Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8385] 
Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Women's Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. I would like to begin by acknowledging the member for Waitakere in whose name this bill was first introduced. Lynne Pillay deserves credit for bringing this matter before the House in the form of a very well-crafted member’s bill. I would like to place on record my congratulations to her on bringing this bill to this point. 
I approached the Leader of the House last week because I was becoming increasingly concerned about our ability as a House to meet the timetable for the bill’s passage. It was on the list of members’ bills and could be dealt with only once every fortnight. With the 3-week Easter adjournment coming up it would mean that we would be getting to the point where I was concerned that we would not be able to pass this legislation in time to lift the reservation before reporting to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women this year. 
At this stage we do not have a final date for attending the committee but the advice that I have is that it will be in the last week in July or in the first week in August. As members opposite know quite well there is a process that has to be gone through in terms of the Treaty examination in order for the reservation to be lifted. I am glad that Opposition members are so supportive of this legislation because they themselves would like to see the reservation lifted in time for the committee report that I will be presenting on behalf of the Government. 
I must also acknowledge my colleagues the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Defence who were very helpful in getting this legislation through into the House. I thank members of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for their very thoughtful and constructive consideration of the bill. I note that the decision of the committee was unanimous and I am indeed very grateful to all members of the House for honouring what is a very important step forward for New Zealand women. 
In recommending this bill to the House I would like briefly to cover its contribution to New Zealand’s international obligations in relation to the rights of women and then to discuss just briefly the purpose and impact of the bill. New Zealand is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The convention is often described as an international Bill of Rights for women. By ratifying the convention State parties agree to take all appropriate measures including legislation and temporary special measures to enable women to enjoy all their human rights and fundamental freedoms. The convention permits ratification subject to reservations provided that the reservations are compatible with the object and purpose of the convention. 
Until now New Zealand has reserved the right to discriminate against women in respect of combat roles in the armed forces and law enforcement roles that require serving in situations involving violence or the threat of violence. New Zealand has consistently been urged by the committee to take the steps necessary for the withdrawal of this reservation. New Zealand submitted its sixth report under the convention in March last year and advised the committee in that report that in practice women had the same rights as men to be deployed to combat and other operational units. Women police officers also have exactly the same rights and responsibilities as their male counterparts. Further New Zealand advised that as soon as the necessary legislative change had been made we would consider lifting this reservation. 
The current bill provides the legislative vehicle that will enable us to do that by repealing section 33 of the Human Rights Act which allows such discrimination to occur. The effect of the bill is to amend the Human Rights Act to remove an exemption for sexual discrimination in employment matters that applies to the armed forces. Section 22 of the Act effectively makes it illegal to discriminate in employment matters on any of the prohibited grounds including sex. The exemption in section 33 allows the New Zealand Defence Force to discriminate against women regarding their employment in active combat roles reflecting the now redundant practice of preventing women from serving in combat roles. This bill removes that exemption confirming in law what has been the practice in the New Zealand Defence Force from 2000 since when women have been able to serve in combat positions. 
Servicewomen now play an integral and vital role in the operations of the armed forces. The percentage of women in our defence forces is slowly rising. This law will not change their career options in practice but it serves to reinforce to them that they have a fully equal role to play in the defence of New Zealand and in our important peacekeeping activities around the world. The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee has carefully considered this bill and as I said before has made a unanimous recommendation for amendment which the Government supports. 
Clause 4 currently refers to women serving “at the front line”. The view of the committee which I support was that the front line is a nebulous concept in modern warfare. Given the reach of modern weapons members of the armed forces serve in armed conflict operations even when they are far behind the front line. As section 33 refers to members of the armed forces serving in an active combat role the committee recommended that this be reflected in the purpose clause which should refer to women serving in active combat roles rather than at the front line. I think it is also significant that the select committee received only six submissions on the bill only one of which opposed the change. 
I believe that New Zealanders will generally support the intent of this bill just as the House supports the underlying presumption that no New Zealander should be discriminated against on the basis of any of the characteristics defined in the Human Rights Act. 
