Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Women’s Affairs) Link to this

I move, That the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. It is my privilege as Minister of Women’s Affairs to move an amendment that will remove the last statutory discrimination against New Zealand women, thereby enabling the Government to lift the reservation to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, or CEDAW, which we have in place due to that provision. I want to read the reservation to the House. It states: “The Government of New Zealand, the Government of the Cook Islands, and the Government of Niue reserve the right not to apply the provisions of the Convention in so far as they are inconsistent with policies relating to recruitment into or service in (a) the Armed Forces which reflect either directly or indirectly the fact that members of such forces are required to serve on armed forces aircraft or vessels and in situations involving armed combat or (b) the law enforcement forces which reflect either directly or indirectly the fact that members of such forces are required to serve in situations involving violence or threat of violence.”

When the Human Rights Act was passed in 1993, the New Zealand armed forces still had a policy of not allowing women to serve in combat roles, and therefore the Government needed to include an exemption for the armed forces covering sexual discrimination in employment matters. Since then attitudes and practices have moved on. In 2002 the Chief of Defence Force lifted all restrictions on the deployment of women in combat roles and, indeed, asked service chiefs to establish procedures for the employment of women in trades from which they were previously excluded, with a goal of full integration by 2005. The Navy had already opened the diving branch to women in February 2000, thus removing the last restricted trade within that service. For the Army, the issue was more complex and it followed a phased implementation. During the debate on this bill people have asked why it has taken so long to bring this matter before the House. There is the answer to that question. A phased change in practice in our armed forces has required us to take to this time. The purpose for which the exemption under section 33 of the Human Rights Act was granted by this House no longer exists, which is why we are now able to remove it.

This is a relatively small change but an important one symbolically, because it completes the objective of equality before the law for New Zealand women. With this change New Zealand will be able to meet its international obligations in relation to the rights of women, and we will be able to move quickly to remove the one remaining reservation under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women—and, in fact, the national interest analysis has already been referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for its consideration. We will be able, at last, to confirm that New Zealand gives unqualified support to the convention.

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women is often described as an international bill of rights for women. The convention was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1979. It defines discrimination against women as “any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.” By accepting the convention, States commit themselves to undertake a series of measures to end discrimination against women in all forms, including incorporating the principle of equality of men and women in their legal system, abolishing all discriminatory laws, and adopting appropriate laws that prohibit discrimination against women. States also commit themselves to establish tribunals and other public institutions to ensure the effective protection of women against discrimination and the elimination of all acts of discrimination against women by persons, organisations, or enterprises.

Countries that have ratified or acceded to the convention are legally bound to put its provisions into practice. They are also committed to submitting national reports at least every 4 years on measures they have taken to comply with their treaty obligations. New Zealand has already submitted its written report—its sixth report—and will be appearing in front of the UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in August this year.

New Zealand’s reservation to the convention also extends to the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau, as members will note from the comments I made before. Tokelau and Niue are covered by the law change, and they have agreed to be associated with New Zealand’s action to withdraw the reservation. The Cook Islands has now acceded to the convention in its own right, and it may withdraw its reservation independently if it wishes to do so.

I should point out that although we can be proud of achieving this change in our law and of our ability now to fully comply with the convention, it is also important to recognise that full equality before the law and full equality in practice are often two different things. It is relatively easy to change the law, especially when, as in this case, we follow, rather than lead, practice. It often takes much longer to change the culture, attitudes, and behaviour that lead to discrimination occurring in practice. We can see that lag in areas like equal pay for work of equal value, where discrimination on the basis of sex has actually been unlawful in terms of our legislative framework for over 30 years, but still a stubborn pay gap remains—a gap that cannot be fully explained by women taking time out of the workforce and gender segregation in employment.

The armed forces have themselves recognised that simply saying to women they are no longer prohibited from taking up a particular role is not enough. They have been making the other necessary changes, which range from changes to equipment, to removing strength barriers to such employment, to measures to prevent bullying and harassment, including sexual harassment. Even with those changes, the pace at which women enter these non-traditional roles will be slow—just as they have been slow to enter traditionally male trades and professions in other parts of the economy. Nevertheless, society will continue to change, and over time I am sure we will see many more women in our armed forces, including more of them in leadership roles.

In recommending this legislation to the House, I would like to again acknowledge those who have helped to bring us to this point. The leadership of the New Zealand Defence Force deserve credit for taking action to change the force’s own rules and procedures in order to remove discrimination against women. I want to thank three women officers who came to Parliament today to reflect that this was an important day. I acknowledge Warrant Officer A J Pereira from the Army, Corporal Anj Ball from the Air Force, and Lieutenant Paula McKenzie from the Navy. I thank them for coming today to acknowledge that this is an important day for women in New Zealand—and not just for those in the armed forces. Between them, those three officers have served in the Sinai, in East Timor, and in Afghanistan, and I appreciate their willingness to represent women in each arm of the New Zealand Defence Force on this important occasion. I also acknowledge the service they undertake on behalf of their country alongside their male colleagues.

