Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): Mr Speaker fakalofa lahi atu in this Niue Language Week. I rise to speak on the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. What this bill is about is a very simple concept and I thought about how I would explain this bill to my two daughters if I was to get them to understand the significance of this issue. It's simple isn't it? A man and a woman should be given equal pay for the same job. If they are doing the same job they should get the same pay. And a man and a woman who are doing different jobs but jobs of equal value should get the same pay. And those two simple concepts underpin this bill and are the point of connection between both sides of the House in this debate. Those two concepts we in the National Party agree with wholeheartedly and have taken considerable steps to progress during our time both previously in Government and over successive generations.Having taken that simple concept we then need to look at what progress there has been on those issues for New Zealand and why it is that this legislation is in fact required. In some senses you could argue that the direction of travel is good. Even in my lifetime progress on pay equity has increased dramatically. In 1998 when I was a 17-year-old the pay gap was 16.3 percent and that has now reduced to 9.24 percent. So I would say to my daughters If that much is possible within my lifetime imagine how much is possible within yours."So we know that progress is possible but when we look at where this bill came from we have to acknowledge the history that has brought it about. In the Equal Pay Act 1972 we had a piece of legislation with good intent and it was in recent history in 2014 that the Court of Appeal found in the Terranova case that that Act did imply that the Equal Pay Act did include that concept of pay equity—that a man and a woman doing different jobs of equal value should be given equal pay. So the National Government established in good faith a joint working group to develop pay equity principles. That process led to the development of legislation that had been very well-thought-through and that was introduced in 2017.It was that same year that Kristine Bartlett had her incredible win which led to a $2 billion pay equity settlement. I've heard in this House on many occasions when members opposite have brought into question that settlement saying "Oh well it doesn't really count because National didn't want to do it." and I just want to put on the record very clearly that National did it because we wanted to do it—Hon Members: Ha ha!NICOLA WILLIS: —and that we believed that that settlement was the right settlement and that we backed the 55000 aged-care workers who benefited from that settlement. We take pride in the fact that that was the most significant pay equity settlement in New Zealand's history and it was delivered by a National-led Government. [Interruption] Beyond that settlement we did introduce legislation in good faith and why did we do that?SPEAKER: Order! Sorry I am going to interrupt the member. I know that when members say something inflammatory they can expect to have a degree of barracking coming back at them but I think it has gone too far.NICOLA WILLIS: Mr Speaker isn't is sad that it's inflammatory to claim something which is true in the historical record—a settlement that was delivered by a National Government—and that it pains members opposite so much that they can't put their Labour red flag to something that we too are proud of.Now when it came to introducing this legislation the Government was very clear of what we were trying to do at that time and that was to ensure that people wanting to progress pay equity claims in the future wouldn't have to be tied up in an endless court process—that in fact negotiation could be a way through these sorts of claims into the future; the sort of bargaining process that exists elsewhere in employment law. So of course this bill that we are debating tonight picks up on that concept and as previous speakers have said including Denise Lee whom I want to congratulate for her great work in progressing this via a member's bill earlier this year being thwarted only by members opposite what we see is that this bill picks up on that and makes very minor changes that could be significant. A select committee will have to consider that in due course but it really reminds us of how petty politics can sometimes be—that a Government would withhold a bill so that it could be reannounced on Suffrage Day when in fact they couldn't have it—SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired."