That’s why I’m progressing quickly: so that the new system can be applied to all of those claims once re-raised.

I believe Francisco Hernandez also asked a question about when existing claimants and the unions were told. I believe this happened today, by the agencies working on the claims.

Helen White also asked a question about why we are not having back-pay. We do need to make it clear that employers and employees may still agree on whether to include back-pay in a settlement. What this bill removes is the ability of the authority to award back-pay to incentivise employers and employees to resolve claims between themselves, rather than seeking an authority determination.

Helen White has also asked which parties agreed to settlement with review clauses, and whether or not it’s fair that those ones have been removed. I think part of that previous answer reflects the same answer here, but it’s also the case that the review clauses are not meant to be a way to bargain further increases. The settlements should only be reviewed and changed if pay equity and sex-based discrimination issues reemerge.

I think Helen White may have also had—Oh, I’ve run out of time.

I call the Hon Brooke van Velden.

Thank you, Madam Chair—I’ve just got one further. Helen White also asked: why wouldn’t an employer opt out of a pay equity claim? Employers may decide to bargain together if a multi-employer pay equity claim that was raised aligns with existing bargaining structures. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. A couple of things that I wish to pursue in this more general note. Firstly, we have asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety for the list of the 33 claimants. The Minister has said quite confidently that there are 33 claimants. One would expect that the Minister’s officials would have that list of 33 claimants. And I’m afraid it’s not satisfactory to tell us to go google it on such a critical matter. So I’m just deeply disappointed that that was the Minister’s answer. I’ll leave it at that, but, heavens, if that’s the standard we’ve come to with Ministers in this Government, they don’t deserve to be there for all that much longer.

I want to go back to the matter of the savings, and the money. We’ve had this very interesting phrase from the Minister for Regulation, the Hon David Seymour, and the line that he actually said was “I actually think that Brooke van Velden has saved the taxpayer billions”. That’s interesting, but then it’s the next one that’s really interesting: “She saved the Budget for the Government.” Now, the only way this could be saving the Budget for the Government is if this legislative change goes through in time for the savings to be booked, if the decisions are made before the Budget moratorium. That’s the only way it could happen.

And so that is why we are sitting here in urgency. It has nothing to do with outstanding claims that might need to have an overlapping period. That wouldn’t have prevented, say, a three-week select committee process. That is the flimsiest excuse I have heard. We could have even had a three-day select committee process, at least something to go through this. We could have had time to have gotten that list of 33 claimants. But, instead, it’s all being done, as far as we can tell, to Budget. That’s what’s been said by the Prime Minister, it’s been said by the Minister for Regulation, and yet the Minister in the chair has said, “Oh no—oh no, I didn’t bring it for those Budget reasons.” Well, the evidence looks very suspicious on that one.

So I would like to invite the Minister to come clean on that and admit that the reason that they are selling low-paid women out is to save the Government’s Budget. They are saving the Government’s Budget on the back of low-paid women.

I hadn’t thought I would stand so quickly after giving my last contribution, but I did want to respond to Dr Deborah Russell, because it’s very clear that she did not actually listen to my last response. I made it very clear in my last response that if she wanted to turn to Google, which she got very [Pauses] about, she could have found my written parliamentary question answer No. 17121 (2025) on Google. I ask the member to not continue to repeat that question.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is my first contribution, at this stage, on this disgraceful piece of legislation. I have a few comments, and I have a few broader questions and some specific questions for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety as well. I think it’s pretty clear why the rush. My colleague Dr Deborah Russell has outlined why the rush. Basically, the Minister herself said that this will lead to significant benefits for the Government, when it comes to balancing their books. Although Minister Upston, of course, was at pains to say that this wasn’t about saving the Government money, I think it’s pretty clear, from various comments that Ministers and the Prime Minster have made in this House, that that is not the case—it is about the savings; hence the rush.

The Minister has said in the House, in the media, and in her speeches that this process was brought about, really, to bring about a better systemic framework, a better process, a more robust process—but for whom, Minister, I ask. I want to also include a quote, given that we are bypassing the select committee process. A number of people will be impacted—150,000 people will be impacted by this change; a number of unions who’ve been taking claims will be impacted by this change—and I want to bring in some of their voices and ask their questions of the Minister. I quote a retired residential aged-care worker, who says, “We’ve been fighting for 13 years. To have the rug pulled out from underneath us now is unbelievable. We thought we were going to get there—this just removes our road to fairness.” Then she talks about the impact on jobs in sectors like the aged-care sector. She says, “This will make it even harder to get people working in aged care. People won’t go the extra mile anymore—why would they, if they’re not going to get paid fairly? This announcement is terrible for women and families now and in the future.”

Minister, I want to ask you: what advice have you received? What work, what modelling has been done in terms of the impact of this change which makes it harder for women, for low-paid workers, to access fair pay for their work? What impacts will this have on the sectors that were part of those 33 claims—or those that were about to settle—in terms of the job losses that we’re going to see there? That’s my first question to the Minister.

Now, when the Minister says, “This was better,” again, I say, better for whom? Who was consulted? Who has the Minister spoken to? While I absolutely agree that this disproportionately impacts women, and I agree with my colleagues who have said that this is a Government that is waging war on women—and low-paid women at that—it also impacts, I know, many men as well, particularly from our Māori, Pacific, and ethnic communities. I know many from my own communities who are low paid and working in the sectors that we’ve talked about, who will be done out of the claims that they have been working towards for many years. What analysis has the Minister done on the demographics? Who is going to be impacted disproportionately by this particular change?

I also want to point to members opposite, many of whom got up when they had to speak, read off their lines, and basically said that this was going to make things better and not worse. I point them to section 27, paragraph 21(b) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet, which clearly says—many of them said, “This doesn’t stop anything; it doesn’t stop pay equity claims.” Section 27, paragraph 21(b): “discontinues existing pay equity claims as well as any proceedings relating to those claims that have been started but not been determined.” So let’s put that to bed. Let’s not pretend that this is actually going to make things better when it’s going to make things so much worse for those who do incredibly difficult but important work.

My final question for now, Minister, is about the 65,000 care and support workers. Now, we don’t have the list of 33 claims. We know that, since 2022, claims have been progressing, or work has been progressing, on this claim. Thousands of hours have gone into doing this work and putting the claim together, processes that were already established previously. Those who’ve been part of this claim have messaged—emailed—us to say that they felt it was robust enough. So I’d like to know, firstly: where’s that claim at? Is that down the drain as well? Secondly, what was not robust about the previous process? Robust for whom, Minister? What changes in this—given that we’ve had the process laid out clearly, we’ve had significant milestones that many have had to reach, the Government could ditch those claims because they weren’t clear enough. What are you doing to make this more robust? Those are some of the questions.

I also do want to point out that those 65,000 care and support workers are across various sectors, like the mental health and addiction sectors, disability support services, the aged-care sectors I mentioned before—incredibly difficult work. They are now, essentially, working on the minimum wage, because the minimum wage has caught up. Now, given the years that they’ve been working—more than three years that they’ve been working towards this—where are they at? Now, Minister, I googled where they had ended in terms of their claim proceedings, and what I have found out is that, basically, in June last year there was a claim that was filed with the Employment Relations Authority for a determination to be made. Is that also down the drain now? Do they have to start from scratch in terms of the work that they need to do?

Another question that I had for you, Minister, is one that has been asked before but that has not been addressed or answered at all, and that is: in consideration of the changes that have been made through this bill, what are the other options that were put to the Minister? What are some of the options that you were working with before you landed on this, on making it harder for low-paid workers to actually get a pay equity claim by changing the threshold and bringing in the 10 years as well? I’d really like to know what some of those options were, and I will leave it at that for now.

Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. Tāku patai—my question—to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is specifically around Treaty obligations and Te Tiriti o Waitangi in relation to this legislation, and particularly looking at some of the Wai claims that have come out of it.

In the departmental disclosure statement, it says that it had a question around: “What steps have been taken to determine whether the policy to be given effect by this bill is consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi?”, and it basically says that there’s no analysis of whether this bill is consistent with that. That’s a huge issue, because we have the Mana Wāhine claim, Wai 2864 and Wai 2700, which has been ongoing since 1993.

Just going back to the amendment bill, in new section 13E(6) in clause 10(4), it specifically says as to whether a pay equity claim can be “raised within 10 years after the date of a pay equity settlement”, when we’ve already been waiting 32 years for this Mana Wāhine claim that 16 wāhine have taken to account. So I’m just wanting to know whether the Minister has had any engagement with this Wai claim specifically and with these wāhine, and how the bill will affect this specific claim and wāhine Māori, knowing that the data from 2018 in the Ministry for Women shows that the pay gap for Māori wāhine is 18 percent higher, compared to the national pay gap of 9.4 percent, and the same figures show that Māori wāhine face an unemployment rate of 11 percent compared to the national rate of 4.5 percent—given that data. So has there been any engagement with this claim that’s been ongoing for 32 years, and will this have any effect on the Mana Wāhine claim of Wai 2864 and Wai 2700?

They’ve also recently done a contemporary economic report that shows the evidence of what wāhine Māori have faced economically since 1990 and 2020, and Dr Duncan Webb has also brought this up. The Minister also hasn’t answered anything around other obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and I’m specifically asking with regard to these Wai claims: has she taken any consideration of how this will affect these Wai claims and the data that’s been presented?

