Coddington Deborah: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Coddington Deborah: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17902] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I would like to carry on with what Rod Donald was speaking about and with what Lockwood Smith was speaking about just before midnight last night when we adjourned for the evening. That was clause 157(2). We will not be voting for the amendment that Mr Donald has put forward. He may take another call and explain it further but he has not satisfactorily given a good reason to justify pay equity. 
Rod Donald 
: Cut your salary by 20 percent! 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: That is the point. People who advocate equality for all— 
Rod Donald 
: Equity! 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: —equity for all want to drag the top people down to the bottom. They do not want to encourage people at the bottom of the heap to aspire to get to the top; they just want to drag everyone down to the bottom. Pay equity to someone who argues like that would mean taking Judy Bailey’s salary down to the lowest salary level paid at TVNZ. That is what pay equity means. 
Hon Member 
: Bollocks! 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Well that was a very intelligent reaction from someone who probably should know better than that. However Rod Donald talked about the value of those people but I ask to whom they are of value. How can one person say that the value of a nurse is exactly the same as the value of a police officer? I absolutely totally agree that nurses need to be paid more but it is nothing to do with the inequity of the pay scales that leads to there being low-paid nurses. It is to do with unionisation and the one-size-fits-all approach of the union and it is the same with the teachers’ pay scale. 
There are other issues in clause 157(2). It starts off OK. It provides that: “ … a good employer is an employer who operates a personnel policy containing provisions generally accepted as necessary for the fair and proper treatment of employees in all aspects of their employment”. But it then goes further and directs the public service in various areas. That always starts in the public service but then it moves into the private sector and the private sector is required to follow those requirements too. Clause 157(2) provides that there is to be: “(d) recognition of—(i) the aims and aspirations of Maori; and (ii) the employment requirements of Maori; and (iii) the need for involvement of Maori as employees of the entity;”. Apart from being race-based legislation that provision is totally meaningless. What on earth is in the heads and hearts of Maori that is different from the aims and aspirations the employment requirements and the need for involvement of any person of a different culture or different ethnic background from Maori? That is insulting to Maori. It sets them out as being not quite as good as everybody else; therefore they need to be targeted for special assistance. 
But even more insulting is clause 157(2)(g) which provides for “recognition of the employment requirements of women;”. What are the employment requirements of women? Which women does the provision refer to? Is it all women individual women large women small women white women or brown women? We cannot collectivise a group of people like that without it being an “-ist”. This is sexist and racist legislation. It insults women Maori and ethnic minority groups which are also mentioned in the clause. This legislation is being promoted and driven by the Minister who is meant to be ferreting out all that sort of drivel in legislation—the whole ethnic filter that is creeping into legislation. This is an example of the Government paying lip service only to that. After the Orewa speech the Government came out grandly and said there would be no more race-based legislation yet here it is written large in clause 157(2). 
I go back to the pay equity issue and the issue that people should be paid the same amount for work that is the same or for work that is different but of equal value.