Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Moroney Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:655;Page:4884] 
8.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Does she stand by her statement in the House on Tuesday when she said: “The law is clear: people cannot be discriminated against because of their gender. The standard is equal pay for equal work.”? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Yes. 
Sue Moroney 
: Will the Minister then advise the Minister of Education to implement the findings of the school support workers pay equity investigation which found that jobs in this female-dominated occupation paid $8 less per hour at the start rate than jobs in a male-dominated workforce with the same level of skills responsibilities demands and working conditions; in other words will she fix this unequal pay for equal work? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: If there has been a breach of the Equal Pay Act remedies are available under the Act. The employee is entitled to make a complaint either under the Equal Pay Act or the Human Rights Act. 
Sue Moroney 
: If as the Minister herself said on Tuesday the standard is equal pay for equal work— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What’s the question? Start with a question word. 
Sue Moroney 
: —I said “if”—will she instruct the Minister of State Services to reinstate the pay equity investigation for social workers at Child Youth and Family where men are paid 9.5 percent more than their women colleagues or is she happy for her Government to be one of those unscrupulous employers she referred to in Parliament on Tuesday? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I refer to my previous answer. The same answer applies to that question. 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I referred specifically to the Minister’s own statement in the House on Tuesday. She has failed to address the question of why if her assertion is that the standard is equal pay for equal work she will not instruct the Ministers. Why will she not address the question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable member for repeating this but if she reflects back on her supplementary question she will see that if she had asked the question in her point of order and only that question then it would be much easier for the Speaker to assist her. The dilemma was that the tail part of her question—if I remember correctly—put in a bit about whether it was part of the Government being irresponsible or something along those lines. When a member does that he or she cannot expect a question to be addressed absolutely because he or she has added political content to it and will get a political answer. If the member asked the simple question then I would assist her every time if I could but not when political content is added. That gives the Minister an out. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Tena koutou. Does the Minister think it is appropriate for her department’s staff to be issued with a directive that participating in a lunchtime rally on pay equity for public servants “may therefore call into question our role as public servants” and can she comment on what kind of precedent that is in a democracy? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: That is a matter for the chief executive. It is an operational matter. He is following State Services Commission guidelines which are there to safeguard the political neutrality of the Public Service. 
Grant Robertson 
: Did the Minister or her office have any contact with the chief executive of the Department of Labour about staff attending the pay equity rally on Tuesday? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: As I said it was an operational matter. I made no directive. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Yes or no? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: No I did not have discussions with the chief executive about whether staff should attend the rally. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a very tight question from Mr Robertson. It asked whether the Minister or her office were in contact. She said that she had had no contact but she did not refer to her office. I accept that we cannot have two legs but I do not think we could have a simpler question than that for a Minister to answer. But she avoided answering what is now becoming apparent. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have to say in fairness on this occasion that I thought the Minister gave a pretty reasonable answer. I accept the technical point the member has made but I thought the Minister was pretty upfront in answering the fundamental part of that question: whether she had any contact with the department over that matter. She answered that question very clearly to the House. In respect of the other part of the question I think had it been a primary question there would have been no problem but with a supplementary I think the Minister did answer the question within the Standing Orders. 
Sue Moroney 
: Why did the Minister say on Tuesday during oral questions: “If Labour members have evidence that women are being paid less only because they are women … they need to bring that evidence forward.” yet today she is shirking her responsibility to do anything about it? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: As I said on Tuesday and as I have said today if there has been a breach of the Equal Pay Act there are remedies under that legislation. The employee is entitled to make a complaint under either that legislation or the human rights legislation. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did the Minister’s office have contact with anyone in the department about departmental officials attending the rally this week? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: To the best of my knowledge no. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: I seek leave to table an email from the Deputy Secretary Corporate of the Department of Labour to all Department of Labour staff. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table an email from the Deputy Secretary of Labour to the staff. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.