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you, Minister, for giving us the correct answer to a written question so we can look at the list of the sectors that are affected by this decision today. What I feel compelled to stand up and note about this is we’re talking about teachers, support workers, youth workers in residential schools, education service education advisers, psychologists and service managers employed by the Ministry of Education, early learning teachers, tertiary education library assistants, public service administration and clerical workers, Corrections psychologists, social service workers, care and support workers—there’s two different claims—front-line managers and coordinators in the health system, Plunket admin and clerical workers, Plunket nurses and clinical workers, community midwives in primary birthing units, hospice nurses and healthcare assistants, primary care administration, primary care nurses, Access community nurses, lab tests—so the people who draw our blood—nurses in residential care.

And pretty much of all of these—and I haven’t even listed them all, right—the vast majority, according to the written answer that was provided, are overwhelmingly female. And all of their claims have just been cancelled or are about to be cancelled by this legislation. They’ve gone through years of work to try to establish a case that was arguable. And it’s very, very clear that they’re definitely female dominated.

So when the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety comes and brings this legislation which in clause 4 says it’s really important to change it to say that the work is performed by a workforce that is at least 70 percent female, that would apply to the vast majority. In these cases it’s like 86 percent female, 97 percent female, 99 percent female—early intervention teachers. It’s 73 to 96 percent female across the universities, 83 percent female across all affected employees in clerical and admin, 71 percent female in social service workers, 96 percent female in Plunket nurses and clinical, community midwives 99 percent female. So all of these claims which are going to affect hundreds of thousands of people in New Zealand, the vast majority of them are women. The Minister could say, according to this legislation, “Well, we had to change it to make it more workable, so we’re going to change it to 70 percent.” But the Minister is stopping—the Government is stopping the claims. They’re going to have to start over.

So, effectively, the point of this is to delay access to pay equity for hundreds of thousands of people in this country in order to save this coalition Government billions of dollars in their Budget in two weeks. There is no other plausible reason for this legislation to be going through under urgency tonight, other than putting off the costs to the future. But the cost is real for those hundreds of thousands of women who are our teachers, our nurses, our midwives, our care and support workers—the people looking after the elderly and dying. This Government is giving them the finger and saying, “We’re going to make them wait and put years—years—more into waiting for a process to deliver pay equity.” It is shameful. It is disgraceful. And then try to claim that this is just about making the process more sensible. If this Government had the courage, they would take it to a select committee, but they aren’t, because the whole point of this is actually deferring the cost to save money in the Budget.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m sure the very experienced member well knows that to accuse a member or a Government of lacking courage, and also to imply that they are misleading the House because their true motives are different from those stated, is out of order and disorderly.

Sit down

And rather than telling me to sit down, that member might like to hear points of order in silence.

Speaking to that point of order. I think that particular member has misheard the contribution that my colleague has made. There was no accusation of misleading and also no accusation of an individual member’s integrity. Yes, you can actually criticise a Government.

Yeah, just taking that point on note. I also didn’t hear an individual reference in the one that was declared, but we can go through Hansard afterwards. I will call on the Hon Julie Anne Genter to finish her contribution.

And thank you very much for the contribution from Minister David Seymour, who was very honest on the news and said that Brooke van Velden, the Minister, was saving the Government’s Budget. The cost is borne by these women who’ve spent years—and it does affect men in these sectors, but predominantly women, overwhelmingly women, as is made clear by the information that we had to go dig around for to find out exactly who’s affected. They are the people who are doing some of the hardest and most important work, looking after health, looking after education, looking after people at the end of their lives, looking after people with disabilities. And this Government is saying, “We’re going to put more hurdles in place and just completely cancel the years of work that have been put in already to rectify gender-based discrimination that affects these workforces.”

The real irony of all of this is that if the Government actually wanted to support the economy doing well, one of the easiest ways to do that is pay our lowest-paid workers more money, because they can spend more money. They immediately spend that money. If you give tax cuts to landlords, do they invest the money? No, they just use it on their yacht or their next overseas trip. But when you give care and support workers or nurses more money, it means that they can buy more food and they can actually spend money and maybe even go out to dinner once in a while. Maybe have the kind of nice meal that Mr Seymour has in his electorate while he slashes cuts by giving people disgusting, wasteful lunches—corporate welfare but more waste. That Minister is the “Minister responsible for more waste” from school lunches. I think it is fantastic that he’s been so honest in the media and made it so clear and transparent why we’re debating this bill under urgency.

But let’s bring it back to the hundreds of thousands of workers doing important, valuable work, who’ve put years into a process which now they’re going to have to start over for. I think the Minister needs to stop pretending that this is about fixing a process up, because if it were about fixing a process up, it wouldn’t be going through urgency two weeks before the Budget.

Just before I take the next call, I do want to refer members to Speakers’ rulings on unparliamentary language, 55/1 down to 55/4, where it is possible to criticise the Government; that is the role of the Opposition. However, 55/4 states that “A member may not (1) impute improper motives to the Government; (2) suggest that the Government has received orders to put a bill through; (3) impute dishonesty to the Government; (4) suggest domination by outside bodies.” So it’s about that outside influence, I think.

Thank you. I’ll make sure my contribution is brief. I wanted to take the chance to respond to some of the questions. To the member Helen White: we had a question about how practical it is that there is another pathway for resolving a breach—e.g., going to the High Court. Employees still do have the ability to resolve issues under the Human Rights Act or through the Employment Relations Act. I would also note that the acting Attorney-General has considered the bill and has decided it appears consistent with the rights and freedoms affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Helen White also asked, “What if women become underpaid during the 10 years before they can re-raise a claim?” There does have to be a period of time that has elapsed before determining whether a pay equity issue has re-emerged. I consider that applying a 10-year limit before a claim can be re-raised will better enable parties to determine whether any of their concerns about pay reflect the re-emergence of sex-based undervaluation or whether it’s due to other market factors.

We had a question from Priyanca Radhakrishnan asking what wasn’t robust about the previous process. The settings of the current Act have caused problems, particularly the low entry threshold, limited tools for employers to contest broadly scoped claims, and insufficient requirements for comparison choice and comparison methodology.

I’ll just give you a couple of examples. With the DHB allied technical claim, it had over 90 different occupations which represented a very broad and diverse workforce. Another example is that quite often the same comparators have been used repeatedly, such as corrections officers and fisheries officers being used across many claims, even though those claims have substantial differences in their working environments.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan also asked who had been consulted. It’s quite clear that we moved quickly to make the changes to the Act to ensure the system is workable and sustainable. Priyanca Radhakrishnan also asked if current proceedings are discontinued. Yes, I did answer this one before. Proceedings before the authority or the court will be discontinued if they commenced before the commencement date.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke asked if I have had any interaction with wāhine involved in the Mana Wāhine Treaty of Waitangi claims. No, that is a very separate process to this bill and so that process continues unaffected by this bill.

Julie Anne Genter has also asked if all of the work and the effort on the claims to date will be lost and why. Not necessarily. If a claim is re-raised in the new system, the claimants can re-use some of the existing information where it is relevant.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I note that some colleagues on the other side are wanting to make contributions. I look forward to some substantive contributions because there is a lot more to go on in Part 1, boy oh boy! So much more stuff to go on in Part 1.

I wanted to—just because there is a different Chairperson in the Chair at the moment—just remind the Chair that previously when there was a previous Chair, I did refer to Speakers’ ruling 125/8. I also refer the Chair to—[Interruption] Take a call, Mr Court, if you’re interested. We’ve got lots of energy to discuss this. It’s a very important matter. So 127/1 is also a relevant Speaker’s ruling because it looks at when the House is in urgency, when we haven’t had the chance to view the bill, and there’s no public submissions, there’s a more fulsome debate. So I want to continue to make some overall comments on this bill.

I do have a very important question to start off with for the member. The care and support settlement was originally settled in 2017, and a lot of work was done by the previous National Government on this, and also the mental health support workers claim was settled in 2018. What happens to those claims? I’ve heard her answer around the authority, but what I want to know is a very specific answer as to when those claims that may have an argument to say that they were settled in those years will be able to be introduced. Is it after Royal assent of this bill, or is it at 10 years past the date at which they’re originally concluded? So that is a very genuine questions that I look forward to hearing the answer to, and I know there are a lot of care and support workers watching this debate who are interested as to what the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety’s answer might be on that.

Speaking of care and support workers, and in line with the Standing Orders that I have just mentioned, I have had people, as I mentioned before, email in comments. They’ve been unable to attend a select committee. So I think I would like to ask the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety what she has to say to respond to these people who are directly affected by these claims.

So the first person who I want to talk about is a woman called Marianne Bishop. She has been very active in the care and support world and has met a number of people in this House, I’m sure, on this side and that side of the Chamber, to talk about that. This is what she has to say about what has happened today: “I just can’t believe it. I can’t believe it could be done like this, I really can’t. I’m absolutely disgusted to hear about this announcement. It makes me angry as a woman and makes me feel like we’re going backwards. I thought about how long we’ve been fighting, 13 years; to have the rug pulled out from under us at this stage is unbelievable. It’s always been a struggle, but we thought we were going to get there. This removes our road to fairness. I’m frustrated. I’m annoyed and angry. The delays in our claim are one thing; stopping claims is another thing all together. It’s just demeaning to women. This announcement is terrible for women and families now and in the future. It devalues women workers. Apparently it’s now OK to pay women less for doing work of equal value. Women won’t have a leg to stand on. They’re just saying, ‘Shut up and do what you’re told.’ This is going to be terrible for the care sector. It’s going to be harder to get people working in that sector. People aren’t going to go the extra mile if they know they won’t be paid for it. I don’t think this Government values workers, full stop, but they definitely don’t value women workers or our struggles. We are already devalued, this is going to make it even harder.” I would like to know how the Minister would respond to Marianne.

