Moroney SueSUE MORONEY (Labour): I am reminded of—thinking back to 2012—when I had the privilege of being outside the Employment Court in Auckland waiting for Kristine Bartlett to join us to go for her first day in court for this historic settlement that we are celebrating today. I remember being there with a whole lot of other women and the sisterly comradeship while we waited for Kristine to turn up—I had never seen her before actually at the point. I had a big bunch of flowers for her from the Labour women's caucus because we were so excited about the beginning of that journey. I still remember Kristine when you walked around the corner and suddenly there were TV cameras in your face there were flashes going off. I saw the look on Kristine's face of Oh my goodness what have I got myself in for?". It was just wonderful to be able to step forward and to put some flowers into your arms. I saw you relax at that moment. You went: "Oh OK flowers. I can do this." It was so remarkable to watch that journey from 2012 and of course the journey went for decades before that as well. As I stand here today I want to think that Kate Sheppard would be pretty pleased with what we are debating here—Kate Sheppard and the suffragettes and all the women who have come in between in that time saying that it should be the type of thing that we are debating in this House and it is actually happening today. I want to pay a tribute to all of those women who have been involved in this journey over those decades. I want to pay a tribute to the unions to E tū in particular—but I still cannot quite get used to that. I am going to say the Service and Food Workers Union because that is my old union. I just say that that was the union that actually said: "Yes we're going to test this. We're going to take this case and we're going to test that Equal Pay Act of 1972." It was very wise. It took Peter Cranney with them who has got a very fine record in bringing about amazing settlements—amazing decisions I should say—in courts which have made a real difference to New Zealand workers and importantly to their families.What we are debating here today—actually it is great that there is no debate; we are all saying this is fantastic. But the real outcome of this is not just for women workers but for women workers and their families. I also am waiting to hear the apology from that Government for the families that they have left in poverty because National repealed in 1991 the pay equity Act of 1990. It was brought in by the previous Labour Government. As the first act of vitriol of the incoming National Government in 1991 it repealed that Act. If it had not repealed that Act then there would have been decades of women and their families who would have already benefited from this and New Zealand would look like a better country—the better country that it can be and should be. So I hope this is the beginning of putting that right but Michael Woodhouse is right—we have got some way to go.My voice is about to give out on me so I want to conclude by recognising that this has been a journey that has involved a lot of women and some men—some very brave men and some very principled men—who have joined us in this battle to say it is not OK to undervalue women's work because it happens to be women who perform that work. Today is the beginning of our starting to get this right but we have got a battle coming up ahead with that next bit of legislation to make sure that other women workers can benefit as well so that the work that they do is valued for the skill that is involved and for the grunt that is involved in their work and so that what they bring to their labour—their toil and their sweat—will actually be valued not on the basis of gender but on the basis of the work that they do and the value that it represents. Well done to everyone who has been involved in this. Let us keep this going."