I also want to acknowledge the member for Waitakere, Lynne Pillay, who deserves particular credit for bringing this matter before the House as a member’s bill. I thank her for allowing the Government to take over the bill. This is the speech she should have been giving, and I am very grateful I have the opportunity to deliver it in her place. The reason the Government wanted to bring the bill before the House was that it was trapped behind the debate on section 59 of the Crimes Act on members’ day, and there was no guarantee that we could have had it passed through all of its stages in time for the reporting to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women in August this year. So I thank Lynne Pillay on behalf of the women of New Zealand, as well.

I particularly thank my colleagues the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Defence, who, too, were pleased to see this bill adopted as a Government bill. Finally, I commend the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for its constructive consideration of the bill, and all members of the House for their support of the proposition that no New Zealand woman should be discriminated against.

It will be with considerable pride, as New Zealand’s Minister of Women’s Affairs, that I will report that we have expedited the steps necessary for the withdrawal of our remaining reservation to the convention, as asked of us in the committee’s last report to New Zealand. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) Link to this

I am pleased to stand to the third reading of the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. I commend the Minister Lianne Dalziel, who has just taken her seat, for the detailed explanations of the time frame of this bill, and why it has taken the bill so long to finally come to the House. I commend Lynne Pillay for bringing the bill, which was originally in her name, to the House, as well. But, as I say, Lianne Dalziel demonstrated why it had taken this long to come before the House. I certainly have raised that issue in my previous contributions to the debate.

As has been said, the purpose of the bill is to repeal section 33 of the Human Rights Act 1993 to allow women employed in the armed forces to participate in active combat roles. In so doing, the last exemption for sexual discrimination in employment matters applying to the military is removed. National supports that—of course we support it. Given New Zealand’s record, in any event, in the human rights area, I suppose it is surprising that it has taken until 2007 for this legislation to come about. But we have a good record, and this bill will help it.

Basically, it will enable women—in the military at least—to know that in a legislative sense they are fully recognised for their contribution to our armed forces. As the numbers of female participants increase—and maybe this will be a spur for those numbers to rise, now that they will be fully recognised—then we all benefit. New Zealand will benefit. I salute the women who are currently in the military, in all three services: the army, the navy, and the air force. I admire them. Like all participants in the military they enter because they have a desire to serve New Zealand, often overseas and in areas—as currently—where, although they go under this Labour Government’s banner of a peace-keeping role, that peace-keeping requires nonetheless that they are fully trained, and fully alert as if in a combat role anyway. As I say, I salute all of the women in New Zealand’s military.

I want to make reference, just as a matter of interest, to what Tariana Turia, the Māori Party member, went into in some detail, I think in the first reading. It is interesting that in Māori tradition there was never any discrimination at all in the valuable roles that women played. So Māori history and tradition are replete with women serving in times of warfare along with their male counterparts. Women were leaders in some of the famous battles. So I suppose from a Māori perspective we might stand here and say that it has certainly taken a long time for this discrimination to be removed. In the Land Wars in the 1860s, in New Zealand’s early history, Māori women were to the fore in battles against the British Army. So in standing here, a Māori person, as I am, I might say that this legislation is long overdue. Be that as it may, if we take our history beyond just the officially recognised wars—the First World War, the Second World War, and so on—we can say that women have been to the fore in warfare and in the military, in New Zealand since the 1860s. That is certainly how I see it. Our Māori history is full of very competent, capable women leaders—women in the military who played a very important role.

The only other point, I suppose, that I wish to make reference to—and I have raised it in previous contributions, as well—is the fact that the New Zealand demographic shows there are actually more women in New Zealand than men and, in looking forward, we know too that the workforce of the future is also Māori. So I hope that the military has strategies in place that seek in earnest to lift the numbers of females in the military, because they have proven that they are as capable and competent as anyone else. And although the numbers are rising, they are going up very slowly. The percentage for women in the military in 2005 was 16.2, and in 2006 it was 16.5. That percentage does not match the percentage of women in the overall population. Given that there is now no discrimination of any kind against women serving in the military, as I say, I will be interested to know whether there are strategies in place that seek to lift those numbers. They are too low at the moment. They are rising, but in my view they are not rising quickly enough. Now that we have removed this last vestige of discrimination, it may be that that is a spur for New Zealand women generally to realise that we are serious in recognising their valued contribution to the military.

The Minister referred also to the ability that New Zealand will now have to be fully compliant with our obligations to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. As a former Minister of Women’s Affairs, I am very pleased that that compliance is about to happen. Despite what some may think about National and its attitude to that committee, it has had a history of some very fine people being involved in developing our participation in the committee—namely, the former Governor-General, Dame Silvia Cartwright, who has moved on to even greater responsible things. She was a guiding light, a mover and a shaker, in the development of New Zealand’s obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

So it is good in all respects that not only do we recognise the desire of New Zealand women to be fully recognised for the role they play in our employment environment—not least in the military—but we recognise that we are taking a modern move today. It fits in with where women are, and with where women want to be—recognised on merit and their abilities. New Zealand is a leader in that regard. At the same time, as I say, we satisfy some international obligations, so National supports this bill.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) Link to this

It is a pleasure to stand and speak in support of this bill. I acknowledge the previous speaker and commend her for her praise and support for the advancement of women, and for non-discrimination against women. I also put on record in this House that it is a pity that not all of her caucus share that view.