I’ve also received another comment from another care and support worker. Her name is Tamara, and she’s also been active in this claim. She has said, “The announcement today makes the Government”—actually I won’t say that bit! “It’s 1,040 days since the care and support pay equity claim was filed. Why are we still waiting? We’re already disillusioned as it is. This makes it 10 times worse. This is absolutely BS. It’s going to completely screw the care sector. Why would you stay in a job when you get the minimum wage, if you’re lucky. Why would you? Why do our employers get to keep the profits that are made off the back of people who work? I challenge every single one of them to come and work for us, on our pay, with our issues, and then say why it’s a good idea that they can explain to us why we can’t have these pay equity claims. I’d like to see them live on our wages with the pittance we get for travel. I’d like to see them cope with getting assaulted at work every day. I, for one, have never voted for the coalition and I never will.”

I would like to ask the Minister, especially on that challenge from a care and support worker that we’ve just heard in the Chamber today, we actually did have the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner Judy McGregor when she was doing the study into the care and support sector, and she’s done a lot of work and I want to acknowledge the work that she has done in this area—she actually did go and work as a care and support worker and she did actually go and do those jobs, and she’s written about that and it’s been quoted in the Chamber earlier tonight. I want to ask the Minister: would she consider going and doing the work of a care and support worker for a day and then seeing how it would feel to be working on a claim to try and get pay equity when you’re working on the minimum wage for 13 years, and then have your claim completely extinguished by this Government? So I have that question to ask the Minister, as well.

I have another overall question to ask the Minister, which I do believe is very important. One of the first things she mentioned when she was talking about the changes in this bill is the change she is making to this legislation, to change it from “arguable” to “merit”. So instead of having the threshold of “arguable”, you have to have reached the threshold that there is “merit” within your claim.

I want to ask the Minister—because this is something that, when I have worked as a lawyer in pay equity claims, I thought was very important—what advice has she been given? It is very difficult to prove that a case has merit at first glance of the facts. Actually going through the pay equity process of looking at the claimant, looking at the comparators, actually seeing if there is a systemic undervaluation of predominantly women’s work is one of the major ways that you can establish merit. So what I want to know from her is: with this fundamental change—and it does come up in a number of sections of the bill, but it definitely does come up in Part 1 as well—what advice has she received on how it is going to be possible to determine if a claim has merit without going through the pay equity process? Because this merit is a hurdle which must be initially passed in order for people to take pay equity claims. So I want to know about that.

The other question I have is around the international comparisons that she’s made in relation to this particular piece of legislation. She’s talked about the UK. In the UK, they have extremely big employers and that is why their pay equity system—although there are a lot of people who will say that it’s imperfect—is able to have a system that only has one employer. For example, two types of employers that often have equal pay claims taken against them in the UK are National Health Service (NHS) trusts, which, if you’re familiar with the UK, employ a large number of different people in lots of different jobs, and also things like councils, which also—because they haven’t had privatisation in many places to the same extent as New Zealand—have a large number of directly employed people that can make those claims directly to their employer.

So what I want to know is: with those international comparisons, did she take those types of factors into account? And because those overseas jurisdictions just have a single employer that you’re able to make the claims against, does she think this is appropriate for the New Zealand context where we have a very different way of organising our public system? Many fewer people, of course, which means many fewer positions and fewer comparators, and what in fact the justification is for making people look, under the hierarchy of comparators, at their initial employer first and then afterwards the different layers of those, looking to similar employers and then further out from that. Because, in my view, that particular process is a quite limiting on the particular types of comparators it can use, and actually means that fewer claims will be able to be made because there is a much bigger limit on the types of claims that can be put forward, because it is just focused on one particular employer.

So quite a few questions there for the Minister. I do have some other emails—I won’t read them all out now—but keen to hear from the Minister and how she responds to those particular individuals who are very adversely affected by the legislation that she’s bringing to the House.

Mr Chair, thank you very much for the opportunity, and I have a few questions for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety in relation to trade. Yesterday, the Prime Minister and his ministerial colleague Todd McClay got up in front—post-Cabinet—of the country and said, and I quote from Todd McClay: “Strengthening ties with trading partners is crucial to growing this New Zealand economy and driving up incomes for Kiwis.”

So my questions to the Minister in the chair are: what advice has she received from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) when it comes to lifting—to use her colleague’s words—incomes for Kiwis? And, indeed, was it just for men, or was it for men and women? Because the other thing that both the Prime Minister and Todd McClay mentioned yesterday was the value and the benefits to the New Zealand economy from the EU - New Zealand free-trade agreement. Now, while it has been a year since ratification—actually the Labour Government, thankfully, negotiated this agreement, because probably if it wasn’t us negotiating it, there may not have been provisions in that trade agreement for gender equality.

Can I refer the Minister to, and the question for her is: what advice has she received regarding article 19.3 of that trade agreement, which states, “Multilateral labour standards and agreements”? There are many provisions in that, but I’ll go to subclause 3(d), which, without going through the whole lot, really back up the determination of both parties, that’s the EU and New Zealand. And we’ve heard over a billion dollars of additional trade in the last 12 months—great. But of course, the commitment to “the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.”

So my question is: has the Minister received any advice from MFAT saying that this move by her and this Government to eliminate the ability of women to apply for pay equity has contravened a core objective of the EU - New Zealand free-trade agreement? Because if it has, then the opportunity that that agreement provides New Zealand exporters could indeed be withdrawn.

I know the EU—we’re very proud of the trade agreement on the basis of shared values, the shared values between the 27 member states of the EU and New Zealand, and equity and equality of opportunity for Māori, for women, for small-medium enterprises was a cornerstone of the value objectives of that free-trade agreement. So I’ll ask the Minister on that issue alone: has she received any advice relating to article 19.3 of that trade agreement as to whether she thinks that this may contravene “the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation”?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to just address a couple of things the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety mentioned before. I had a look at the written question that the Minister referred to as well, written question No. 17121. It is a very comprehensive list. My first question to the Minister is: does the Minister know, based on that written question, exactly how many workers would be affected by this legislation? We know that some of those are in massive industries and sectors in education and health. So can the Minister give us the number of workers who would be affected by this piece of legislation?

On that, I also wanted to check—we haven’t really yet received any clarifications from the Minister regarding what alternative options were considered as a part of this. Now, the Minister said that this is something that she cares deeply about and also that this is something she would really like to address. But the timing of it—again, we have talked about the timing of it—and what we have seen now in the public and in the media suggests that this is done as a Budget consideration. If that is the case—and that is something that is in mind, for example, when we’re looking at the aged-care sector; when we’re looking at Bupa, to give a brief example. In 2023, Bupa made $12 million in profit, but only paid $11k, in corporate tax, whereas the corporate tax rate is 28 percent. So immediately, if they had actually paid the proper level of corporate tax, there would be a different shift here. Is this something where, potentially, other options would be that there is more scrutiny and requirement for companies to actually pay—international corporations to pay—the proper level of corporate tax, instead of punishing your everyday, average Kiwis? That’s one of the questions, the second question.

My third question is to do with clause 6 amending section 13A, the purpose clause. Now, one of the things that the Minister mentioned previously is that the key difference in terms of the wording is “evidence”. That was interesting for me, because evidence of systemic sex-based undervaluation of work seems to suggest that the onus of the burden of proof is now being placed on the claimant and not being placed on the employer to prove that there is going to be discrimination. So I want to check with the Minister on whether the Minister has received any advice on a potential shift in the burden of proof as a result of including the word “evidence”. If so, who does the burden of proof now fall on: the claimant or the employer?

I think this ties in really nicely to the question that Camilla Belich asked as well, in terms of arguable merit, because, again, a lot of these—where they go through negotiation, where they go through court or they go through claims—those definitions seem benign but actually are incredibly important and, again, may provide additional burden and require a higher threshold for the employee to make.

Now, my next question is around clause 10(4) replacing section 13E(6). Over here, it says that “a pay equity claim may not be raised within 10 years … unless the Authority or the court determines, under section 13ZY(1)(b), that the claim may be raised.” I had a look—and we can discuss the nuance of section 13ZY(1)(b) later on. But in the context of this, particularly when you’re looking at “unless the Authority or the court determines”—now, this is a variation of the currently existing section 13E(6). When we are looking at this particular part, what evidence or what advice has the Minister received on the potential increase in terms of the workload that will be placed on the authority as a result of an increasing number of cases that may be claimed within that 10 years? Because of the fact that—again, I mentioned that the 10 years is a really blunt instrument. That’s my fourth question.

My final question, my fifth question, comes back to the question that a previous member, from Te Pāti Māori, asked, but it wasn’t answered by the Minister. I acknowledge that the Minister has responded to the question around claims going through the Waitangi Tribunal, but the Minister hasn’t responded to what Te Tiriti analysis has been done for this legislation. Thank you.

Thank you. I just want to respond firstly to Camilla Belich’s question about how it is possible to provide evidence that a claim has merit. Under the current law, the threshold is low. Claims only need to be arguable and there only needs to be historical or current sex-based undervaluation, not both. The low entry threshold enables claims to go through the assessment process even when there is not strong evidence of undervaluation. This can result in significant administrative costs, which will be avoided with a more robust entry threshold. This bill does set out a number of factors that can be used to provide evidence that the claim has merit, and those can be found in new section 13F, inserted by clause 11.

Camilla Belich also asked how I would respond to people who are concerned about changes that would make it harder to make a claim. Quite simply, this is about finding genuine sex-based undervaluation. I think everybody should be supporting the fact that we do want to have a pay equity system that actually resolves genuine sex-based discrimination. If a new claim can be raised under the amended Act, if they meet the threshold, that is a good thing and that should help stamp out sex-based undervaluation. However, the current threshold is too low, it’s not robust, and it’s less workable.

