Parmar ParmjeetDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you Mr Speaker for the opportunity to take this call in the first reading of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. That was a very interesting contribution. In that contribution the Hon Tracey Martin kept contradicting herself. On one side she said that this needs to be quickly sorted but then the second line was that Oh why is the Opposition saying this needs to be rushed through?" Yes in Opposition we want this issue to be rushed through because we highly value this issue.The whole world is actually working towards this issue that is to reduce the gender pay gap and National has shown they are committed. We have already demonstrated our commitment because we had legislation that was introduced in July 2017—July 2017—and that was in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse who the Hon Tracey Martin forgot actually to acknowledge. That was the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill and the first reading of that bill happened in August 2017. This is now October 2018 when we are debating the first reading of this Equal Pay Amendment Bill. So yes there is this big lag. That is why we want to see that.This legislation should have been progressed by now which hasn't happened because when the Government changed in the last election and the Labour Government came in the first thing they did was get rid of this bill—got rid of the bill that was introduced by the previous National Government. If they were really keen to quickly sort this issue they could have worked with us on that legislation but no. They decided to get rid of that bill because I believe they have a political agenda behind this bill that is the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. It's not about the issue; it's all about their political agenda because they wanted to own that space. They want it to look like they are the ones that are keen in this kind of issue that is to reduce the gender pay gap.They thought that people would not remember what National did when National was in Government—but we were so determined. Yes that had already gone through the first reading. When we came into Opposition we decided that we would pursue this issue of gender pay gap and that was through a member's bill. Again Government members decided to oppose that because if they had supported that—SPEAKER: Order! Order! Can we come to the bill now?Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Mr Speaker I am building the ground for it.SPEAKER: You're heading towards it? Very good.Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Thank you Mr Speaker. Thank you. It is important that we remind Government members of the work that National did because this bill is not very different from the bill that was introduced by National. For Government members to stand up and take the credit I think they should remember the work of the previous National Government.Then what happened on the 125th suffrage anniversary? They came up with this bill the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. If they had worked with us then we could have actually implemented the bill on that day instead of introducing a new bill to start all over again and now we are debating the first reading of this bill. So yes we have wasted so much time. We really want to sort this a.s.a.p. We are really keen to sort this issue.As other speakers have said we have a gender gap that is around 9 percent. Yes we have come down from the time we started measuring it which was around 16 percent and if we look at other OECD countries we are on the lower side. Our gender pay gap is lower than so many other OECD countries but we know that any kind of gender pay gap is not acceptable so that's why we want to work towards reducing the gender pay gap.As we are determined to work on this issue we have decided that we will support this bill in the first reading to the select committee because we want to see what individuals and organisations will be saying about this bill and we also want to have the opportunity to work with Government to work on this bill to make it better. We do have some reservations and that is why we are saying that we will be supporting this bill only in the first reading at this stage. We want this bill to go to the select committee because we understand this is a very important issue. The issue of equal pay and pay equity which this bill is to address is a very complex issue—we all understand that. And this issue cannot be fully resolved by legislation but yes legislation is needed. So there are different components of this issue which is a very complex issue where we need different kinds of legislation. And this is one kind of legislation that is to address that issue.Looking at the contributing factors we know that there are some professions that are female-dominated and there are professions that are male-dominated. Female-dominated professions are paid lower than male-dominated professions and that needs to be addressed. We also know that we have fewer women in leadership roles but reminding everybody that National worked really hard and now we have a record number of women on State sector boards. So that was to highlight the importance of women's contribution to our economy at different levels.We also know that some women want to work part-time hours and that is a reason why we have this gender pay gap. For that we introduced flexible work hours and also keeping-in-touch days so that when people are on paid parental leave they have this ability to stay in touch with their work so that they don't have to start again from the bottom so that they don't miss out on the opportunity to get promoted or have higher positions in the profession that they are in. So we did all those things but then there was a study where it said that 80 percent of the reasons why the gender pay gap exists are unknown. And that is what makes me really curious and I believe that comes down to some form of bias—some form of conscious or unconscious bias which needs to be addressed too. For that we need to have continuous dialogue about this issue so that we are raising awareness along with working on legislation.In this legislation as I said we have some reservations. One thing that I want to highlight is that this legislation is different from the legislation that we introduced in actually a few parts. One part that is different is the system that we wanted the claim to follow. They have removed that structure that system that we wanted a claim to follow. What they want is when you're looking at a comparable profession they are thinking that you can go really wide. What we think is that the place where it should start should be from within the profession or sector if appropriate or if available. So that is the structure that we wanted to put in place through our legislation which is not included in this legislation. So I believe that this change actually is not going to solve the problem; it is actually going to create more problems for those people who will be making claims. We want to make sure that the process is simple. To keep that process simple people should know where to start and which industry to look into to start with and then the direction that they can go in to make sure that they are not wasting their time and their employer's or the court's time.The other thing I noticed in this bill is that they have reduced the time for the employer to respond and I simply don't understand the basis for that—reducing that from 90 days to 65 days. Why reduce that from 90 days to 65 days? I simply don't understand that because the employer needs to be given proper time so that they can respond to that claim. Putting that kind of pressure on employers I think is just unnecessary.The legislation that was introduced by us was based on recommendations made by a joint working group—and yes the joint working group had representatives from Government unions and employers. What happened? They came up with recommendations which were in line with our employment framework and also our labour market. Then what happened? Labour decided to reconvene the group. What happened was that group actually reconfirmed the recommendations which were made by the previous joint working group. So I don't see the basis for these changes in this legislation and putting this unnecessary kind of pressure on employers by reducing the number of days that they get to respond from 90 to 65.Overall as we said the aim of this bill is to address equal pay and pay equity issues. That is why we are supporting this bill in the first reading to the select committee stage. We are really keen to hear from the sector. We are really keen to hear from organisations that employ women men and of course sectors that are male-dominated sectors that are female-dominated and what they have to come and say on this bill in the select committee process. And we would be really keen to see that the Government is willing to work with us on this bill. Yes we are in Opposition but we are willing to work with them on these kinds of important issues. We have clearly seen that they are not because they dismissed two bills that were put forward by National's team—that was once when we were in Government and the second time as a member's bill. And they completely dismissed those bills. They didn't want to work with us but we are willing to work with them. So I am supporting this bill in the first reading so that it can go to the select committee. Thank you Mr Speaker."