I commend the Minister of Women’s Affairs who spoke earlier today. She was very happy to take up this bill, which, it has been acknowledged, was previously a member’s bill. She saw that not only would it make progression of the bill through the House faster and more efficient—the longstanding debate on the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill was holding up its progress on the Order Paper—but also it would elevate the bill to the level I believe that it should have been at. I am really pleased for the support given by the Minister of Women’s Affairs in bringing this bill forward, which was firstly my member’s bill, but I really think the appropriate recognition for what the bill stands for is as a Government bill. So I am very happy to see it in its final stage and to speak to it today.

The bill is all about supporting and celebrating women. I would also like to commend this Government for supporting and celebrating a Ministry of Women’s Affairs. This institution has been questioned by members in this House—certainly not by members of this party, but by members of the National Opposition—as to whether there is the need for such an organisation in New Zealand. I think there is no question about the work done in advocacy for women by the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, and long may it continue.

I want to thank the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for a very clear and affirming report on this bill, and for some common-sense recommendations that have enabled the bill to come back with all the principles that were the reasons for the bill unchanged. I also want to thank this House for the unanimous support this bill has received. Indeed, when a bill is about recognising rights that concern discrimination, sadly we often do not engage the full support of this House, but very happily this is not one of those occasions. I am most appreciative of the support of all parties for this bill.

When the Human Rights Act was passed in 1993, the New Zealand armed forces still had a policy of not allowing women to serve in combat roles. The Act provided an exemption for the armed forces that covered sexual discrimination in employment matters. I am very happy to say, and as Lianne Dalziel before me acknowledged, that the armed forces very progressively abandoned that policy in the year 2000, but the exemption in section 33 of the Human Rights Act remained. Although the provision about the right to discriminate has not been applied, it has still remained like a blot on our statute book. I am very pleased that we are now able to remove that blot, and quite rightfully put our status right up there where it should be for us, as New Zealanders, in leading the charge for women on the world stage.

We are very proud of the fact that, as we know, New Zealand was the first country where women won the right to vote. Since that decision in September 1893, we have passed a comprehensive set of laws designed to protect human rights, not just for women but for all New Zealanders. I refer to Acts such as the Human Rights Act, the Care of Children Act, the Civil Union Act, the Relationships (Statutory References) Act, and the New Zealand Sign Language Act, and most recently we have had the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Repeal Act. These can be seen as ongoing legislation that this Government and, indeed, former Governments have introduced to ensure that human rights in this country are in the place they should be—that is, at the forefront. Unjustified discrimination is not acceptable in any society, least of all in New Zealand, which is leading the way.

New Zealand women have provided so much good service. I think it is quite fitting that this bill is in its final stages not long after Anzac Day. I think that whilst acknowledging that women did not take part in combative roles in the army in previous wars—and that is not a sad thing—it is also very appropriate to recognise the extraordinarily good role that women played, both in the forces and indeed in supporting their menfolk who were at the front line. So I think it is really significant that this bill is before the House at this time and, as I said before, I am very, very proud to stand in support of it.

History shows that the armed forces have not been as progressive as the army is now. Like Lianne Dalziel, I want to acknowledge the three young women, representing each branch of the armed forces, who came to Parliament today. They were very heartened about the new legislation, although I have to say, happily, they were not aware of the discrimination. I think our women are already making up quite large numbers in the roles they are playing—indeed, in our peacekeeping forces overseas—and that is very good to see.

I cannot end without saying how proud I was when I went to a conference on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, held in Geneva, and was able to talk about this bill before our Parliament to remove our final reservation. The meeting was an opportunity to talk about the role that members’ bills can play in promoting change in legislation for women that may be discriminatory. Indeed, there were women representing many countries where there was much discrimination, so it was a very heartening and inspiring example for them. As I said before, it is even better to see this bill elevated to the level that it is at now.

I believe that this bill is based on a belief in our society that unjustified discrimination on the basis of gender is indeed a thing of the past, as are racial discrimination and age discrimination. As I said before, this is not a controversial bill. It has engaged support from everyone in this House, and that is very much a commendable thing.

I also want to say very briefly that I attended an open day at Whenuapai very recently, and I acknowledge what a wonderful day it was. There was camaraderie and a very egalitarian relationship between the men and women officers, who were obviously enjoying the day. It was very clear to see that there was very much an equal relationship that extended from the ability to be promoted to just that ordinary way of relating as comrades in the armed forces. That really highlights how times have changed today.

