CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) Link to this
I rise to take a brief call in support of Part 2 of the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill 2006. I was pleased to speak at an earlier stage of the debate in support of the legislation when it had the form of a member’s bill, and now that it is a Government bill I am equally delighted to rise to speak in support.
I note that the purpose of Part 2 is to amend the Employment Relations Act. It is a new part, added unanimously by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. The consequential amendments to the Employment Relations Act 2000 provide that section 104 of that Act, dealing with discrimination in employment, is to be read subject to certain provisions of the Human Rights Act 1993 in relation to employment matters. One of the provisions of that Act is section 33, which allows discrimination in the armed forces. The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee has recommended that this exception be removed from the Employment Relations Act 2000, and that is what the operative part will achieve.
The laws of this country relating to service in the armed forces have always sought to make a distinction between the strict nature of employment as understood in the private sector and service under the Crown as occurs by sworn members, for example, in the armed forces. The employment relations legislation adopts a broad definition of employment, so using the expression “employment” in amending employment legislation does not do violence to the traditional distinction that has been maintained in armed forces and in the general law. The use of the expression “employment” to refer to service under the Crown in the armed forces as well as civilian employment therein is, as I say, a broad usage of the term and refers on a blanket basis to the service of all those in the armed forces and in the civilian parts of the service that support it.
Part 2 is clearly a key part of the legislation given that it is effectively the operative part of the legislation, and it accomplishes an important amendment to the Employment Relations Act 2000. It is a pleasure to rise in support of it as it is the most important operative part of the bill, which, as has been said on previous occasions, achieves a very important milestone in the laws of New Zealand. It puts in place and enacts the practice that has occurred now for some years—
R Doug Woolerton—I tell Mr Woolerton that I am very excited about it—which is to permit women to serve in the front line, which has been operational practice for some time. It is appropriate from a human rights and an operational perspective, and, as I say, it accomplishes the purpose of the bill, which is very good legislation, and which I am delighted to support. Thank you, Mr Chairperson.
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) Link to this
One should not debate this bill today without, of course, reflecting on Anzac Day. I am sure every member in this Chamber would have had duties to perform on Anzac Day, and they are very, very important duties. It is a time when we pay respect to those people, men and women, who have served our country; it is not a time to politicise. I do note the Minister in the chair today, the Hon Judith Tizard, and I remind her of that fact as, certainly from what I have been told by my colleagues and from everything I have read, she perhaps took an unduly political approach to that day—
She is, in fact, nodding to that. Minister Tizard, for the benefit of listeners, took an excessively political approach. Because, in truth, all members of this Parliament, irrespective of whether they are constituent or list members, represent the people of New Zealand. In representing the people of New Zealand we pay respect to their service.
When we are considering this bill, which is a forward-looking bill dealing with amendments to the Employment Relations Act as it affects women in the armed services, we have to acknowledge that the issue is not just a matter of looking forward. Men and women have served our country over a very, very long period, indeed, and have shown great sacrifice. In fact, my colleague Judith Collins referred to the example of Nancy Wake and her service to our country. My colleague was extremely disappointed that this Government, out of the hundreds of awards that it makes every year, does not have the bigness of heart to recognise Nancy Wake’s service. That is one of the reasons one uses the awards system and the Government is failing to do that.
I remind the Minister in the chair that some years ago the Prime Minister did, in fact, recognise the service of—
I just want to complete the point that the Prime Minister did recognise the service of Lieutenant Colonel Curly Blyth. I am sure the Minister knows whom I am talking about. It was recognition of service given over a very, very long period of time. So I say that if it is good enough for Lieutenant Colonel Curly Blyth, it is certainly good enough for Nancy Wake.
The Chairperson has reminded me about Part 2, “Consequential amendments to Employment Relations Act 2000”, and clearly those do need to be changed, because our law has to conform across the board. We do have one law for all citizens, and, indeed, the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill is all about one law for all citizens—that all citizens are treated equally before the law. I might add, for the Minister in the chair, that that applies also to all members of Parliament, list or constituency. They all have their role to play in representing citizens in New Zealand.
Clause 6(3), which refers to section 106(2)(a) of the Employment Relations Act, is specifically about the exclusions that existed in the Employment Relations Act that would have exempted this Act from applying to women in the armed forces. They obviously have to be excluded, because now those provisions are no longer appropriate. It is appropriate that the legislation—the Employment Relations Act—applies to men and women equally.
So it is important, even in the context of a narrow debate, to understand why we are here today; to understand that we are recognising the role of women in our contemporary armed forces and the full role that they play. Any of us who read the various service journals and follow and talk to our service people know the incredibly important jobs they are performing for our country literally across the world. I think everyone in this Committee would applaud the service that they give to our country. Not many people, when they take employment, serve our country by putting their lives at risk.
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) Link to this
I am very happy to rise to support this Government bill, the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. It is important that we recognise the right of every New Zealand citizen to serve and the role that those people then take on.
I note that the previous speaker, Dr Wayne Mapp, referred to the transfer of the excellent member’s bill, which Lynne Pillay introduced. His colleague Paula Bennett called on the bill to be transferred into a Government bill. We took that advice, thought about it, and did it. But, of course, Wayne Mapp has called the transfer “desperation”, which is an insult to the women members of his party.
Just as a matter of clarification in respect of the issues raised by Wayne Mapp, I point out that on Anzac Day I found myself at the 11 o’clock service at the Auckland cenotaph. I was astonished, having been a regular attender for the last 15 years at the dawn service—I normally go to the Point Chevalier RSA in my electorate—to find that the Auckland RSA now allows, and calls upon, representatives of the ACT party electorate of Epsom to lay a wreath. It also calls upon representatives of New Zealand First and the National Party representatives of Auckland Central to lay a wreath. I gently made the point to the chair of the RSA that I had never seen political parties represented on Anzac Day. Indeed, I take off my Labour Party badge on Anzac Day, because I believe that Anzac Day is one day of the year that we should make no party political points whatever. I also note that Keith Locke was at that service and had not been asked to lay a wreath.
Hon JUDITH TIZARD Link to this
I just say that I have had overwhelming support from a huge number of Aucklanders who agree absolutely with me on that matter. I hope the Auckland RSA will take that on board, just as we here in Parliament are taking on board the responsibility of all citizens, when they are called and when they volunteer for international service on behalf of New Zealand, to be able to serve in combat positions, whether they are male or female.
I hope that we here in Parliament will see this legislation taken forward, because I know the proud role played by women who at present serve in our armed forces. Also, I know, having had the honour of representing the Government and the people of New Zealand at the Gallipoli celebration, that the contingent from the Sinai was indeed commanded by a New Zealand servicewoman from our Navy. I just say that we are all proud of the service undertaken by those New Zealanders, whether in Afghanistan, the Sinai, Lebanon, East Timor, or all around the Pacific—particularly right now in the Solomons.
I think this is legislation whose time has come. Other forces with which we cooperate have women in combat roles. Although, of course, none of us ever wants to see New Zealanders sent in the way of danger, the fact is that that is what our armed forces do, and women as well as men can play that full role.
RON MARK (NZ First) Link to this
In rising to speak to Part 2 of the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill, I just say to the Minister, in reference to the comments she made about Anzac Day and political parties recognising and paying tribute to veterans of the past by laying a wreath from their political party—[ Interruption] This is in reply, Mr Chairperson, to comments already made, and allowed to be made, in this Committee—
I would say that the Government has consistently, ever since 1999 when it came into office, had Labour Party Ministers and members of Parliament fronting up at the cenotaph in Christchurch and laying wreaths on behalf of the Labour Government, so—
Part 2 is fine, Mr Chairperson, but we allowed those comments to be made by the Minister and they require a response.
New Zealand First is supporting this bill—and Part 2 of it—because it recognises the reality of the defence forces today. There are a number of realities that people must take on board. Firstly, in my visit to Afghanistan over the adjournment with the Minister of Defence, and my opportunity to meet with, and talk to, servicemen and women employed in the provincial reconstruction team, the fact was obvious: there are men and women deployed into that provincial reconstruction team. One of the patrols that accompanied us out as we patrolled in the Bamiyan province, led by Major Paul King, had in its midst a number of female soldiers who were there carrying Steyr rifles. They were fully tooled to do the job they were trained to do. So the reality is that women are engaged in our defence forces at all levels, including the rather nebulous term “front line”. They are there today. They are working there today. They are doing the job today.
One could argue, in fact, that this legislation is pointless, because women are doing the job that it will formally and legally entitle them to do. I guess that what we in New Zealand First would ask is whether it is about time we started to recognise that work. Maybe we could start by going back and recognising Nancy Wake, who is our first front-line woman to serve with distinction at that level. It is ironic, sad, and very disappointing, to the point of being hypocritical, not to recognise Nancy Wake’s front-line service. We would argue that to continue not to recognise her is a breach of her human rights, is it not?
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this
I just say to the member that I know I have probably been a bit too tolerant towards members from all sides when it comes to debating Part 2, but the reality is that Part 2 is a very narrow part. It is not an opportunity to explore the reasons behind the repeal of section 33. That is covered in Part 1. The debate should be confined to the removal of the references from the Employment Relations Act.
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I accept—and I do not contest—your ruling. However, I ask for some guidance here. You have, unfortunately, allowed the Labour Party and the National Party to defer and to detour. Now you seek, in a New Zealand First speech, to curtail New Zealand First’s right to respond in the same way.
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this
The member will be seated. I respond to that by saying that the Minister was replying to an accusation made across the Chamber. I allowed her to do that. I accept that she went too far. The member, though, has only 1¾ minutes left, and if he wants to address the bill, then I think it would be better that he did that for his own political party.
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You did not answer, in the slightest iota, my question, which was about the fairness of the way you treat New Zealand First as opposed to the two old-hat parties.
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this
Thank you, Mr Mark. I do not have to answer questions. I am actually here to ensure that the Committee runs smoothly. The issue is that we are debating Part 2. I am bringing the debate on that part—which is quite narrow—back to order.
This is my first opportunity to speak on behalf of New Zealand First—on any aspect of the Committee stage, I point out. We are supporting this part—all one clause of it. I want to make it clear that the reasons New Zealand First is supporting Part 2—clause 6(1), (2), (3)—is that we generally agree with the supporting thrust of the measure it contains, which supports the entirety of Part 1, about which I was trying to speak. It is frustrating sometimes, being a member of the third-largest party in Parliament, to be treated differently from other people. I lament that, and I await further discussion on the title of the bill when that clause comes up for debate. It will be a wide-ranging one, and that will allow New Zealand First—which has the only returned serviceman in its ranks in the Chamber—to have a wider say.
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) Link to this
I am happy to take a call in the debate on Part 2 of the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. Like the previous speaker, Ron Mark, this debate is also my first opportunity to take a call on the bill, and I am happy to support it, of course.
Part 2 amends the Employment Relations Act 2000. The point has been made time and time again that perhaps this bill is not only one whose time has come but one whose time has, in many ways, passed. But it is important that the law of this country reflects the practice in the armed forces and also endorses the very good work that the many women in the armed forces of New Zealand currently do overseas on behalf of this country. It is important to recognise the work that those women do, because in many of the countries in which they work there is, perhaps, a view of what women should be able to do, and what they can do, that is quite different from what we experience here in New Zealand.
All the feedback that we as parliamentarians get about the work that our women in the armed forces do in those countries is very, very positive. I think it is a compliment to all people in our armed forces, both men and women, that they are able to go into any situation—in any culture, and in any country—to operate in a dignified and tolerant manner, and to do so in a way that works towards reconciliation within that country without adding to any of its turmoil. For women that can be particularly difficult. Although it is very important that we make these consequential amendments to the Employment Relations Act in Part 2, it is also important to acknowledge and recognise the very difficult circumstances that some of our women in the armed forces can find themselves in when they are in countries where the values towards women are slightly different, and where that impacts on the way in which they must conduct themselves within those communities in working towards reconciliation without adding to any of the turmoil going on in the area.
