Lubeck MarjaMARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm glad that the previous speaker Dan Bidois is going to scrutinise the Supplementary Order Paper because he certainly didn't scrutinise this bill. The most he got out of understanding the bill is that women are going to be paid the same as men. Well actually that happened in 1972. We've had the equal pay legislation already for quite a few decades but its purpose hasn't actually really been progressed.I would imagine that calling this bill a signalling tool would be quite offensive for the hundreds of women that over probably half a century have fought so hard to get pay equity for women—a really really quite offensive speech that doesn't actually acknowledge the really complex work that has been involved in getting this bill to this stage. And that was actually evident if the member had listened to the 591 submissions that we heard where the women very eloquently told us the impact on their lives of having different acknowledgment of their work than their male counterparts. We heard over a 100 organisations and individuals and they made it very clear that we have to tackle this problem of inequity. One of these very personal stories was of a Public Service Association delegate. I remember her very vividly. She was a mother of two a grandmother of three and she was telling us about the multiple jobs she was working over 100 hours a fortnight and she said that she still couldn't make ends meet. And it wasn't until Kristine Bartlett and her union E tū won the equal pay case that she actually managed to get her hours down to 62 a fortnight. She managed to actually see her kids take her grandkids to the movies and she said she was able to shout them fish and chips afterwards and that is what this bill will do for so many tens of thousands of women more.Campaigning for equal pay for women has been ongoing for decades as I said before. It was actually a New Zealand Parliament that passed one of the very first pay equity laws in New Zealand. If Mr Bidois had done his research he would have known that was in 1972 but it took 41 more years before a court actually made sure we got some traction on this issue. Now one of those women that campaigned so hard who I want to make a mention of here in the House is Elizabeth Orr. She published this book only a few days ago and I was very privileged to receive a signed copy. If the member would perhaps take the trouble to go to chapter 16 if he can't read any of the rest then he would really understand a little bit more about the hard-fought fight of women to even get to this part of the bill.If we had in fact taken on the bill that the National Party put on the Table women would have been kept in low-paid jobs forever because that bill overrode the court case that was fought for so hard. Hundreds of women took to the streets in 2017. They all were against a bill that the National Party tried to drive through while they were in Government trying to keep those women in their low pay get that win away from them and for ever and a day keep them in their place as Mr Bidois would probably say. But hey he's a man and he stood up here and he said that a woman should be paid the same as a man and he was about 41 years too late to say that. I commend this bill to the House.