Ardern JacindaJACINDA ARDERN (Leader of the Opposition): In amongst all of that from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety I have one simple question for the Minister—one simple question. Does he believe in equal pay? Does the Minister believe in equal pay? It is 2017 and does the Minister who just took his seat believe in equal pay? Because if he does how is it possible that he could present to this House a bill that takes us not only a step backwards but an entire generation backwards in terms of our ability to actually move forward in terms of giving women access to pay equity?Fundamentally the achievement that the Minister has spoken of the achievement by Kristine Bartlett will not happen again under his law. It will never happen again. It will be a first and it will be a last and that is an absolute disgrace.If I speak personally on this issue or if anyone senses some deep personal connection to this issue I am sure they will hear that from many women in this House. I grew up surrounded by women who have been in low-paid work. I have seen the indignity of that low-paid work particularly when it has been compared with the work of others. There is no dignity for women who are working predominantly in areas of valuable work but because they are areas that have been dominated by women they are by virtue of that earning low wages. That is absolutely unacceptable in 2017.I want to speak to the things that gave rise to this bill—how we got here in the first place. I cannot do that without acknowledging someone whom we all on this side of the House would call a modern-day hero—Kristine Bartlett. She alongside her union E tū took a case against her employer TerraNova Homes and Care Ltd went to the Court of Appeal took a case under the Equal Pay Act 1972 and got a result that would not just affect her life but the lives of tens of thousands of women—tens of thousands of women. It was a landmark case. We had an opportunity at that point to improve the access of other women to be able to ensure pay equity in our lifetime. Instead—instead—we have this bill.But what could have been? What could have been? And should we actually have even seen the writing on the wall? I was actually reading an article written by Wellington employment lawyer Steph Dyhrberg. Not only does she outline the simple premise of pay equity she flagged a couple of warning bells that after the historic landmark pay rise the Prime Minister was reported as warning that the carers' case was unique". Well actually it is not unique; thousands of women are in the exact same set of circumstances. He called it unique straight away when actually it should have been a benchmark for what we were doing for others. It was unique and "the hurdle would be pretty high"—the hurdle would be pretty high.Grant Robertson: Only if you set it high.JACINDA ARDERN: My colleague is exactly right. The Minister obviously established alongside his Government colleagues that actually maybe the hurdle was not high enough. So that is where this bill came from.Let us look at what actually could have been. There was some goodwill around the table Minister—there was some goodwill around the table. The Government unions and Business New Zealand all came together to create the joint working group. They negotiated on the basis that there were assurances that the 1972 Act would remain and they would be making amendments to that. That is not what has happened. We have not enshrined principles; instead we have done away with them and we have done away with any hope that we will make any further progress in this area in the future. Why? Because the very essence of what the Kristine Bartlett case was based on has been gutted.The point I want to start with is comparators. The easiest way to explain the comparators is that if you are looking at a workforce a sector that is dominated by women then in order to establish what equal work of equal value is in another sector you use comparators. That is what happened in the Kristine Bartlett case. There was a very pragmatic approach and there was a wide range of comparators that were used. There was not a lot of ongoing dispute where time was wasted simply settling on one; a range of skill sets were used to formulate what would be an appropriate outcome in that case.So what has the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety instead come up with? Instead in this case this bill introduces a hierarchy of comparators that attempts to keep male comparators as close as possible to the female claimants' workplace. That fundamentally does not work and misses the point of having to resolve cases where the workforce is predominantly female. So in the case of TerraNova TerraNova tried to use male gardeners as a comparator and that would be the exact kind of outcome you would see if you follow the Minister's logic. Yet the complexity of the job that Kristine Bartlett and others were doing should have been compared across a wide range of other sectors.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Oh read the bill Jacinda.JACINDA ARDERN: Minister I absolutely understand. I absolutely understand this bill and if the Minister is claiming that I do not understand why did he not implement what the joint working group suggested? Why did he not introduce what the joint working group suggested: not only comparators within the same employer but comparators from within a similar employer; if none are appropriate then comparators from within the same industry or sector; or if none are then appropriate comparators from a different industry or sector? He has removed the flexibility that led to the successful outcome of the Kristine Bartlett case.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Oh rubbish.JACINDA ARDERN: Absolutely it is true. It is true and every single person involved knows that. But that is not the only issue—that is not the only issue. I ask the Minister as well: has the barrier to taking a case increased? Has the barrier to taking a case increased?Hon Michael Woodhouse: No.JACINDA ARDERN: OK well let us look at the requirements. The requirements for women to prove merit in order to initiate a pay equity claim—they need to prove that their part of the workforce is 66 percent female dominated prove it is historically undervalued and then prove it is the subject of ongoing undervaluation including through detailed labour market evaluation. The bar that has been set in this bill makes it absolutely untenable for women especially who work outside of unionised workplaces to be able to establish a case. We are asking them to establish a set of macroeconomic criteria in order to demonstrate that they have merit in their case.Yes there are some sectors that will have a union that can do this work but what about the rest? What about the rest? That is where we say that there is a much higher barrier to access equal pay claims. But not only that; not only is the barrier high for new cases it actually now exists for all cases. This bill not only says that going forward will this apply; it actually says that for any case even under way now—I am sorry but the Equal Pay Act no longer exists. You now have to operate under this legislation which is utterly unfair in the way that it is applying retrospectively to any other sector that is currently under negotiation. That is patently unfair. Where else does this House do that? It is very very rare that we would pull the rug out from underneath a sector in this way. It is utterly unfair.But I want to come back to that simple issue again of the fact that we stood with pride in this House the Government stood with pride in this House and declared that the Kristine Bartlett case was a success that we should all feel good about—that we should feel good on behalf of our mothers our sisters our aunties our daughters and granddaughters; that we should feel proud at what had been achieved. And then within the bat of an eyelid we fundamentally changed the ability of anyone else to achieve that moment in the future.I think again the article by Ms Dyhrberg—I want to refer to that again because she in my mind sums it up perfectly. Her closing statement is: "Contrary to the stated purpose of the draft bill it does not re-enact and modernise the Equal Pay Act and it does not implement a workable regime based on the Bartlett case and the joint working group report. Passing this bill would be a major backwards step for pay equity. It could bring New Zealand under renewed criticism from the ILO for failure to comply with the ILO 100. The bill and as importantly the policy underlying it require significant change if women in New Zealand are to achieve pay equity in our lifetimes."I give you this commitment now: Labour will not rest until we have pay equity in this country. We will not rest. It starts with voting against this bill today and then it restarts on 23 September when we have a chance to make this right."