When we go through these amendments to the Employment Relations Act—and they are an important part of this bill—we see they will in no way diminish the work that women in the armed forces in New Zealand have done over the last centuries. Many of us in our own families know this from the military history. I had a great-grandfather, George Craig, who was a medic at Gallipoli. My grandfather was a soldier in Africa and in Italy in World War II, and he spent time in an Italian prisoner of war camp. My other grandfather was in the Navy in the Pacific. Much is known about those members of the family. Perhaps less is known about the contribution to the war effort made by many of the women in my family who had to hold the family together and continue to be the breadwinners. My grandmother plotted the course of many of the ships that were coming into the Pacific, and that was how she found out that her first husband had died. She plotted the attack on his ship as it came into the Pacific.
This amendment to the Employment Relations Act 2000 in no way diminishes the work that has been done by many of our women over generations in this country, even if that work has not been done in a combat role in the armed forces. But, of course, times move on, and women in New Zealand now play a very, very important role in our armed forces. They are up there alongside the men in the armed forces. They are doing fantastic work in peacekeeping and in various roles around the world, and in this new age we want to recognise that.
I congratulate Lynne Pillay on bringing the bill to the House, and I congratulate the Government on now picking up this legislation. We now want to recognise a new reality for many women in New Zealand—that they no longer want an exemption from combat roles in the armed forces. Part 2 provides that, because it ensures that the Employment Relations Act does not in any way give an exemption to say that we expect everyone to be treated fairly in the workplace, that we expect total equality for all people in workplaces in New Zealand, but that there is an exemption when it comes to the role women play in the armed forces—that they are able to exempt themselves from combat roles. Well, I think that women in the armed forces no longer want this exemption. It may be only a symbolic gesture, but it is a very important symbolic gesture to make.
Along with many aspects of equality, and along with many of its rights, come responsibilities, and this is a responsibility. Our women currently do fantastic work all around the world, especially here in the Pacific, where their role really is appreciated, but I want to reiterate that they are not exempt in any way through the Employment Relations Act 2000. This may be a very small part, but it is, in fact, at the very crux of this bill—that our women in the armed forces will now stand, once this bill is passed, on an equal footing to everyone else in that area. I again acknowledge the fine work that many women over the generations have done in New Zealand in this area, and the fine work that our men and women in the armed forces do today.
SUE MORONEY (Labour) Link to this
I rise to speak to this very important part, Part 2, “Consequential amendments to Employment Relations Act 2000”, in this very important bill, the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. The amendments to the Employment Relations Act are very important ones, but I want to clarify for people who are listening and who may not have the bill in front of them that they should not be worried we are amending the parts of the Employment Relations Act that ensure we have fair bargaining happening in our workplaces. And we are definitely not amending the parts of the Employment Relations Act that ensure we have access to multi-employer collective agreements for groups like nurses, etc. No, section 106(1)(j) of the Employment Relations Act is being repealed, and section 106(2)(a) is being amended, which will ensure there is no employment discrimination on the basis of gender in any part of our employment legislation here in New Zealand.
While reflecting on this bill over the adjournment, I think that some of the activities I was involved in really brought home to me just how important this amendment bill is. As other speakers have said, it clarifies a situation that already exists, but it is important that our legislation reflects current practice, and that is what we are ensuring here.