Camilla Belich also asked: would the Minister be a care and support worker for the day? I love that suggestion; it’s a fantastic suggestion. However, I don’t think it’s practical. My job in here, in Government, is to look after legislation, to be an advocate for the people. If we look at all the different types of claims that we have, I’d be spending possibly well over a month out in the community doing other people’s jobs, which I don’t think would overall benefit the legislative process. So I’d like to focus on that.

Although I would say to people like Marianne, who Camilla Belich has named, and other care and support workers, that I very much thank them for the role that they do actually play in our society. I think it’s a wonderful thing that people want to become care and support workers and support people in our community, so thank you, but we are ultimately here to discuss this bill rather than individual claims.

I’ve also been asked, in the case of that very individual claim of the care and support workers, in so far as whether or not they can re-raise a claim. Yes, this is the case: that can be re-raised in 2027, but, like all other claims, if it meets the thresholds of the new law.

Damien O’Connor has asked: what advice have I received from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade regarding the EU free-trade agreement? Well, look, in the process of developing this legislation, the Government has a range of international obligations that we have considered, and we have taken those obligations into account in our decision making.

We’ve also had a question from Damien O’Connor about whether or not I’ve received advice about lifting wages in trade. This bill is focused on a policy for pay equity issues. Lifting wages in general would be a different matter, but the bill does not stop women or unions from raising pay equity claims, which was suggested in that contribution, which is incorrect.

Lawrence Xu-Nan asked: do I know the number of workers affected by all those claims? No, I don’t have that information in front of me, but, once again, I’m not here to address individual claims; I’m here to discuss the legislation.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair. What a surreal day this has been, watching the clock that was ticking back slowly under this National Government suddenly go into freefall as this shocking, despicable, backward announcement was made that puts the rights of women in this country back into the dark ages.

I have questions for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety about what questions and conversations she had with Ministers from other sectors, including the Ministers for mental health and for seniors. Those sectors are very much affected by this legislation, and also immigration.

Now, we’ve heard other people ask questions about modelling, but these are very serious questions that should have been considered from a policy perspective, given the massive impact that the changes will make on the sectors that I have mentioned.

We heard, revealed yesterday for the first time, although the Minister tried to conceal it for a long time, that 1,485 front-line workers are currently needed in the mental health sector—1,485. Now, that had been removed out of the final draft of the Mental Health and Addiction Workforce Plan, but yesterday it was revealed that was there. Let’s look at what that is made up of: 470 special nurses, 455 support workers, 70 addiction workers, 10 nurse practitioners, 20 associate psychologists, 145 clinical psychologists.

Now, what do they all have in common? They all are feminised sectors. They are all sectors that are predominantly served by the women’s workforce. Isn’t it a strange coincidence that under this Government we have a mental health front-line crisis with psychologists in burnout and leaving in droves, leaving the sector. The Minister has said he will create a new associate psychologist role—presumably for more women—because instead of thinking about paying properly, the magic bullet is just to try and create lower-paid, lower-skilled roles to try and fill the gap.

So the question I have is, when we look across over at the senior sector, the aged-care sector—very, very reliant as well on the 65,000 care and support workers that we’ve been talking about tonight. In Australia, where I’ve just come back from, one of the amazing things that happened on a cross-party group trip that we had to look at the aged-care sector—which is facing very similar issues in terms of the tsunami of need that is coming into the sector through the aging of the baby boomers and subsequent generations—is that every employer we spoke to spoke about how valuable the uplift was to the allied workforce of something close to 30 percent, because it meant that they didn’t have to rely on foreign workers and they had been desperate to get foreign workers into the sector.

So what they had been doing as a stopgap measure—and actually will still go on to be a permanent measure because there is no silver bullet and because the need is so big—is they’ve been recruiting from foreign jurisdictions such as Singapore, Malaysia, and Fiji. That brings with it opportunity, but it also brings a whole lot of issues around immigration policy settings, about gouging workforces from other sectors and countries, about how long those workers can come into New Zealand, what the pay rates should be, how they can assimilate into the work, what kind of training is offered to them, what kind of career pathways. Those are all in the immigration settings—and, actually, right through these sectors that currently haven’t really been addressed by this Government, that would make a difference to their workforce plans.

So my question to the Minister is: has she done some modelling around the immigration settings, given that we will have in the retirement villages alone, for example, currently 42,000 people—that by the year 2040 will be around 85,000 new residents who will all need care and support workers, and nursing and other allied staff. Has she considered that modelling? Has she spoken to Minister Doocey about how he is now going to fill an even bigger workforce vacuum that he hasn’t been able to crack yet and that has got him into a little bit of trouble because of some of the crazy suggestions like creating associate roles where clinical psychologists have said they won’t even oversee them?

So the final question that I had for the Minister is also from somebody who I’d really like the Minister to respond to. She is well known in the sector advocating for workers and that is the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions president Melissa Ansell-Bridges, who did a magnificent job today, leading workers, gathering, convening at great haste onto the forecourt with an absolute vibrancy and determination to bring workers together to challenge this Government on what they are doing.

Melissa Ansell-Bridges has written to the Labour Party saying, “Every single one of the changes being made will make it harder to initiate and progress claims. Our early analysis suggests the new requirements may be nigh on impossible to meet. Far fewer, if any, women will be able to successfully progress claims under the new scheme. If they are successful, they will be paid equitably for a moment in time and then not again for 10 years because the drivers of inequality still exist. The Government is happy to accept this for the sake of tax cuts. We do not.” She goes on to say, “We pay tribute to every single one of those workers who have fought tirelessly for years to be paid what they are owed. Teachers, nurses, librarians, care and support workers, teacher aides”—the list does go on and on.

Over on this side, we are receiving their text messages and their emails as I speak, who have proven time and time again they are not paid what they are worth. It is because they work in industries historically undervalued, because they are women. Thank you to every single one of those workers. The fight for equity, for fairness doesn’t stop here. We have fought for over 100 years. We will keep on fighting. Minister, do you really mean that care and support workers will not be able to contest their claim at the earliest until 2027?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I wish to answer firstly Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question: which other options did I consider in the process of creating this bill? Look, the Government wanted to design a system that maintained a process to raise and resolve pay equity claims while providing a better framework for assessing whether there is sex-based undervaluation. I consider that the design of this pay equity system in the bill does achieve this stated purpose.

Lawrence Xu-Nan also asked what advice I’ve received that potentially we could see an increase in the workload of the authority due to a union seeking a determination to re-raise their claim before the 10 years. Look, the bill does allow a claim to be re-raised within 10 years if there are exceptional circumstances, but I don’t consider that this will occur often and therefore would not affect that workload.

Ingrid Leary asked what consultation have I done with the Minister for Mental Health and the Minister of Immigration. Look, it’s fairly clear that those Ministers are part of Cabinet, which did approve this policy that I put forward in the bill, and so therefore we did have consultation with those Ministers.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I’m going to ask a couple of quick questions, because, like my colleagues have said tonight, I too have been inundated with emails and texts and various other messages. Quite frankly, there’s a whole lot of other people I’d rather be speaking to tonight about their genuine concerns and about what we should do next. If I was to channel my colleague the Hon Phil Twyford, I might sort of pose it in so far as I can just imagine the conversation that’s going to be happening in the National caucus room tomorrow when they reflect on the fact that whilst it’s an ACT Minister bringing this bill to the House, it’s actually their MPs, and their backbench MPs in particular, who will probably face the brunt of this. I know in my electorate alone, there’s at least three or four protests being organised between now and Sunday. I can assure you that that will be replicated throughout the country, because if there’s one thing that galvanises people in this country—in particular, women, and, in particular, people who are used to battling and used to working hard and used to fighting hard—it is basic, basic unfairness, and particularly at the hands of someone who doesn’t seem to care.

So my very quick question is that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety has said on more than one occasion tonight that the impetus for this bill is that she wants to ensure that only genuine cases of sex-based discrimination get through across the threshold. So that, by definition, means that she is worried about cases that are not genuine. Can the Minister, please, explicitly specify to us tonight, given we’ve got no other avenue to discuss this, which particular cases on that list of existing cases she regards as being not genuine and give us some reasons as to why?

Also, the Minister has mentioned several times tonight about how she needs to make sure that this process is being used to remedy issues of pay equity, rather than other labour market dynamics. Can the Minister, please, give us an exhaustive example, every example, of what other labour dynamics are at play here and attribute those to any of the cases that she has before her, which is her remit to try and resolve?

The final comment I want to make is that the Minister, and the Government in general—the Government, in particular, has made quite a big deal over the last few weeks about a focus on primary health; a laser focus, I think we’ve heard from the Minister of Health. I want to ask the Minister: what advice or what conversations she’s had with the Minister of Health, given that scrapping their pay equity claim—as I just check my messages from people working in that sector—will really help us with our recruitment and our retention? There’s some little emoticons there that I won’t describe, because they’re all a little bit uncouth!

If the Minister could answer those three specific questions, given that during the course of tonight we have been continuously asking for what advice she has received—I don’t think she’s given very robust answers to that, but these are three specific questions that she should be able to answer off the top of her head, given that she’s stated these as being her primary concerns.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and I tried to keep my interventions short and to the point and I’ll do it again. As I said, there are a number of questions that are serious questions relating to trade issues. We have a number of international conventions, one of them being the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). These are developed and negotiated through the United Nations and they probably go along with little, I guess, up-to-date knowledge on what that means. But when they are brought into a trade agreement—a trade agreement that the Minister of Trade and the Prime Minister yesterday highlighted once again, the EU - New Zealand trade agreement—it is really important that the Minister has had advice on this.

She says, “Well, we’ve considered it.”, but the absence of a proper select committee process means that this side of the committee and, indeed, the wider New Zealand public—particularly, you know, the just over 50 percent of the population who will be adversely affected by this—want to know that it has been considered and it does meet our international obligations.