In many of our institutions being a woman was not as easy; it was difficult. There were many barriers and many not too subtle ways of undermining the role that women played. I am really proud to say that certainly from what I have observed in the armed forces from the bottom up—in the ranks, and between the comrades there—that is not the case now. I think we have armed forces to feel very, very proud of, and I know that for these women and men who represent New Zealand so well, both here and overseas, this bill will enhance the role that women play. It is a pleasure to stand and speak in support of this bill. Thank you.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) Link to this

National is pleased to support the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill, and I acknowledge the previous speaker, Lynne Pillay, for moving this legislative amendment.

I will focus on three issues; firstly, the contribution that women play in the armed forces today. This issue is hugely important in the contemporary nature of peace enforcement, or of international deployments, where New Zealand has a particularly important role to play in building trust and confidence in the places where its peacekeepers are deployed. I know full well that our deep expertise in these areas is noted by other countries. I am absolutely sure—in fact, I know for a fact—that that is in no small part due to the cultural changes, both gender-based and, indeed, ethnicity-based, that New Zealand brings to contemporary deployments. That has been a very important part of New Zealand’s contemporary role. This law recognises a reality.

Another issue I wish to talk to, however, is the issue of national interest as opposed to complying with a UN convention—as important as those issues might be, in some areas. We should be passing law because it is in our own interests to do so, not because we are required to do so by some UN agency. That is an important point that this Government often neglects. It plays a completely slavish role: anything that the United Nations proposes, the Government just meekly and subserviently supports.

I bring to the House the point that recently the United Nations human rights organisation had to be completely reorganised. This should be one of the centrepieces of the United Nations. One of its roles, surely, is to defend human rights. But, in fact, the previous commission was so discredited, so bankrupt of observance to principle, that the UN itself, or, rather more accurately, those countries that have a deep commitment to human rights in practice—as opposed to merely espousing the language of it—felt they could no longer participate in that organisation, and that it had lost its fundamental purpose.

So a new organisation was created to try to rectify that problem. Do members know what that new organisation has just done? It decided to single out Israel, of all the countries in the world, as a particularly grievous breach of extending full human rights to women. I guess the women of Saudi Arabia were particularly impressed with that decision. After all, everyone in this House knows that every woman in Saudi Arabia can vote, can drive a car, and has all the other rights that every other woman expects to have! That is, of course, something that I guess those women are looking forward to in anticipation, because in fact they do not have any of those rights. They are extensively discriminated against, both in practical terms and through the law.

Did that UN body decide to make a point about that? No. So I guess this is one of the reasons why National takes perhaps not a sceptical approach, but not a slavish approach, either, that we should be passing a law like we are passing today because it is in our interests. The fact that it happens to also comply with at least the best intentions of the United Nations is a good thing. But I would like the Government to recognise, at least occasionally, that the UN has some deep and grievous faults, and that slavish adherence to every single request by the United Nations does not necessarily serve this country’s interests.

We have only to think of the recent visit by Mr Stavenhagen, who had exactly the same myopic approach. New Zealand is clearly one of the worst offenders—in his view—in treating people equally. It is that kind of statement that causes many people in New Zealand, and not just in the National Party, to ask: “For heaven’s sake, where is the balance?”. So I say to the Government that when it deals with laws like this—and I suppose the Minister specifically mentioned it; interestingly enough, the previous speaker did not do it quite so much—it needs to take a more critical approach.

We on the Opposition side of the House have always worked to improve the rights of women and, indeed, of all people in New Zealand. I need to remind Ms Pillay that, in fact, it was the previous National Government that passed the Human Rights Act 1993, and that was a very important advance for the rights of all people, including women. Yes, there were things that had to be fixed up, and I for one am pleased that this final discrimination has been removed.

My final point is this, however: we should not pretend that these kinds of changes do not have their own kinds of risks. We have only to look at what happened with the capture of the British sailors in Iran. A great deal of pressure was put upon the woman sailor in that situation. I acknowledge that ultimately Iran did the right thing and released the sailors, and it perhaps did not particularly mistreat them, but there are many countries that would—and indeed have. Non-State actors are particularly notorious for doing this. We should be aware that when we say we are extending our human rights legislation so that it is complete, we are also putting people under a degree of risk whereby our people will perhaps be treated differently by those people who do not have such a developed view as we have, and that some quite bad things can happen. I am fully aware that when all New Zealanders—men and women—join the armed forces, they do know those risks and they take them on with open eyes. I guess that is part and parcel of our having a full volunteer force. But, of course, circumstances can change, as they have in the past. So we need at least to have our eyes open to this risk.

Yes, it is a good day for women today. Yes, it is important that our armed forces provide full opportunities to women. Women have felt that that aspect is important in the armed forces, and they look to this Parliament to support them in their endeavours. In closing, I am pleased to say that National is pleased to be able to support this Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. But I do put those particular caveats on record, because we do look at these issues a little more carefully, I suggest, than the Government, and we do not just accept every UN pronouncement in quite the uncritical way that the Government does.

RON MARK (NZ First) Link to this

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in favour of this Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill, and to signify that we will, again, be supporting this bill through its third reading.