During the recent adjournment many of us will have attended Anzac Day ceremonies, and I was certainly no different in that regard. I attended Anzac Day ceremonies in Cambridge, where I was at the dawn ceremony, and also in Morrinsville. I did not have any of the issues that some members have raised, in speaking to this part, of being crowded out by other members of Parliament wishing to lay wreaths. I was the only member of Parliament present at both of those ceremonies, and I was very pleased to represent Parliament there. But when the veterans were lining up, parading, and being applauded by people at those ceremonies, I did reflect on just how many women were involved in taking their part in the veterans’ parade. Partly, we must make sure that we honour not only the combat role that women will now legally be able to partake in once this bill has gone through its stages, but also the very important work that women have always been deployed in when it comes to the defence forces in New Zealand.
During the adjournment I also spoke with and met many women’s groups throughout the country, and I have to say that this is not the issue that has been on the agenda of many women’s groups. There have been many other issues that they have wanted to talk with the Labour women’s caucus about, but this has not been one that has been at the forefront of their thinking. When we have raised it with these groups it has been the case that they have believed—probably quite wrongly—that the legislation was already in place that allowed women to take part and fully participate in the defence forces of New Zealand. It has been a matter of some surprise, even to many women’s organisations, that in fact the legislative course was not in place for that to happen.
So as well as ensuring that we repeal section 33 of the Human Rights Act, we must also attend to the issue that the select committee raised in its report back to the House. I thank the select committee members; they have done a very good job. This seems like a small piece of legislation in terms of the number of pages it involves, but none the less committee members did the very detailed work they are required to do. They picked up on these two other amendments that needed to be made to the Employment Relations Act 2000 so that we can ensure that all legislation backs up the policy that the New Zealand Defence Force now has, whereby the force allows women to serve in combat roles. That has been in place since 2000, and now the legislation is coming up to speed.
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) Link to this
I welcome this opportunity to speak to Part 2 of the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. I do so as someone who has spent most of his professional life advocating for a narrow aspect of human rights issues. It is a pleasure to speak at the Committee stage of this particular bill, just as it was in the second reading debate, because in my view this amendment is long overdue.
Part 2 is important because it addresses section 106(1) of the Employment Relations Act 2000. That Act is an inspired piece of legislation that has been under constant attack by the National Party—but unsuccessfully, to date. As time goes on, we are seeing in our labour force the fruits of this Act, which is taking us back to fairly based employment laws. Section 106(1) of the Employment Relations Act provides that section 104 must be read subject to certain provisions of the Human Rights Act 1993 in relation to employment matters. That is the difficulty that is overcome by Part 2, because section 33 of the Human Rights Act allows for discrimination in the armed forces. There must have been many people, back in 1993 when this Act went through, who winced at the prospect of discriminating against women in the armed forces. But as the climate has changed in just 15 years, and the age of enlightenment is upon us, we can move to tidy up some of the idiosyncrasies that exist even in the Human Rights Act.
This process is a constant reminder to us to be ever vigilant that human rights advocacy and legislation must be at the forefront of all the work that this Parliament does. At the end of the day, questions of justice, fairness, equality, and democracy depend upon a strong human rights basis. We have an economy that is booming, and in strong times, but a strong economy is only as good as the human rights ethic that underscores the fabric of the society that the economy is supposed to work for. That is why this change to the Human Rights Act, through the Employment Relations Act as amended by the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill, is welcomed. Once more it is a small correction sending out larger signals on the greater horizon. So I adopt the iceberg principle whereby although only one-tenth is above the surface of the sea, nine-tenths is under water, as we see in this bill. The ramifications of this Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill will, in fact, be deep and serious as we correct the Human Rights Act by amending the Employment Relations Act 2000.
It is my privilege and pleasure to speak at this Committee stage. I would also like to have the opportunity to speak at the third reading debate on some of the wider principles involved in this legislation. One of the niceties of standing in the House, working in Parliament, and working in select committees is to see the intricate web that exists between various pieces of legislation. One of the hallmarks of our Parliamentary Counsel Office is that it recognises and is alert to the consequential amendments that occur. One could say, of course, that if Part 2 was not in this bill, nothing much would be lost, because the provisions in the Employment Relations Act 2000 would be redundant. But what this signals is the care taken to make sure that our legislation remains tidy and user-friendly. Every Act that is not amended by removal when it is made redundant leaves untidy ends, so some litigator or, more important, a lay person researching the law will have to spend unnecessary hours trying to understand why an Act exists seemingly in a vacuum.