Aside from being what we would say is morally wrong, if we are then undermined in our trade position, that undermines the economy, and the growth strategy that we hear from the Government all the time will in fact be less credible than it already is. Can I refer to article 19.4? It is specifically ‘Trade and gender equality’; that is the title of it. Clause 1; I won’t go through the whole thing but I will say, at the end of it, it says, “Accordingly, the Parties emphasise their intention to implement this Agreement in a manner that promotes and enhances gender equality.” The elimination or the scrapping of pay equity claims—an attempt to bring that equality and equity together—may indeed be seen in the eyes of our trade partners as a backward step, and I said that first off.

Can I then go to another part of it? This is subclause 6, which, as I say, refers to CEDAW, and I’ll once again go down to the end of this saying, “In this respect, the Parties reiterate their respective commitments under Article 19.3 (Multilateral labour standards and agreements), including those regarding effective implementation of the ILO conventions related to gender equality and the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.” It’s there in black and white. We negotiated in a trade agreement with the EU. The Prime Minister and the Minister of trade have just been shouting about the values of this—and we agree, the potential—and the next day in the House, this Minister brings in a bill that will undermine the objectives of a written agreement through a trade agreement.

So the question is: if the Government or she has considered it, what advice did she get? And, indeed, does it leave us exposed? I’ve seen much advice over the years from Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT). It’s very good advice, it usually does highlight the potential risks of passing legislation like this. There is flexibility in trade agreements, I accept, but it seems to me in reading through this, what the Minister and the Government are doing in passing this piece of legislation under urgency is flying in the face of the objectives of the EU and New Zealand and trying to bring in—where it isn’t in place—gender equality through pay and conditions. The Minister should explain in detail to the committee, or reassure us, that this is not going to put us at risk of trade challenge.

Aside from the points raised by all my colleagues—I’m not going to raise those again—this is a real issue of economic opportunity, not just economic equality, and the Minister, I’m sure, can take an opportunity to answer.

Thank you, Mr Chair, for the call. This is the first call I’ve taken on the Equal Pay Amendment Bill, and I just want to quote something, because members on this side of the Chamber have been quoting a number of emails, pieces of correspondence, and texts that they have received in the last six hours from members of the public who have been affected by this, but, actually, I want to backtrack a bit and I want to quote for the committee a particular quote from the third reading of this particular Act when it was first enacted in 2020. “The dreams I have for my daughter and my grandchildren—one day, when I have them, hopefully—is that they will grow up in a country where the work that they do is equally valued and compensated equally to that of their male counterparts. This bill sets out the framework that we will achieve that outcome. I want to acknowledge tonight the Minister, Julie Anne Genter, who has done an exceptional job. She did an exceptional job earlier answering our questions and has done a great job shepherding this bill through the House, and I commend her for that. She’s been outstanding.”

I’m not going to name who that member was, because it’s quite clear the member, who’s here in the House, understands who she was in her comments at the time. The reason why I raise that particular quote—and it’s the reason why I want to ask a question to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety about the Pacific pay gap, knowing that the Pacific pay gap in the Public Service, for example, was 17.2 percent in 2024 whereas the overall Public Service pay gap is 6.1 percent. The reason why I use that particular quote is because I am a daughter of an agedcare sector worker. So, therefore, if my mother’s dream was for me to be equally treated, fortunately for myself, I was able to be supported by a Government who supported my family when she died, when my family had to go on the benefit.

But what I wanted to ask the Minister is, because I’m here standing on behalf of my daughters, who are Pacific women, who are Pacific and Māori women, and knowing that there is a pay gap between Pacific and Māori women as to what they’re paid compared to their counterparts—what advice has the Minister received around these groups who have disproportionately been, basically, discriminated against already within the current environment? What has she done in this legislation? What advice has she received in order to address that? I would assume, given the large number of aged-care sector workers who are Pacific, who are within that workforce, that the Minister at least would’ve got some advice, some human rights implications, some population group implication analysis from her officials for those particular groups where there is very, very clear evidence that they are disproportionately impacted. I want to hear that advice from the Minister, on behalf of every other Pacific and Māori woman and their children and their grandchildren, as to what implications and what advice she has received about them, because we’re standing in here tonight in the Chamber to address the implications for them.

In the same way that another member in the House in 2020 talked about the hopes and dreams for her children, her grandchildren, I’m standing here for the same hopes and dreams for the Māori and Pacific children and grandchildren and for all those children and grandchildren of low-income workers who will be affected by this. So what advice has she received on the implications on population groups as a result of this particular bill?

Mr Chair, thank you. I’ll just answer two of the contributions so far. Firstly, from Tracey McLellan, asking which examples of claims that should not have gone through I would give to the member, I’m not going to do that. I’m not going to single out any particular claims. I will look at the legislation in general. The current thresholds are low. The claims only need to be arguable, and there only needs to be historical and current sex-based undervaluation—not both. We are here to make the legislation more robust for all of the claims, for the businesses, the unions, the workers—everybody involved in those negotiations.

I also wish to answer a question that has been given by Ingrid Leary, asking if I can confirm that the care and support worker claim won’t be able to be re-raised until 2027. In similar respect to the previous question—I’d already answered that in a previous answer—I’ve already answered this one in a previous answer, too: that is true. That won’t be able to come back until 2027. However, the care and support workers claim was settled in 2017, and the Government funded $2 billion to assist the employers to settle. I want to reassure people that the Government is committed to a process to raise and resolve those claims.

On top of that, I’ll also answer Damien O’Connor’s question, which I would say I have already answered as well, which is about advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade on article 19.3, regarding the EU free-trade agreement (FTA). Once again, the Government has a range of international obligations concerning labour issues, including conventions and other agreements in our FTAs. We have taken those obligations into account in our decision making. I had already answered all three of those questions prior.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and also I thank the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety for her responses to my previous questions. One of the things the Minister responded to was the advice and the question around the options that she was given. The Minister gave me a response, which was: “I have been presented with the options and I think this is the best way.”, which is a fair response, but my question is: what are the other options? So if the Minister wouldn’t mind elucidating for the committee on the other options that were presented and say why this is the one that she landed on, that would be great.

I just want to go to a few specific clauses, and I want to start with clause 12, which is the amendments to section 13H, with clause 12(4) and (5) being the first one. I just want some clarification from the Minister around the definition for certain clauses, because it’s not linked to any other clauses and, unfortunately, I can’t find this bill on the New Zealand Legislation website at present, as well—unless it is there, and I just haven’t been able to find it.

In subclause (4), it provides that new paragraph (aa) is to be inserted after section 13H(a), and the new section mentions “any information about the work prescribed by regulations;”—and I’m only going to touch on things that are different from the existing legislation. I want to check with the Minister: if this is the case, what about the work that people do that, potentially, is outside the requirement of the regulations but that they are somehow required to do?

The reason I want to ask that question is that we have also heard in some of the sectors, with aged care being one of them. We have heard from managers and directors who have said, “Oh well, do you know what? These people”—with it predominantly being a female workforce, but—“these workers, they care a lot about these people, and they’re going to do the work regardless.” So I am concerned that if you’re only looking at things that are within regulations, what we are forgetting is all of the work that workers are doing outside of what they’re required to do, out of the goodness of their hearts, particularly—as other people have mentioned—in the particular sectors that are dominated by women.

On to subclause (5): “Replace section 13H(b)”. Now, the Minister mentioned in terms of what that evidence could be, but I want to focus on the words “elements required”, and I have not seen a definition of “element”. So will the Minister point to a particular section of this bill that will elucidate what those elements could be, and that would be really helpful for us, should we have any further questions.

Moving on to my final question, which is around clause 15, “Section 13L amended (Opting out of multi-employer pay equity claim)”, this is, again, a new section, and I find this particular section quite peculiar. In subclause (2), it says, “Replace section 13L(9) with:” and there is a new subsection (10): “A party may not apply to the Authority … for a determination concerning an employer’s decision under this section to opt out of a multi-employer claim.”

Now, this is a new thing, and I want to really check with the Minister on what is the rationale for a party not being able to apply for clarification as to why an employer decided to opt out, and whether that would still be upheld under the Official Information Act (OIA), as in: does that mean that although a party may not apply to the authority for that determination, they can still apply under the OIA for that? But in that case, what happens then if that information doesn’t exist and the OIA request is rejected because that information doesn’t exist because an employer doesn’t actually have any valid reasons for the decision made to opt out?

So those are my three questions. They are on clause 12, subclause (4) on regulations, and the work outside of regulations that a worker has to do; clause 12, subclause (5), on the definition of “element”, linked to one other section of this bill; and clause 15, subclause (2) on the application to the authority for a determination concerning opting out of multi-employer claims.

I’ll just briefly make one contribution, in response to Barbara Edmonds, who raised concerns about impacts on particular groups, in particular Pasifika women. Look, the bill is intended to ensure that a pay equity system does provide for a better framework for assessing whether or not there is sex-based undervaluation. This system will enable women, including Pasifika women, to raise a pay equity issue.

Members, before we suspend, I just want to assure members that the bill is on the legislation website. We’ve just checked it out up here as well, so it is there. The time has come for me to leave the Chair. Sitting will resume at 9 a.m.

to the Minister of Finance

What are the Government’s fiscal intentions and objectives?

on behalf of the Minister of Finance: On behalf of the Minister, the Government’s fiscal intentions are to restore fiscal discipline to this country and to meet all our objectives.