I will just mention a couple of facts that are interesting. I want to put on the parliamentary record some statistics I have that show that the contribution made to the defence of New Zealand by the women of New Zealand is quite substantial. Some people have reflected that it is not high enough, but servicewomen comprise some 16.7 percent of the regular forces as a whole. It is interesting to note that almost 23 percent of the Navy’s strength is women, that women make up almost 14 percent of the Army, and that almost 17 percent of the Air Force’s strength is servicewomen. I know from the recent visit to Afghanistan by the Minister of Defence, on which I accompanied him, that something like 22 women are deployed in the Bamian province in a number of roles there, ranging from medical to combat appointments. It is interesting to note that as far back as, I think, early 2007, something like 82 servicewomen were deployed on land-based operations around the world, and 84 servicewomen were deployed on Her Majesty’s New Zealand ships. I guess that says that since about the year 2000 in particular, when the Defence Force moved away from adhering to the policy prescribed in law and actually started deploying women in combat roles, the numbers of women have steadily grown.

I shall refer to my own experience in the military. I became an officer cadet in 1978, having joined the Army at the age of 16 in 1971. In my intake of officer cadets at Waiōuru there were five women. I think only two graduated, and one was discharged for medical reasons. The intake before mine—what was know then as an officer cadet training unit—had five women, as well. One of them has only recently retired, and that was Lieutenant Colonel Clare Bennett. I subsequently met her many years later, when I was visiting the Solomon Islands as a member of Parliament. She was over there leading a recruiting team, trying to get more people to join our Defence Force. I understand that she had a very good, long, and enjoyable military career.

It is interesting to note that back in 1971 we had the Women’s Royal Army Corps. All women who joined the Army went into the Women’s Royal Army Corps. It was a separate corps, women from which were trained in various trades, skills, and professions. They were commanded separately, but were assigned and attached to units.

That corps was disbanded sometime in, I think, the 1980s. That move was made to integrate women fully and completely into all corps and trades, removing any barriers of sexual discrimination. The move was challenged, debated, and argued, and many people disagreed with it. They did not think men were good commanders of women; they thought the best commanders of women were women. It was argued that women could not pull the wool over women’s eyes, but they could definitely pull the wool over men’s eyes, and did so on frequent occasions. I guess, regardless of the argument, the decision was made, and it subsequently, over time, has proven to be a good decision, and now we are where we are today, removing the final barrier for women, which is the barrier to their active engagement, active employment in combat roles.

It is interesting that, traditionally, when we have talked about combat roles we have talked about the teeth arms corps. If I might refer to the army again, the teeth arms corps were the armoured corps, infantry, artillery, and the corps of engineers. That is an interesting one, because people hardly reflect upon the corps of engineers as being a combat corps. My partner was a territorial force officer in the corps of engineers, which is quite curious, because I was in the Royal New Zealand Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, which made me a non-combatant. If I look at it that way, she was a combatant and I was not. Was that discriminatory? I do not know. No, it was just choice. There was nothing to stop me moving, as I did, into other areas and serving time in combat corps.

It is interesting listening to the debate and hearing some women stand up and lament that there are not enough women in the armed forces. I say to those women who have said that that Heather Roy has joined the armed forces, and I am looking right now at Jackie Blue, who served in the armed forces. I say to Lynne Pillay: “Join up right now.” The recruiting doors are open, and the armed forces would be keen to have her in the service, like Heather Roy. They would be keen to put Lynne Pillay through recruit training, and they would be keen to see her serve her country in a combat role. If there is one way for that MP in this House to do something about what she considers to be the flagging numbers, the insufficient numbers, of women in the defence forces and in the combat corps, it is simply to take a leaf out of Heather Roy’s book and join—it is very simple, actually—and lead by example. She does not need to sit here and lament the number of women who are not joining or do not have the opportunity. A member of this House has taken the opportunity available to her and has demonstrated leadership by example; she has done it, and there is nothing to stop any women in the Labour caucus from doing the same thing. They should stop talking about it and just do it.

I also would like to take a little bit of the fluff off the top of this. I notice that the Minister Lianne Dalziel made the comment that it is one thing to bring equality in law and another to bring it in practice—that the two are different things. That is true, but in the defence forces, might I suggest, those barriers have been substantially dealt with. I have to compliment Major General Jerry Matepārae for the very positive and affirmative steps he is taking, and the former Chief of Defence Force, Bruce Ferguson, for the very positive and affirmative steps he took, during their tenure in that office. Such moves are not symbolic. They are not simply moves in law. They are indeed reflected in practice.

It is, I guess, a matter of choice that we have only one female infantry platoon commander. I say that we should not denigrate the service of women who choose not to take a combat role, who choose to be in the medical corps or the transport corps, or to work as cooks and chefs. Those support roles are vital to the ability of the combat corps to do their job. It was Montgomery who said that the electrical and mechanical engineers put the punch in the army’s fist—that without them the army did not roll. He knew full well from the battle of the Eighth Army and the desert campaign exactly how important electrical and mechanical engineers were to him. Likewise, other generals have said that an army marches on its stomach. We should not denigrate the cooks and the chefs who feed the troops, because without them the troops would not be there to fight.