Part 2 of this bill is not only a celebration of the role that women play in our society but an acknowledgment to the Parliamentary Counsel Office in this establishment—to those many highly qualified lawyers who put together the legislation that we debate, and who address the consequential issues that arise. It is an act of diligence on their part, an act of careful scrutiny, and the results are reflected in Part 2. I support the passing of this bill.
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) Link to this
I am very pleased to rise and take a call in this part of the debate. I am certainly supportive of most of the comments that have been made on both sides of the Chamber. National clearly supports this bill.
In an earlier debate I asked why, if this has been the policy in the armed forces for nearly 7 years—and indeed it has—it has taken so long for the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill to come to the House. In respect of some of the comments made by the previous speaker, Russell Fairbrother, who talked about democracy and equality and all those things, I say that, yes, those are all fine sentiments and we certainly support them in terms of human rights. But again, I note that it took 7 years for this bill to come to the House.
The bill is here now, and we support it. All the speakers so far, I think, have made reference to what we all did on Anzac Day. That is good. It is great that we have a day like Anzac Day where we can in all solemnity, and in celebration, really, come together all around the country to pay tribute to those New Zealanders who served in theatres of war overseas in the past. Of course, increasingly, women are part of that experience. We applaud that and we salute it. We can only hope that as time goes on, the population mix in our country—which consists of more women than men—is reflected in our armed forces.
The purpose of the bill, as we have heard, is to remove the last vestiges of discrimination against women in the armed forces, and to allow them to serve in combat roles. My colleague Wayne Mapp—or was it Ron Mark; I think it was Wayne Mapp—was asking what the front line is and what a combat role is in the type of warfare and the type of security and defence that we see today. Sometimes it is difficult to discern, but none the less women want to be considered on merit. There is no need for any discrimination of any kind in our armed forces these days when we have had women Prime Ministers, a female Chief Justice, and females running some of the biggest companies. We want to see that in the armed forces as well. It is a particularly important part of our employment sector, and it is absolutely right that this House is supportive of this bill.
In an earlier debate I made some comments about the numbers of females in the Defence Force. It is slowly rising. In 2002 the overall percentage of female personnel in the New Zealand Defence Force was 14.9. It was 15.8 percent in 2003, 16.4 percent in 2004, 16.2 percent in 2005, and 16.5 percent in 2006. That is all good too, but I would query—given the numbers of females in the New Zealand population—whether the Defence Force has some long-term strategies to lift the numbers of women in the military. I hope it does. Perhaps someone might be able to enlighten us on that because I do think it is important, given the way our population is going. Even in terms of the ethnic mix of our population, I think it is important that the military has some strategies in place to make sure that its recruitment strategies match the ongoing change in New Zealand’s demographics.
This bill is a worthwhile bill. In terms of the title and the purpose, it is proper and it is overdue. It is right that we acknowledge the valuable role of women in the military. I attended a service in Taupō, which is my home town, along with Minister Mark Burton. We were both enabled to lay a wreath. As far as I was able to tell, I was laying a wreath as a member of the National Party and Mark Burton was laying one as a member of the Labour Party. That is the way the way the RSA and the civic authorities wanted it in our town and that is the way we did it. It was very good to be able to be part of that.
RON MARK (NZ First) Link to this
We are speaking to the title of the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill; I will just continue on from what I was saying. I note that when one reads the bill, one finds it indicates clearly that it seeks to give women the right to take up any appointment that they choose within the defence forces—which is quite right and proper. Clause 4, the purpose clause, originally talked about the front line, and the bill recognises the desire and the right to serve in armed combat operations in a combat role.