I think we’ve got a slight problem here. I’ll just take advice from the Clerk about what happens here. It’s clear that the Minister is in the House and can answer.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. It is absolutely true that the Minister of Finance is now in the House. However, another Minister has already started answering the question. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that happen before, but it does create a somewhat complicated issue for the House in that a Minister who has answered the primary question should be subject to follow-up questions, not somebody else taking over midstream.

Well, that’s an interesting view, but as the member will know from his long experience in this House, it is up to the Government to decide who answers any given question on the day.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. That is absolutely true. It is up to the Government as to who answers a primary question and any supplementary questions that flow from that. The Government have decided that Paul Goldsmith should answer these questions.

No, the Government clearly decided that it was necessary for Paul Goldsmith to answer a question, but he can’t. He can’t answer for the nominated Minister who is now in the House.

Point of order.

We could go on for a long time.

We can indeed. If that is the case, then surely if a Minister is identified by the Government that they think should answer the primary question and the supplementary line of questioning goes in a direction that they weren’t anticipating, it’s not unreasonable now for the Government to ask that the Minister who is most appropriate to answer that question starts answering the questions midstream.

Well, that’s an interesting view and I’m sure it would be the view that I’d take if I was in your position, but the Standing Orders are quite clear that the Minister is in the House. The Government has the right to nominate who answers questions. The primary, of course, is on notice, so the expectation would be that the content of that answer is well shared across the ministry.

What is required to achieve the Government’s fiscal strategy?

Restraint is required. The Government is currently spending more than it is collecting in revenue. That is not sustainable as ongoing deficits must be funded by more and more borrowing. Fiscal consolidation is required to unwind structural deficits and, in the first instance, stop the rise in public debt as a proportion of the economy. It’s worth noting that the interest costs on New Zealand’s debt are already more than the combined amount of funding we are able to provide to the Police, the Defence Force, Customs, the Ministry of Justice, and Corrections combined. The Government is taking a deliberate medium-term approach to fiscal consolidation. This is not austerity. This is what you do to avoid austerity. The interest bill we are having to pay on the debt accumulated by the last Government means that our choices are more limited than they would otherwise be.

$12 billion in tax cuts.

The question’s about to be asked.

What levers does the Government have to drive fiscal consolidation?

The Government has two fiscal levers. One has the label “control spending”; the other has the label “increase taxes”. The Government’s focus is squarely on controlling spending, which, as a proportion of the economy, is still well above pre-2020 levels. I know others in this House, if they even care about the fiscal position, would go straight to the increased taxes lever. That would be a huge blow to households’ cost of living and to economic growth, just as the economy is coming out of a protracted downturn.

I just make the point that yesterday I was quite firm with the Opposition members that they could not speculate inside a question, and speculating inside an answer is equally unacceptable.

How is the Government’s fiscal position affected by economic forecasts?

Well, the Government can control what it can control. However, some of the biggest changes to revenue and expenditure are outside the Government’s direct influence. The economy affects the amount of revenue the Government expects to receive. It also affects expenditure—for example, growth and benefits, superannuation, and finance costs are driven by economic variables. As I outlined in answer to the previous question, the interest bill which the Government faces on its debt is something which requires us to pay off over time. Of recent updates, a series of downside revisions to economic forecasts made the Government’s fiscal goals much more challenging to achieve. Despite this, we are still on track to deliver a surplus by the end of the forecast period.

Just to reaffirm things for the Leader of the Opposition, who raised quite a legitimate question, Speakers’ ruling 199/1, brought down by Speaker Hunt in the year 2000, makes it very clear that if someone else answers a primary and then a Minister turns up, the Minister answers the supplementary questions.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. To the Prime Minister—maybe the Prime Minister will show up during this one—does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

No, we’re going to stop, and we’ll start that again without the little quip.

to the Prime Minister

Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

on behalf of the Prime Minister: With the usual caveats, most certainly, yes.

Who is correct: Christopher Luxon, when he said the decision to take billions of dollars from working Kiwi women has nothing to do with the Budget, or David Seymour, when he said that decision has “saved the Budget”?

The reality is that the law change that is being restored—and it was changed in 2020 by all parties in this Parliament, who mistakenly made those changes because no settlement happened since then—we’re going back to the law of 2017 [Interruption]. Listen, you might learn something—listen, you might learn something. We’re going back to the 2017 law that saw nurses gain $2 billion. We believe that a lot of settlements being made now are settlements that should not be made, are wait and see, because all those past claims—35 cases—can be heard in the same way into the future but the law will be different.

Why did Nicola Willis call the pay equity process a “sign of success” last year if it now needs dismantling, and is the Government’s real motive to balance the books at the expense of working Kiwi women?

No, the motive of the Government is to ensure we’ve got a workable law that compares like with like. You cannot have all these professions that are just miles and miles away. Dare I say it, when you start talking about pay equity, the first thing you must understand where women are concerned is what a woman is.

Is his definition of a woman—[Interruption]

No, no. Sorry, I’ll just—sorry. There was a lot of noise during that question. We do want to have questions asked in silence. We can’t start to break that down. I’d ask the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question again.

Is his definition of a woman someone who’s paid less than a man?

Well, my definition of a woman is not what that member said, “I’ll get back to you later.”, and still can’t describe it and said the other day that it was someone who said that they were a woman. No, if we’re going to deal with this issue properly, then let’s respect women, ensure that they get a fair go, and the—[Interruption].

Pay them what they’re worth.

Well, in your case, it’ll be a quarter of what you’re getting now. There are women and women, you know. But, no, no—this shouting. If that member had any experience, she would know that she’s got all these supplementary questions to ask, but no, no, she shouts across Parliament every darn day from the front bench. Now, back to my point—back to my point—the experience of 2017 was that there were fair settlements. The experience since 2020 is that the law didn’t work. That’s why practical steps are being made. As for the comments on what it means, let’s see when the claims are over.

Point of order, sir. Thank you. For absolute clarity, can you please confirm to the House that that answer was on behalf of the Prime Minister?

It’s not for me to clarify that; it’s for the person who’s answering the question to clarify it. Until that clarification comes from that person, it can’t be demanded by anybody else.

Point of order. With respect, sir, it is a requirement for Ministers to indicate when they are answering on behalf of other Ministers that they are doing so, and that is your responsibility to ensure that happens. Also, with respect, this is a point that I have made quite regularly with the Deputy Prime Minister answering on behalf of the Prime Minister, and you have already ruled previously that he is.

Well, I have in certain circumstances where he has made it clear. It’s for the House to determine. If someone stands up and speaks as a Minister, then that is where it sits. I can’t start telling them or demanding that they are speaking for someone else.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister. It’s on notice—

Yes, that is the point. That is the point, and think about what I’ve just said.

If the Deputy Prime Minister is not answering on behalf of the Prime Minister, who’s he answering on behalf of?

Well, you can make that conclusion yourself. He’s not answering it as the Minister of Foreign Affairs or as the Deputy Prime Minister; he’s answering as the Prime Minister.

Very good, thank you, Mr Speaker. How is it showing respect to Kiwi women that the Government—supplementary? Sorry, Mr Speaker.

That’s all right. I knew what you were doing.

Very good, thank you. How is it showing respect to Kiwi women, as he claims, for the Government, under urgency, to unilaterally cancel pay equity claims covering hundreds of thousands of New Zealand women who are being paid less than men simply because they are women?

Well, the last statement is categorically incorrect. The reality is we had all these—[Interruption] Do you want to hear the answer?

I think—

Or do you want to hear your stupid voice?

No, no.

You can’t have both.

Mr Peters—[Interruption]. OK, look. It’s always an excitable time when the House is in urgency, but that’s no excuse for things to break down quite the way they are. So we’ll hear the balance of this question and answer exchange in silence. The Rt Hon Winston Peters, do you want to add to that answer?

No, no.

Why do he and his Ministers keep denying the obvious, that this is about robbing Paula to pay Paul, stripping Kiwi women of fair pay to clean up Nicola Willis’ economic mess?

To quote someone: I refute the premises of that question. The second thing is that the law worked successfully in 2017, as evidenced by the settlements. But when the law doesn’t work, even though it was supported by every party in Parliament, our job when we make mistakes is to recognise that and fix it, and fix it we are. [Interruption]

Yeah, good. Everyone quiet please.

to the Minister of Transport

What announcements has he made regarding rapid transit in Auckland?

Excellent news. A couple of weeks ago, I was proud to announce, alongside His Worship Mayor Wayne Brown, that faster, more frequent reliable public transport for Auckland’s north-west is one step closer with the New Zealand Transport Agency board endorsing the north-west rapid transit investment case. As members will know, the north-west of Auckland is home to 90,000 people, one of the city’s largest planned growth areas—100,000 people will live there by 2051. They deserve reliable, frequent public transport like other parts of Auckland do as well.

How will Aucklanders benefit from this project?

This is a big project and a big win for the people of Auckland, particularly the north-west. Sixty percent of people in the north-west commute out of the area every day. Delivering the north-west busway will be a game-changer and build on the northern busway, the City Rail Link, and the Eastern Busway. We’ll be able to move 9,000 passengers per hour in each direction. It’s the equivalent of four motorway lanes and, when built, will provide 25-minute journey times from Brigham Creek to the city centre all day and every day.

Very good. Supplementary, Mr Speaker—[Interruption] What work is already—

No, no. Sit down. You’ve made a comment rather than a question. We’ll move to question No. 4, Carmel Sepuloni.

to the Minister for Women

Does she agree with the statement on the Ministry for Women website that “The majority (80%) of the gender pay gap is driven by harder to measure factors like conscious and unconscious bias and differences in choices and behaviours”; if so, how has this shaped her advocacy?

In response to the first leg of the question, yes. I’d also agree with the statement on the website that Aotearoa New Zealand has a proud history of advancing equal rights, and the Equal Pay Act of 1972 “outlawed discrimination in wage rates between men and women performing the same job.”, and this still stands.