Before finishing I would like to mention just two more impacts of the proposed change. First this bill will also amend section 106(1)(j) and section 106(2)(a) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 to remove references to section 33 of the Act which will be redundant once the bill is enacted. Second the proposed removal of the reservation under the convention which will follow from this bill has impacts on Niue and Tokelau as the reservation also covers these jurisdictions. Tokelau and Niue have already agreed to be associated with New Zealand’s action to withdraw the reservation. The Cook Islands was previously covered by the reservation but has now acceded to the convention in its own right. The Cook Islands has not yet considered this issue but it may withdraw its reservation independently if it wishes. 
Thank you Mr Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to ensure that this important change is now in the form of a Government bill. I noted that Opposition members wanted it to be a Government bill when it was first introduced. So we have now been able to meet the desire of the Opposition as well. I think this is a win-win and I recommend the bill to the House. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I must say that I was impressed with the last speaker on behalf of the Government Lianne Dalziel. I think it is probably worth reminding listeners to the radio that this is the shortest Order Paper in the history of this Government. There are only 13 items on the Order Paper. In fact the Government has deliberately added notices of motion basically to bolster out its Order Paper. 
Everyone on this side of the House is eagerly awaiting in particular the 12th item on the Order Paper the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope. We are very concerned that that particular legislation has sat on the Order Paper for many many years. Now that there are only 12 items on the Order Paper I guess we will be debating it pretty soon—or I ask the Government how many more notices of motion will it stack on in the next couple of days to bolster this Order Paper? 
It simply cannot go unremarked that the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill’s being changed from a member’s bill to a Government bill is truly a sign of desperation. I will speak briefly about the substance of the bill. Yes the bill is right and is supported by all parties in the House but it is worth noting that the rules allowing women to serve in all capacities in the armed forces have actually been in place for the last 7 years. I can understand that this Government quakes at the thought of an adverse Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women report. I guess that the Government spends all its time making sure that it is compliant with every little UN committee tinpot or otherwise so as not to get an adverse rating. I wonder what the public of New Zealand would say if the Government spent all of its time worrying about the UN. 
I bring the House’s attention to these particular facts because I think they need to be put on the record. The provincial reconstruction team currently serving in Afghanistan has about 100 people of which 21 are women. I think they need to be acknowledged and thanked. They are doing a great job for New Zealand. We note that the law will in the words of the Government finally give legislative recognition of their role. But for the Government to suggest that the bill is urgent that the bill has to be transformed from a member’s bill to a Government bill and that it has to be done for the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women is simply a falsehood. 
We on this side of the House are used to falsehoods. We get falsehoods from the Government every single day and the public will judge it for that. This Government could do a lot better. When we have an Order Paper with 12 items on it I say it is time to have a fresh election. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 It is with pride that I stand here and thank the Labour Government for elevating this bill the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill to the status of a Government bill. This Government did not want this bill to languish on the Order Paper on members’ day; it sees this issue as more important. Now we have the opportunity to talk about this bill and to recognise it rather than having to wait every fortnight while other matters are discussed and debated on members’ day. 
I acknowledge Paula Bennett who spoke out in this House at the bill’s first reading against the fact that this bill was a member’s bill. She said that it should have been recognised and should have had higher status. I think she was correct and I am very grateful to the Minister of Women’s Affairs Lianne Dalziel who said that this bill was more important that it was a women’s issue that we wanted to be there that we wanted to validate our position at the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women and that we wanted to elevate this bill to the status of a Government bill. So I am happy to say to Paula Bennett tonight that this Government has made her day. 
 I also thank the members of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee who worked really really hard on this bill and came back with a common-sense unanimous report and an endorsement of this bill. I thank this House for the unanimous support at the first reading and I am confident that that support will be even stronger now that this bill has been elevated to a Government bill. 
This Government unlike the Opposition recognises and actually celebrates women. It celebrates and advocates for women’s rights. It saddens me to hear the Opposition refer to this bill as a tinpot bill—a tinpot bill that actually recognises the rights of women and that says that women have the ability the skills and should be recognised like men in the armed forces. 