The reality that we have had to struggle with as a nation is that most people, particularly those of the older generation, have not particularly liked the thought of women participating in combat roles. Part of that was because they felt women would be unfairly disadvantaged through their inability to fight hand-to-hand with males. One could understand their reluctance. I would not like to allow the likes of my cousin MetiriaTurei to go head-to-head with someone like RānaWaitai in a physical confrontation. The outcome, one would predict, would be pretty clear and obvious. [Interruption] That is right; RānaWaitai would go down quite quickly to my cousin from Ngāti Kahungunu. But that has been one of the issues that New Zealanders have struggled with. They have also struggled for years with the notion of whether it is right and proper to put women deliberately in the front line situation where they might be disembowelled, dismembered, ripped apart, and tortured, if captured, by their enemy. I guess New Zealand women have put their hands up and said they want to have that right, and have asked how anyone can deny someone his or her right to pick up a firearm, put on a uniform, and go to fight for his or her country.
What concerns me is that in this debate there is an inadvertent—I do not think it is deliberate—demeaning of the combat support roles played by women. Traditionally in this nation, men and women have taken up roles in signals, intelligence, transport, and engineering. In fact, I recall a lady by the name of Corporal Paula Jepson from the Royal New Zealand Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. I think she was the first female fitter-welder in the New Zealand Army. She was an exceptionally competent tradesperson.
New Zealand First applauds the fact that the bill allows women to participate legally, as of right, at all levels of the armed forces. I take my hat off to the staff I saw in the provincial reconstruction team in Bamian last week. A large number of women are deployed at all levels and in all roles in that contingent, whether on the front lineor patrolling and providing security services under the command of Major Paul King. When I arrived back, thankfully, I was pleased to see the large number of women who were working in the mess preparing food for all the troops as they came in from a hard day’s work. Likewise, I saw women working in communications and medical services, as women always have done. They are working exceptionally well and are a credit to themselves, their families, and their nation.
This bill is simply part of New Zealand’s coming of age and is an acceptance of the reality that men and women demand and have the right to defend our nation, and to join the defence forces in any role. Anyone who wants to hang on to a last vestige of concern about the role of women in killing needs to understand the reality of modern war. Today it is possible for a person to sit in an office somewhere in Tampa in Florida and manipulate a joystick to send a Hellfire missile through the back window of a Toyota Land Cruiser and kill an al-Qaeda leader—in the Yemen! That can be done without the person setting foot on the front line, so to speak. That task can equally be done by any human being, whether male or female. We should also remember that a lot of the dirty work that has to be done—which some parties in the Chamber do not want to talk about—concerns intelligence work, and that work is sometimes best done by a woman. That is the reality of life and the reality of security. Again, I remind members about Nancy Wake and how effective she was. When the bill receives the Royal assent and becomes law, I would love to hear that finally the Government will recognise the good work done by Nancy Wake in a combat role.
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) Link to this
I take great pleasure in speaking to the title of this bill—that is, the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. I also acknowledge all the women and men who have served in our armed forces, and it seems very apt—having just had Anzac Day—that we are debating this bill tonight. Indeed, I acknowledge the Hon Harry Lapwood, who died; I attended his funeral yesterday, and he was acknowledged in the House today. He was a top bloke. He was an Army returned serviceman and will never be forgotten.
The title is very apt; the bill amends the Human Rights Act, which is outdated in this respect, and fixes up an anomaly, so the legislation can come up to speed with modern practice. It also allows for consistency with international conventions such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. At the time of the enactment of the Human Rights Act in 1993 it was the policy that women did not take part in active combat or duty. For the last 7 years, I understand, it has no longer been policy in the armed forces to discriminate against women. So we have to ask the question why it has taken 7 years to have this legislation before the House to correct the anomaly. Never mind; it is better late than never, as they say.
I also acknowledge Nancy Wake as a New Zealander who served in the armed forces. She left New Zealand when she was 12, and is now 94, and has been acknowledged by virtually every other country, apart from New Zealand. The RSA has commended her with its highest honour—but not New Zealand. She is 94; time is ticking. It is not too late, and I hope the Government will honour her in the Queen’s Birthday honours in June.