It is good that we are removing this last vestige of sexual discrimination. It is good that the nation, all of us, have moved beyond what were chivalrous views and attitudes that are these days described as sexist views and attitudes. It is good that we now open up the full range of career opportunities to all New Zealanders, men or women. But we should always remind ourselves of the fact that it is a choice as to whether a man serves in the infantry or in the logistics corps, just as it is a choice as to whether a woman serves in the artillery or in the medical corps. That is the way it should always be.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this

Like all other parties in the House, the Green Party will be supporting the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. Members can call me old-fashioned, but I am not someone who celebrates or regards as a great victory the fact that this legislation will allow and perhaps encourage women into active combat roles in the armed forces. I do not see this as some huge victory or human right. I think it is sad that we send women or, indeed, men into active combat roles in the Army, but, sadly, that is the reality of our world today.

The Green Party acknowledges that if we want women in the armed forces and we welcome the fact that they are there, it does not seem right that they be excluded from combat roles, providing, as the previous speaker, Ron Mark, has said, that they are not obligated to go into those combat roles but, rather, that it is a choice.

We also acknowledge that women are playing a significant role in our armed forces. We hope the role they play will be even more significant in time. As the previous speaker has already pointed out, at the moment only 16.7 percent of regular forces are made up of servicewomen. But we have some significant examples of servicewomen in this House. Heather Roy and, I did not realise, Dr Jackie Blue have played their part and contributed in the armed forces. In particular, women have been making a fantastic contribution in peacekeeping roles, particularly in the Pacific. We really celebrate the fact that women are undertaking work in peacekeeping all around the world. We think that is fantastic. If women therefore want to go on and put themselves into combat forces we will support that choice, even though we are sad that they are required to make such a choice.

If we are going to send women into active combat roles in the front line of our armed forces and in the Navy, and so forth, we will have to provide greater protection for women in those situations. There is some accountability from our Government if we are going to send them there. I am thinking, in particular, of the terrible tragedy that has befallen many of our armed forces who were exposed to Agent Orange in the Viet Nam War and who have been exposed to other problems, such as carcinogens, in other combat roles. We know that women are particularly vulnerable to things like Agent Orange and to chemicals and pesticides, and that these can be passed down to future generations through the foetus. So I think that if we are going to send women into the front line, we will have to make sure we do not expose them and future generations to unknown risks and hazards. We will have to take that very much into account when we send them.

Our troops have already been exposed to depleted uranium in the Middle East, and I think possibly in Afghanistan, as well—

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnātātou te Whare. The Māori Party also supports the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. But I too have grave reservations. Members may call me old-fashioned—as the previous speaker said—but I do not know whether human rights considerations and the fight for human rights have properly taken into account the role of women as nurturers of their families. I know particularly that the issue of Māori women on the front line, and the historical role that Māori women have played within Māori society, have not been properly addressed in this bill.

I also know that if I were ever to have to be in a war, I would be more than happy to have my older sister and younger sister alongside me, because when it comes right down to it they are a lot tougher than my whanaunga Mahara Okeroa on the other side of the House there. I would back my sisters to back me in any situation. But that is only in a situation where we are pushed into that arena. On the question of whether I would be comfortable about accepting women going into that situation on a normal basis and being thrust into that situation, I do not know that that is necessarily something I would personally go along with.

This is a speech that the honourable Tariana Turia was supposed to make. She has had to leave the building, so I am delivering it. In May 1999 Mākere Harawira—no relation of mine—stood at the Hague Appeal for Peace Conference and said: “It has been said that when women regain their rightful place within the world, wars will cease. It has also been said that women will refuse to give up their sons and daughters to war, wars will cease.” As she points out, women have always occupied a central place in any discussion of war—and, indeed, peace. So it is not unusual to be considering the status of women in the context of the armed forces, when we consider our histories throughout Aotearoa.

Women have served in the armed forces since 1914. It was not until 2000 that the restrictions that prevented women from serving in combat roles were formally rescinded by a defence order. Indeed, during World War II some 10,000 women served in the armed forces. As of 1 July last year some 2,555 women were serving in our defence forces. The greatest number, of course—42 percent—were employed as civilians, but 24 percent were in the Army, 17 percent in the Navy, and 16 percent in the Air Force. So the reality is that this debate is not really about the question of whether women should be allowed to serve; instead, the bill is a technicality, legislating to provide for what is now in operational practice.

The bill amends section 33 of the Human Rights Act 1993, to remove an exemption that allows discrimination against women by preventing them from serving in combat positions. It is, then, in many ways a mere formality, as New Zealand no longer prevents women from serving at the front line. But it is a formality that is important, insomuch as the removal of the exemption will enable us to fully ratify our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The bill allows the legislation to be updated to fit with changes in practice, and it also allows compliance with international law.

