Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): It is with great frustration I rise to speak on this misnamed pay equity bill. You know while sexism continues in this country it is not often that you meet a person who will admit to their own misogyny. I think probably that that is progress but when this Government tells us that this is a pay equity bill when it is actually putting hurdles in the way of women being able to achieve pay equity I think we have got a problem—that actually we need to get to the root causes of pay inequality in this country and this bill does not do it. This is a fight that was started with the suffragettes. This was third on their list of things to do—to achieve equal pay for work of equal value. It was right after getting the vote and getting women into Parliament. It was that high on their list because it matters. It matters that women's average hourly earnings are 13.9 percent lower than men's. For Māori women that is 22.9 percent lower and for Pasifika women it is 28.4 percent lower. They are not just figures. You add up those hourly earnings and what that means on a weekly level and what that means on a yearly level and what that means when you get to retirement. It adds up to about $600000 less than what men earn over their lifetime. That means women struggle to put food on the table and keep the roof over their heads and when they are most likely to still be the sole caregiver for children it means their children are less likely to have those secure things in their lives. It means more than actually just what the money can buy. It is what the money represents. It is about our place in this society. It is about the value that is given to work that has traditionally been women's work—work that matters work that provides for other people the caring that makes our society hold together and ensures that everyone has a place in it the work that is mostly still around minimum wage or not much more because of discrimination and historical underpayment. This the fight that Kristine Bartlett took with her union E tū supported by the New Zealand Nurses Organisation and the Public Service Association through the courts against the employer TerraNova which was supported by the Government—might I add—through that court process was to prove that our Equal Pay Act which was written in 1972 could be used to actually work out what was fair pay for women-dominated employment or jobs. The court said it was. The court said that economic arguments and considerations did not come into play in this discussion. Economic arguments were used to justify slavery and they had no place in this discussion. The courts also ruled quite specifically I understand that they allowed" historical social and structural evidence as part of the substantive claim—"allowed" those things. They did not "require" those things. The joint working group principles that were agreed were that historical data "may" be used alongside other things—"may"—and now we get legislation that requires "must". The market was no part of that discussion. That has been added by the Government of its own initiative. What I understand that that means having heard from a person working in the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment is that the Government does not believe that women can be undervalued or underpaid in the private sector because apparently the market decides the fair rate of pay so therefore the market is never influenced by sexism or history or any of those things; the market is always right. So they have built this in here to put another barrier in the way of women getting fair pay for their work.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Now you're just making stuff up Jan.JAN LOGIE: I am not making this stuff up Minister. The court also rejected—and let me outline this because we have heard from the Minister about the comparators—that actually there is no big deal what they are putting in here it is not a problem at all. This is despite the fact that Jacinda Ardern has already read out comments from Steph Dyhrberg from LawTalk—and I understand that she was the lawyer in the Kristine Bartlett case representing the Coalition for Equal Value Equal Pay so she is quite informed around the detail of this bill and what happened in that case. What I understand is that in Kristine Bartlett's case her employer TerraNova tried to argue that they could assess whether her pay was fair by starting with males in the same workplace. The court rejected that argument and ruled that pay equity requires male comparators from jobs and sectors that are clearly unaffected by gender bias—that is male-dominated jobs and sectors.So what the Government has set up in this legislation—and what I need to say—is that those points around proving merit around history and the market place are going to require the employee to put all of that evidence together and convince their employer. They will have to convince them by looking at comparators first in their own workplace. The employer is the one who has got the power around that and if there is a dispute it is going to end up as a dispute and if they cannot get agreement there: the court sends it back and then they are saying "OK let's look for a similar employer." Again the same process might happen and it might end up going back to a tribunal and then next they have to look for a comparator if they cannot get it there within the same industry.Again there is potential for dispute and going around and around and then finally if they cannot find one through any of those three places then they find one in a different sector or industry like the court said they should look at in the first place. This is just potentially creating a legal tangle and so many hurdles that it is just unrealistic to expect a woman to go through this process. I think that is the intent of this legislation. I do think that there is also a point when you are looking at comparators there is an understanding that female-dominated is when 66 percent of the workforce are women compared with—you would expect it to be the same and that male-dominated would also be 66 percent. But no in this legislation male-dominated is defined at 50 percent—"dominated" at half and half? Hum. Actually the pay equity experts I speak to say this is looking more like an equal pay case because industry if it is half and half is likely to be affected by gender discrimination as well. So they are just skewing the whole game. Then the Government is removing the right to back-pay. We have heard from the Minister that it said that the caregivers gave up on their right to back-pay—that is true—but the working group did not. It did not give up the right of any other group of women to access back-pay. This Government is looking at taking that right away—that commercially established right that anyone else in this country has. I heard the Minister say earlier: "Well pay equity is different because you might not know that you're discriminating against them." We have had equal pay legislation since 1972. There has been a legal requirement for employers to provide equal pay and to pay women fairly. If they have not worked out that they are not doing it yet and if they have not been listening to the women in their workplace then actually they should be held responsible for that and they should be liable to pay back-pay. Another aspect of this bill that is pernicious is that it is retrospective. There are about eight claims that have already been laid as I understand—six to eight claims—for groups of women who are not being valued and who are not being paid fairly and this bill will change the entire game for them mid-game. They have started the conversations and they are going to have to start them all over again. This bill and just the Government's gall to come into this House and pretend that this has anything to do with furthering women's rights is an absolute shame. The Green Party is pleased to oppose it."