I want to speak about the open day at Whenuapai that I attended recently— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Was John Key there? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I did not see John Key there. I do not know that he did attend. But I was certainly there as was our Minister of Defence Phil Goff. It was wonderful to see the camaraderie and all the goodwill amongst the men and women in our armed forces. I acknowledge the service that they provide and how well they do it. I also acknowledge the armed forces because even though the policy stated that women should be discriminated against the armed forces abandoned that policy in 2000. They were not applying that exemption. They were quite visionary in that way. But it meant in terms of our standing with the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women we had a little bit of a blot on our landscape. I am really pleased we are able to now put what is practice into our theory and that blot on our landscape will be there no more. 
I had the privilege of going to a women’s conference in Geneva with other parliamentary members and I want to talk of the pride that I felt when given the right to speak on this bill—a bill that Dr Wayne Mapp refers to as a tinpot bill. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I raise a point of order Mr Deputy Speaker. If I am going to be represented I like at least to be represented correctly. I referred to a certain international committee as tinpot. I certainly fully support the bill which I applaud. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Wrong time Dr Mapp. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I am proud to say that I belong to a Government that does not refer to international committees which advocate and represent women’s interests as tinpot. But I think the National Party’s attitude to women really sums it up. I think it suddenly has a new-found interest in women in that it realises that women really do not support it. We have heard arguments from that side of the House as to whether we really need a Ministry of Women’s Affairs and where have we ever seen advocacy for women from that side of the House? I am quite hopeful that the women members from the National Party will take a call and say that they do not think that international organisations that advocate for women are tinpot organisations. 
If I can return to the armed forces I am really pleased that they were visionary enough to ensure that women were not discriminated against. I want to recognise New Zealand’s long and very very proud record of recognition and promotion of the rights of women both at home and in fact in the international forum as well. 
New Zealanders are very proud of the fact that as we all know we were the first country where women won the right to vote. Since that landmark decision in September 1893 we have passed a comprehensive set of laws designed to protect human rights not just of women but of all New Zealanders—Acts such as the Human Rights Act the Care of Children Act the Civil Union Act the Relationships (Statutory References) Act and the New Zealand Sign Language Act. More recently we have the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Repeal Bill. Those pieces of legislation can be seen as ongoing legislation that this Government and former Governments have introduced to ensure that human rights in this country are in the place they should be—that is at the forefront. 
Unjustified discrimination is not acceptable in any society and least of all in New Zealand which is leading the way. I say again that New Zealand women have provided so much good service in the armed forces. I draw members’ attention to the recognition and celebration of the wonderful contribution that women have made in the booklet  
Twenty-five Years of Women in the New Zealand Armed Forces 
 which I would like to table in the House later. 
Looking back over the past 25 years or even not quite so far as that we would all accept that it has not been easy in that women were not actually recognised and did not have the same rights as men. Even when the equal pay legislation came into force women in the armed forces did not enjoy the same privileges as women working in civilian society. I am pleased that that is now not the case. We now have a bill before this Parliament that I know—and it may sound big-headed—will receive unanimous support from everybody here. I know that it is because of the goodwill of the Minister of Women’s Affairs that the bill has been taken up as a Government bill. I think that is good for women in this country. In fact it shows— 
Darien Fenton 
: We value women on this side of the House. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Thank you. It shows we value women on this side of the House. It is one of the myriad things this Government has put in place for women and I am pleased that the Opposition has broken its record of opposing most things for women and is at least getting behind this bill. Thank you very much Mr Deputy Speaker. It has been a pleasure to speak on this bill and I commend it to the House. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to rise in the second reading of the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill and to say categorically that National supports the bill. We think it is a good bill. However we think that the member taking 7 years to bring it forward was probably a long time. None the less it is here and we support it because we support the involvement of women in the armed forces and we support the advancement of women throughout all sectors of the community not least defence. 
The second thing I want to say before I speak briefly to the bill is just to make a comment in relation to my colleague Wayne Mapp when he referred to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women as being tinpot. I certainly do not consider that committee to be tinpot. In fact as the Minister of Women’s Affairs back in 1999 I was very involved in advancing New Zealand’s position in it. But in Wayne Mapp’s defence— 
Hon Member 
: It was indefensible. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: No because actually he is a very fair person at the end of the day. In his defence he was trying to make a point and he got a bit carried away. 
Debate interrupted.