Why is that so important? Quite simply, it is because New Zealand’s reputation has been significantly tarnished as a good international citizen. Our exemplary human rights record was rubbished on 22 March 2005, when the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination released its finding on the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. The committee consisted of 18 independent experts in the area of human rights. It was petitioned by Te Rūnanga o NgāiTahu, the Treaty Tribes Coalition, and Te Rūnanga o Te Arawa to invoke its early-warning measures and urgent-procedure jurisdiction to require New Zealand to withdraw the foreshore and seabed legislation. Just to put that into context, the early-warning measures and urgent procedures are not often invoked. Over recent years they have been invoked for situations in Darfur, Israel, Guyana, Laos, the Ivory Coast, and Surinam. Now, to our eternal shame, they have been invoked right here in Aotearoa.

The finding of the committee is now on the international record. This House must recall that the committee concluded that the foreshore and seabed legislation: “appears to contain discriminatory aspects against the Maori, in particular in its extinguishment of the possibility of establishing Maori customary titles over the foreshore and seabed and its failure to provide a guaranteed right of redress, notwithstanding the State party’s obligations under articles 5 and 6 of the Convention.” That was not all. It was then only a matter of time before the UN called upon its rapporteur to pay a visit down under and report on the situation here in Aotearoa. That report concluded that the passage of the foreshore and seabed legislation was an important human rights issue for Māori and all New Zealanders, and indeed that it was a backwards step for Māori in extinguishing all Māori rights to the foreshore and seabed. So the status of Aotearoa in the field of human rights has been dramatically and adversely affected by retrograde legislation in the last few years.

The Māori Party is therefore pleased to continue to support this human rights bill—

HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) Link to this

I rise on behalf of ACT New Zealand to speak on the third reading of the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. I am delighted to say that ACT will be supporting this bill, at two levels. Firstly, because it is the right thing to do from our political party’s point of view, and, secondly, at a very personal level, I am delighted as a serving territorial soldier to see that at last this area is being addressed.

This bill is in fact a very simple bill. It will correct an anomaly that has existed in our law for many years. It will also see compliance with international law, which is very important and something that I think the New Zealand Defence Force is very keen to see, as well.

Women have for many years participated not only in the armed forces—we have heard the numbers involved from many members and I will not repeat them—but also in overseas deployments and have been serving in the world’s hot spots. I would like to reassure Sue Kedgley, who raised some very valid points about women and men serving overseas, that this is already the way things are. Women are significantly contributing to defence and to the serving of their country, and this law will just see that gap, that anomaly that exists in the law, rectified.

I think very few would doubt that women have added significantly to the Defence Force since their involvement. In those very early days, I think—and probably my colleague Ron Mark will back this up—it was pretty hard for women in the Army. They were very much a minority and considered as such. But, as time has gone on, that has changed significantly—in fact, out of sight. I have to say that since my involvement with the Army, which has been just over a year long now, I have not suffered at all. I have not even really seen or experienced any adverse comment or effect as a woman in the armed forces. I think everybody would agree that this is very much as things should be.

Women have been adding significantly to the Defence Force for many years, and have been deployed. Even the two speakers before me who have apologetically confessed to being old-fashioned and not really approving of women’s involvement in the armed forces would not doubt that women have added significantly to this area.

Women are, just as men are these days, judged on competence in the Defence Force. I have spent time with the Army, but I have also visited the Navy and spent a little time with the Air Force. In each of these areas competence is absolutely the final benchmark by which everybody is measured, no matter what gender he or she is. To join any of the services, to go on courses, to train, and to deploy, there are levels of competence that must be met. Nobody goes on an overseas deployment, nobody is sent by our country to a troubled hot spot around the world—or, indeed, on peacekeeping missions—unless he or she meets that desired level of competence.

So it is not just a matter of sending our womenfolk away with our menfolk to war, to peacekeeping missions, and on overseas deployments. It is a matter of each and every one of those servicemen and servicewomen meeting a particular level of fitness, having the necessary skills, and meeting the competence levels that are required for each and every one of our people who go overseas.

There is also a very practical reason for supporting this bill and for addressing the human rights side of this particular legislation. It is an issue that I raised in the second reading. In days gone by there has been an issue of female combatants having served overseas and, having been injured, then being ineligible for war disablement pensions because of their gender. Because our law has defined combatants in the past as male—and until this legislation is passed that is still the case—it has meant, sadly, in a couple of cases, that some women have been ineligible to receive war disablement pensions from our Government. This, of course, is something that is absolutely unpardonable. From this very practical position, it is important that the human rights aspect of women serving is addressed, and addressed urgently. I think nobody would find that a satisfactory state of affairs, at all.

As I said, we do have a number of women serving overseas, and we have many overseas at the moment. Ron Mark mentioned some women serving in Bamian. The territorials are also making up most of the complement of those serving in the Solomon Islands at the moment as part of Operation RAMSI. I know that one of the soldiers who has just returned from serving a 4-month deployment there is a woman. Our territorials are actually doing slightly better than our Regular Force colleagues when it comes to female presence.

