Lubeck MarjaMARJA LUBECK (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare and because it's Niue Language Week fakalofa atu. I am delighted to take this call on the Equal Pay Amendment Bill but I'm unsure where to start with the barrage of information that we've received from the other side.Several members have talked about this being a third attempt. Well if that is so I would say third time lucky because women would have been very unlucky had any of the two previous versions gone through. They in fact would have kept women in discriminatory low pay rates for a very long time. Now the hierarchy of comparators is something that the member Denise Lee had highlighted and whilst this may have been a very small change in her mind this in fact is an absolutely incredible difference to this bill. What the hierarchy of comparators in the previous bill did was deliberately reversing the court decision. That hierarchy of comparators was designed to keep women from ever being successful in future pay equity claims so what this Equal Pay Amendment Bill does is much better. It includes the comparators that are completely in line with the recommendations of the working group and of the Terranova decision.So let's look at that Terranova decision because mention was made by Louise Upston that nobody should go through the battle that Kristine Bartlett did. Kristine Bartlett and her union E tū went through a more than five-year-long battle and were dragged all the way through all levels of courts.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. MARJA LUBECK: Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Before we had kai time I had a couple of minutes to speak on the Equal Pay Amendment Bill and I appreciate the opportunity to add a couple more on to it if the whip allows. So just to recap this is a good bill unlike the versions that the National Party would like us to believe were just as good. In fact what they would have done is they would have kept women on discriminatory low pay rates for a long time.I talked about the fact that the member Louise Upston had mentioned that nobody should go through the same battle that Kristine Bartlett did. What really happened was that Kristine Bartlett and her union E tū were dragged through all levels of court over five years before a settlement was finally agreed to. Because the then National Government didn't want to see any other women win the same battle that Kristine Bartlett and her union had just won they tried to force legislation through that would stop any future claims—with a majority of one vote I may add they tried to force that through. So it's a bit rich for the member Nicola Willis to stand up in this House and refer to the care and support workers settlement as something that the National Party wanted to do because all actions prior to that settlement and all of the actions after the settlement reinforce the fact the National Party wanted to stop women from achieving any future pay equity claims.When the member Denise Lee spoke in her speech she referred to the previous National Government bill as a pragmatic structure but in fact what this pragmatic structure was was a hierarchy of comparators that would have for ever kept women on their low pay rates. Shame on Opposition members for standing in this House and making the comments they have on this particular piece of legislation. They must have forgotten that pay equity campaigners and all those who were very closely involved with that settlement all disagreed with the National Government's bill and disagreed with the member's bill earlier this year. In fact Kristine Bartlett's lawyer in the pay equity settlement for the aged care workers had referred to the National Government's bill as dreadful.So in a few bullet points I'll wrap up now what this bill does: it sets a lower threshold to raise a claim; it provides a simpler easier and more cost-effective process to progress a claim; it also allows parties to set their own comparators—that is a really crucial one—and it allows for back-pay. So concluding this bill provides an opportunity for our lowest-paid workers to have one decently paid job rather than having two or three to try and make ends meet. Instead of spending time to go from one to the other job trying and struggling to feed and care for their whānau they can have one decent job and spend time with their whānau. This is hugely important well-overdue legislation. This is the bill that gets it right and I commend it to the House.