I also acknowledge another wonderful New Zealander, Colonel Louisa Parkinson, who is the highest-ranked women serving in the Territorial Force. I know Louisa personally. She is an amazing woman—inspirational, and a huge role model. With people like Louisa at the helm I am sure the numbers of women in the armed forces can only increase with time. This bill will set the stage for this to occur, although a lot of work has to be done.
I was also in the Territorial Force during my time as a medical student—in the university medical unit. We trained the same as men, we took on the same duties, we had the same challenges, and we competed at every level. Certainly, my time in the Army, though it was short, made me acknowledge and respect people who work in the armed forces, who serve our country. They are courageous and brave, and we have to honour them.
I would like to conclude that we support this bill. We are pleased to see it before Parliament. We are just concerned that it has taken so long to get here and we certainly hope the Government acknowledges Nancy Wake.
KATRINA SHANKS (National) Link to this
I rise to speak to the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill, which the National Party supports. The purpose of this bill is to repeal section 33 of the Human Rights Act 1993, so as to allow women in the armed forces to participate in active combat roles. This bill removes the last endorsement of gender discrimination that exists in employment matters relating to the armed forces. It can be safely said that women have unlimited choice when it comes to selecting a career. Repealing section 33 of the Human Rights Act will only reinforce the perception that there is nothing a woman cannot do, if given the opportunity. Given that 17 percent of all New Zealand defence force personnel are female and this number is growing year by year, and given that there are now more women than men in New Zealand’s population, I personally look forward to the day when the commander of defence forces is addressed by her subordinates as “madam” rather than sir.
However, if we look back for a moment to 1993 when the Human Rights Act was originally enacted, we see that New Zealand Defence Force policy prohibited women from serving in what are termed the teeth arms: in the infantry battalions, the armed regiment, the artillery batteries, or in the engineers as anything other than clerks in the quartermaster’s store or in the unit’s orderly room. Let us now fast-forward 7 years to 2000, when the Defence Force revised its rules regarding the prohibition on females serving in front-line services. In light of that policy shift, this legislative change is well overdue. This bill started as a member’s bill but has been adopted as a Government bill. Although the bill is an attempt to keep abreast of modern times and ratifies a current situation, it has in effect been outdated by Defence Force policy for 7 years. By any yardstick that we care to use, the Defence Force has been far more progressive than this self-proclaimed progressive Government in ensuring that women have equal opportunities in a military career.
Although the National Party is supportive of this Government bill and its intentions, questions still need to be asked. For instance, if it took this Labour-led Government 7 years to address this human rights anomaly and subsequent employment anomalies, would we have to wait another 7 years under a Labour Government for New Zealand’s most foreign-decorated female combat veteran, Nancy Wake, to be given the honours she so richly deserves for her World War II service, or, to use this bill’s parlance, “active combat service”? Given that Ms Wake is 94 years old, I sincerely hope not. For that matter, would contemporary female combat veterans have to wait 7 years for recognition of the combat service that this legislation will allow them to undertake?
It almost goes without saying that women in all manner of employment add value to all of their respective places of work, and that service with a combat-oriented unit or service in a combat zone will be no different in that regard. I mention that I would like to see the first female commander of defence forces or the first female Chief of Army, a success that I am confident will eventually follow this law change, although it must not be at the expense of existing or future standards. Standards should be based on competency, not on race, gender, religious belief, or any other factor.
I would like to finish this call on a cautionary note. In this bill’s first reading we were told that New Zealand has a reservation relating to women serving in armed combat. Although the word “reservation” has been used in a more legal context, it also has an implicit social context. We have only to look at the recent diplomatic tensions between the UK and Iran concerning British naval personnel, who included a female naval rating, to see some of the social and diplomatic problems that removal of the social reservation can generate. This is my caution to this Committee. Members should not think that this legislation merely adds to the raft of rights that we currently enjoy or that it merely corrects existing employment legislation. This bill has much wider implications than that, and this Government and any future Government should be aware of that. Thank you.