Does she agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that “this is a Government that’s very committed to pay equity and ensuring that we do everything we can against sex-based discrimination.”; if so, why has the Government pushed through legislation under urgency to stop women from making pay equity claims?

Of course, I always agree with the Prime Minister, and I’d like to elucidate for the member that this is positive news for women. This law change provides a very clear legal framework for raising and resolving pay equity claims—[Interruption]

Sorry, just stop. We’re not having that ongoing barrage like that.

I didn’t say anything.

I beg your pardon?

I didn’t say anything.

Unusually, you didn’t say anything. But your colleagues certainly filled in for you, and almost matched your volume. Please, Nicola Grigg.

As I was saying, this law change provides, finally, a very clear legal framework for proving sex-based undervaluation and raising and resolving those claims. That can only be a good thing for women.

Does she stand—

Hang on. Just wait for quiet, because it’s people behind you who are pretty excited.

Does she stand by her statement, from only 6 March this year, that “This Government absolutely remains committed to pay equity and meeting its obligations under the Equal Pay Act.”; if so, what has changed?

Of course I stand by my statement. I want to be clear to this House that this law change is not walking back equal pay or pay equity; we are making improvements to a failed system.

Did she advocate for a robust select committee process for the Equal Pay Amendment Bill to allow women the chance to have their say, or is this bill so urgent that the Government doesn’t need to hear from women?

I always advocate for women, and I have been consulted on and advised on this legislation from the outset.

Does she agree with Kristine Bartlett that “I feel as though women have just been let down so terribly today. It’s just so sad. I don’t know what is going to happen in this society.”; if not, why not?

What I would say to Ms Bartlett is that we are amending the Equal Pay Act to make the process more robust, more workable, and more sustainable.

Is her top priority still to “support women to economic empowerment”, and, if so, how does undermining pay equity and cutting the Pay Equity Taskforce achieve this?

Yes, I do stand by that statement. Supporting women to economic empowerment is my number one priority as the Minister for Women.

Question No. 5, Carl Bates.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister—[Interruption]

Hang on, hang on, hang on. It’s a simple rule; if there’s a question being asked, don’t speak.

How come you’re looking at her, not the Minister who interjected at the end of her own question?

I’m terribly sorry, I just assumed that there was a general noise coming from around the House, and I was wanting to affirm a position with your good self, given your vast experience in Parliament! Carl Bates.

Hear, hear! Rules!

Thank you, Mr Speaker—

That’s right, Mr Jones, rules. Please be quiet.

to the Minister of Justice

How is the Government progressing with its plan to restore law and order?

The Government has been relentlessly focused on restoring law and order in New Zealand. We’re putting victims back in the heart of the justice system and we’re restoring real consequences for crime by taking a range of actions such as restoring three-strikes legislation, giving police more tools to effectively deal with gangs, and strengthening the sentencing regime. We have an ambitious agenda and we’re progressing at pace.

What update can he provide on the Government’s violent crime reduction target?

Well, on entering Government at the end of 2023, the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey recorded 185,000 New Zealanders as being victims of violent crime over the preceding year; that is, victims of assaults, robberies, and sexual assaults. The Government has focused the justice system on reducing that number and has set an ambitious target of reducing the number by 20,000 to 165,000 victims by 2029. I’m pleased to tell the House that the latest figure that was released recently is 157,000. That’s 8,000 fewer than our target for 2029. It’s still 157,000 victims too many, but it does show great progress.

What impact does such good progress towards the violent crime reduction target have on New Zealanders?

Well, 28,000 fewer victims recorded between October 2023 and now is a statistic amongst a world of statistics. But each of those 28,000 people represent an individual that is spared from the trauma of violent crime—somebody’s son, daughter, husband, wife, partner, friend, or loved one. That’s why our Government has focused the justice system squarely on reducing the number of victims of crime.

What is next in the Government’s plans?

Well, the Government soon will be taking decisions to further strengthen consequences for crime by reforming the Crimes Act, and, in doing so, we’ll continue to receive and consider advice from the Ministerial Advisory Group for Victims of Retail Crime, relating to strengthening trespass laws, addressing low-level offending, as well as progressing law changes to make the citizen’s arrest provisions sensible and effective.

to the Prime Minister

E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

[Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?]

on behalf of the Prime Minister: In all good tidings, yes.

Does he agree with his Minister of Conservation that “The richness of Aotearoa New Zealand’s biodiversity and our iconic landscapes are a source of great pride to New Zealanders. We need to focus our minds on protecting this taonga now and into the future”, and, if so, what is his Government doing to protect te taiao?

The one qualification as to the name of the country you’re speaking about, I agree with him totally.

How long has he given the public to submit on the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill, which will allow developers to lawfully kill New Zealand’s protected wildlife?

That’s a very specific question that might better be addressed to a select committee as opposed to a Minister. Ask a different one.

Well, I’m happy to answer it.

Oh, OK. Right.

Long enough for us to come up with some very sound, practical, and workable legislation.

Does he see the irony in rushing through a bill to authorise the killing of wildlife when his own Government’s biodiversity implementation strategy, released on Monday, states that “New Zealand has one of the highest proportions of threatened species in the world”?

Yes, all members of this Government understand entirely what that member is talking about, but the reality is that this is a long programme over decades that we have been working on, and it’s nothing new that we don’t know, so to speak. But certain culling has to happen in the interest of the total number of species in this country. That’s just plain common sense.

How does he expect the Department of Conservation to fulfil additional expectations, as proposed under his Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill, when the director-general has already said “the department is not currently financially sustainable for what we are being asked to do”?

The answer for that is to go and ask all those people around this country—and there are tens of thousands of them—who would be happy to contribute and help out the Department of Conservation on that very issue. That’s what sharing the burden looks like, and I can say there are thousands and thousands of New Zealanders, men and women, who would want to help now, and they’d not want to be paid for it.

Does he agree that without funding in the upcoming Budget, conservation work will continue to be chronically underfunded and reliant on private philanthropy?

No, this Government has never believed that tossing money around like an eight-armed octopus is the answer for everything.

Can I ask, Acting Prime Minister, had previous Governments been responsible for numerous authorisations that had been issued for the incidental killing of wildlife, and also, does he have a concern that if we follow the recent judgment that’d stop this, the TV3 programme, a number of roading projects, and green infrastructure projects will be ceased?

With respect—

That sounds different from culling.

Now, this is the truth now. With respect to both questions, on the first one, we most certainly agree; on the second one, thank you to the Minister for pointing out the abysmal record of the past that we are seeking to correct.

to the Minister of Finance

Does she agree with Associate Finance Minister David Seymour that “I actually think that Brooke van Velden has saved the taxpayer billions. She’s saved the Budget for the Government.”; if so, what are the savings from the changes to pay equity?

I understand from my colleague Mr Seymour that he was speaking as ACT leader when he made that statement, not associate finance Minister. The words the ACT leader chose are not what I would choose. I agree that changes being made to pay equity legislation will reduce the Crown’s expected future costs from pay equity settlements. There is some important context here and, as has been the practice with successive Ministers of Finance, it is my judgment that it is in accordance with the public interest to provide detailed information about this in the full context of the Budget. However, to help the member, I can confirm that there is a reduction in projected future costs to the Crown of several billion dollars. However, there are two reasons why the projected costs of pay equity settlements projected by the Treasury have been rising exponentially, and they are not all related to the changes in the bill which the Government is progressing. The first relates to the costs to the Crown as an employer. This Government intends to keep meeting those costs. Where claims are made that demonstrate that women employed by the Government have been discriminated against on the basis of their gender, it is our Government’s intention to fully fund those settlements, and we will provide funding for that in our Budget—

Good.

It is also the Government’s intention to fully uphold settlements. You’re getting impatient but they want the information, I tell you—

Yep, I am.

But the second issue relates to the way that the Government responds to claims made against private sector employers. The last Government established an expectation that those costs would be fully met by the Crown, and that is not our expectation.

Yes, good. I think supplementaries from the Minister’s own side might help with that.

When did she first receive advice by the New Zealand Treasury on the potential savings from changing the law to cancel 33 active pay equity claims?

I have been receiving briefings about the projected future costs of pay equity settlements—as I recall—from within my first days as Minister of Finance, and what I do recall observing was that those projected costs were far, far greater than I had ever appreciated, and far greater than I think Parliament appreciated when it first passed the pay equity reforms in 2020. As I just said, this, in particular, related to a Cabinet decision made by the last Government that it would fully meet the costs of successful claims against private sector employers—that is to say, the taxpayer being a backstop for employers found to have discriminated against women on the basis of their gender.

Does she stand by her statement that “We are committed to maintaining stability for New Zealanders by continuing to invest in essential front-line services.”, and, if so, how is cancelling the pay equity claim for 75,000 teachers investing in the front line?

I stand by all my statements. As I have said, it remains the Government’s solemn commitment that where pay equity claims are proven against the Government as an employer—for example, as the employer of teachers—if a pay equity claim is proven, that teachers have been discriminated against on the basis of their gender, then we will meet the costs of that settlement. It’s important to note that workforces advance their working conditions and pay through a number of channels. One of them is pay equity, and that should relate to gender discrimination. The other, second, very important channel is through normal bargaining; that’s how workers bargain for improved conditions and improved pay and, yes, I can confirm the Government has put aside funding in our Budget to meet the costs of future teacher bargaining.

What is she doing to assist the additional 9,000 women who are unemployed compared to this time last year, and how will cutting women’s pay incentivise them into work?

I object to the statement made in the latter half of that question, which is untrue. We are not doing that, because what the member is referring to is claims that have been made that have not been proven. Where there have been settlements, the Government is continuing to fully fund the upholding of those settlements, and, second, we are continuing to allow claims to progress where discrimination can be proved on the basis of gender. So those sorts of outlandish statements undermine the credibility of the member and her party.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Throughout this question, the Minister of Finance has given incredibly long answers that extended well beyond the scope of the question, including insulting the people who are asking the question. You’ve been quite hard on our side of the House today, and I simply ask that you apply that standard to the other side of the House and that Ministers answer the questions that they’re asked and they refrain from insulting the people who are asking what are very fair and legitimate questions about a bill that’s going through the House under urgency with no public scrutiny.

Speaking to the point of order—

Thank you. Just before we hear from you, Mr Bishop—I will hear from you—I’d just ask the Leader of the Opposition to reflect that the last question that was asked was very wide of the wicket and it didn’t relate to any previous answer. I was about to stop it, but then thought, “No, it’s a big issue. Let it run on.” The Hon Chris Bishop—no? OK.

Does she stand by her statement from 2 May 2024 that “In the past few years, a substantial number of public sector claims have been settled and the taskforce has supported agencies to build up their expertise and knowledge of their obligations. It is a sign of success”; if so, what has changed since May 2024 that requires legislation to be passed under urgency before her Budget?

Yes, I stand by that statement because it remains the case that those settlements that have been reached will be upheld but also it is the case that the expertise that was built up by public servants through the claims process is partly what has informed the Government’s decision to refine this Act, because what we found was that claims were being able to be progressed across a range of issues that went beyond the intended scope as it related to discrimination on the basis of sex. Finally, what I would make clear is that we are passing this legislation under urgency in order to provide absolute clarity and in order for claims to once again be submitted. It is not the case that this is required for the Budget, because, actually, the decisions made by Cabinet were enough to put the financial implications into the Budget. The legislation did not need to be passed in order for that to happen.

What claims were outside the scope of the legislation that required the legislation to now change urgently before her Budget?

Well, it’s long been a practice of this House that we won’t make legal judgments about which claims may or may not be successful in future.

What is more important: saving her Budget, or ensuring women are paid enough?

I reject the characterisation in the first part of the question. In answer to the second part of the question, I stand by the statements I have made for several years, which is that I wish to see women be advanced and I wish to see them have equal rights and opportunities to men. It remains my view that women don’t always have equal rights and opportunities to men, and that is why we are entrenching a workable pay equity regime that, by the way, is one of the most progressive in the world, as it stands, in the legislation we’re advancing today, so that where women are being discriminated against on the basis of their gender, they can make claims and have them settled.

to the Minister for Mental Health

What recent announcement has he made supporting Women’s Refuge through the Mental Health and Addiction Innovation Fund?

Last week, I announced that the Women’s Refuge—[Interruption]

Sorry, sorry—everyone can calm right down.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Last week, I announced that the Women’s Refuge was the latest recipient of the Government’s Mental Health and Addiction Innovation Fund. The funding will support 250 advocates based within the 41 women’s refuges across New Zealand. Over the past five years, Women’s Refuge has supported, on average, 15,000 women per year. This funding will help Women’s Refuge better support these women and children in their time of need.

How will funding from the Mental Health and Addiction Innovation Fund support Women’s Refuge?

The funding will support Women’s Refuge to upskill their staff and improve connections with local mental health services and referral pathways. The feedback I often hear about mental health services is that they are too hard to navigate because the system is too disjointed and people don’t know where to go. This funding will help Women’s Refuge to join up the system to make it more accessible to those in need. Government funding will be match-funded to total over $1 million to deliver this initiative.

What feedback has the Minister received on this recent announcement?

Women’s Refuge chief executive Ang Jury said, “This is a project that we wouldn’t have been able to look at without this funding, … [and] it would have been impossible without”. I had a message from Bethany, who said, “This is awesome to hear. Our Women’s Refuge centres across the country do amazing work. I hope the funding will be spread to the regional centres.” I’m happy to tell Bethany and the House that this funding will support Women’s Refuge across the country and all of the 41 Women’s Refuge centres. I’m proud that we’re able to help Women’s Refuge support women and families in their time of need.

What other organisations have benefited from the Mental Health and Addiction Innovation Fund, and what changes has he made to round two of the fund?

So far, we’ve been able to support MATES in Construction, the Mental Health Foundation, Youthline, Wellington City Mission, Rotorua’s Youth One Stop Shop, Sir John Kirwan Foundation, and there are still further announcements to come. Round two of the fund will also see a lower limit required from $250,000 per application to $100,000. This means more front-line services will benefit, but the real winners are New Zealanders looking to access timely mental health and addiction support.

to the Prime Minister

E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

[Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?]

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

Why did his Government choose to pass the pay equity amendment legislation under urgency, bypassing public and expert input and good lawmaking practice?

The judgment of that question, at the conclusion, is demonstrably false. It demonstrates that the person knows nothing about industrial relations law and doesn’t understand that, at the very bottom of where the labour unions and others are, we made our consideration way back then on the question of minimum wages. Now, the fact is that we need one system for all claimants. We did not need the confusion that arose after 2020, so we’re going back to a system in 2017, which worked so successfully that the then claimants got $2 billion.

If we are to believe the Prime Minister that the pay equity amendment is about a more robust and workable system, why has his Government chosen to unexpectedly announce and pass the law under urgency, without any chance for public or expert engagement or scrutiny, in just two sitting days?

In the famous words of William Shakespeare, if the deed should be done, it had better be done quickly.

What exactly is not robust and workable about the current pay equity scheme?

What’s not robust about the current pay equity scheme is that you’ve got all sorts of illogical comparisons, with no relativity whatsoever, and that’s one of the reasons why the claims have been dragged out these last five years. We want to have the system fixed, and remember: some of us have got a record in terms of fair pay, superior to any other people in this Parliament. That’s our record, and so I’m certain that, when it’s over, as the Minister of Finance has warned over and over and over again, there will be a fiscal impact. Why don’t we wait and see what the findings are?

What exactly is the purpose of making the pay equity process more difficult and cancelling 33 active claims, representing hundreds of thousands of women in this country’s lowest-paid industries?

Nothing has been cancelled, to the extent that they can revive all those claims under the new regime. It’s so simple: we’re going back to a law that worked before some misguided politicians—unfortunately, far too many—changed the law and it didn’t work.

to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety

Does she agree with Thomas Coughlan of the New Zealand Herald, who said about her changes to pay equity legislation that “It is deeply wrong that Parliament can take away that work in a matter of hours”; if not, why not?

May I start by making something very clear: this Government is committed to maintaining a pay equity regime, and none of the changes this Government is making undo the hard work of Kristine Bartlett, whose work Thomas Coughlan was referring to. This Government denounces sex-based discrimination in the workplace. [Interruption]

Hang on—hang on a minute. If there’s going to be concern about the answer to a question, I need to be able to hear it, and there’s too much noise for me to be able to hear that. Please carry on.

This Government denounces sex-based discrimination in the workplace. We will continue to have an Equal Pay Act to address cases of genuine sex-based discrimination. We are continuing to allow anyone to raise a pay equity claim. What we are doing is making the system more robust, workable, and sustainable. On that basis, I do not agree with Thomas Coughlan’s characterisation. However, I do agree with a different journalist’s characterisation, which was Mike Hosking from this morning. His article said, “Reform for the Pay Equity Act is good.” [Interruption]

No, hang on—just stop. Just wait till the excitement settles down. [Interruption] Now, just wait—I said just wait.

He said, “Kristine Bartlett was, to many, a hero. She was a very likeable woman. She was a caregiver who argued her work was undervalued and she deserved more. The Labour Party who love ‘feels’ and are not exactly unfamiliar with the unions and leapt all over it and the Equal Pay Act … was born. The downside was how to compare this so-called ‘underpaid work’ like in nursing homes [etc.] … They decided at the time comparing mechanics to rest home workers made sense, even though it didn’t, and doesn’t. [And] That’s why Brooke van Velden has announced pay equity is going to be, quite rightly, tipped up and sorted out.”

Why is she mandating that pay equity claims can only use comparators from the same industry when the very point of pay equity claims is to highlight that female-dominated industries are less valued than male-dominated industries?

The reason why we are introducing the hierarchy of comparators is so that we have greater confidence in the pay equity system rightly identifying issues of genuine sex-based undervaluation. We start at home, making a comparison with people who work within the same company or employer. If there is no comparison with people who have a different but similar work environment, a different employer—if there is no comparator there, within the same sector but not across industry. This means that we can have greater confidence that we are picking up genuine sex-based undervaluation and not other labour market forces and things like inflation.

Did she compare social workers to air traffic controllers because she fundamentally believes that work done mostly by women is inherently less valued than work done by mostly men?

No, I did because they do it themselves.

Does she think “very real and significant cost reductions to Government.” is a price only women should pay for?

No, I believe women should be paid for their work. Every woman in this Cabinet believes women should be paid for their work. What we don’t agree with are muddied laws. We have laws that Labour pushed through that have made pay equity confused with things like collective agreements; confused with inflation; confused with other labour market forces, things like technological change, demographic change—a whole range of labour market forces. If you genuinely believe in gender-based and sex-based discrimination being stamped out, then you would support this bill, because that’s exactly what it does.

Can I ask the Minister as to whether the questioner, who is a primary school teacher, has told her as to who gave primary school teachers—massively filled with women in that population—pay parity?

So how is that question in order?

Because you’re looking at it; that’s why.

No, hang on a minute. I’m not about to dissect the question, but in the context of the question that is asked, in the context of the supplementaries that I’ve been listening to very carefully, because the answers have been lengthy, it’s not an unreasonable question.