For the future, particularly when the Territorial Force is called in to supplement our overseas deployments and overseas missions and to stand side by side with the Regular Force soldiers in the Army, it will become more and more likely that there will be women involved in those deployments and in those missions. That alone is reason enough to put this legislation forward.

I congratulate Lynne Pillay, who was the initial instigator of the bill, and Lianne Dalziel on picking it up as Government Minister responsible for the bill. As I say, ACT will be supporting this bill. We are pleased that every party in this House is doing so. It is the right and proper thing to do and, from a very personal perspective, I am delighted to see it come before the House and pass unanimously, as it will do very shortly. On behalf of the women serving in the armed forces in New Zealand I also thank those members who have stood and made very kind comments about the contribution that women have made to the Defence Force. In this day and age that is right and proper. Thank you.

LESLEY SOPER (Labour) Link to this

As a Labour MP who started her inaugural parliamentary speech by stating that she stood here as a proud southern woman, a feminist, and the previous women’s vice-president of the Labour Party, I am delighted to join with the Minister of Women’s Affairs, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, and my colleague Lynne Pillay in speaking on the third reading of the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill.

Lynne Pillay, the member for Waitakere, is to be particularly commended for bringing this matter before the House as a member’s bill, and all my Government colleagues are to be thanked for supporting its adoption as a Government bill, especially the Hon Mark Burton, the Minister of Justice, and the Hon Phil Goff, the Minister of Defence.

Some may say that this bill brings a small change, and in one way that is true. The bill amends the Human Rights Act 1993 in order to remove an exemption for sexual discrimination in employment matters that applies to the armed forces. At the time the Human Rights Act was enacted the New Zealand Defence Force had a policy of not allowing women to serve in combat roles. That policy was formally rescinded by Defence Force Order 05/2000. So for years now the Defence Force has very sensibly turned a blind eye to the ability to ban women from combat roles. The leadership of the Defence Force deserves credit for that.

There is no reason in strategic, tactical, or common-sense terms to leave section 33 of the Human Rights Act in place. The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee carefully considered the bill, and made a unanimous recommendation for amendment, and the bill has wide cross-party support. It is a small change already done in practice but a very large one indeed in terms of symbolic significance, and in terms of the important underlying presumption that no New Zealander should be discriminated against on the basis of any of the characteristics defined in the Human Rights Act. Attitudes and practices have moved on. New Zealand has been a leader in that many times and here we are leading again.

I want to dwell for just a moment on New Zealand’s long and proud record in the recognition and promotion of the rights of women at home and internationally. We were the first country where women won the right to vote, in 1893. Since that time we have passed a long list of laws of which we can be exceptionally proud, laws designed to protect human rights for women and for all New Zealanders; Acts such as the Human Rights Act, the Care of Children Act, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act, the Civil Union Act, the Relationships (Statutory References) Act, the New Zealand Sign Language Act, and I want to mention sadly the Employment Equity Act in particular, which was passed with such hope by a Labour Government and almost instantly repealed by a National Government. Perhaps that last example really brings home how long it takes to change the attitudes, culture, and behaviours that lead to discrimination.

We still have areas of equality for women to achieve in New Zealand. One of the greatest lags still is in the area of equal pay for work of equal value. A stubborn gender gap remains, but this Government has started the steps towards addressing that. In the meantime, all women’s organisations, I am sure, will join with me in celebrating that at last New Zealand will be able to fully meet its international obligations in relation to the rights of women. With the passing of this legislation our last remaining reservation under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, commonly known as CEDAW, can be removed, and this Government will move quickly to do that.

The convention is the international bill of rights for women adopted by the UN in 1979. States that commit to the convention undertake to end discrimination against women in all forms, to incorporate the principle of gender equality in their legal system, to abolish all discriminatory laws, and to ensure the elimination of all acts of discrimination against women by persons, organisations, or enterprises. New Zealand reports on the convention have, until now, had to include a reservation because of section 33. Now we are in a position to give the convention its rightful, unqualified support; unqualified support that says women, like men, can enjoy all their human rights and fundamental freedoms.

In the 30 years since the integration of women into the Defence Force there has been a slow growth in the percentage of servicewomen in it. It may actually get to about 20 percent overall by 2016. Many outstanding servicewomen have built brilliant careers in the services, mostly in the traditional areas, such as nursing. Our servicewomen have played an integral and vital role in the operations of our armed forces. This legislation will not mean a sudden flood of extra women in non-traditional roles, but it will serve to say even more loudly and clearly that women have a fully equal role to play in our armed forces and in important peacekeeping activities around the world.

We are now removing the last barrier to front-line combat roles. The armed forces have themselves recognised that changes need to be made to make this a reality. Women in the armed forces have risen to every challenge and done great credit to themselves. I say to Sue Kedgley and to others that, yes, this is about choice, a free, open, and real choice that does not mean just a choice to kill; it means peacekeeping and rebuilding as well. In that arena New Zealanders, both our women and our men, have shown again and again that they can shine, and that New Zealand can punch far above its weight in any armed force task it is asked to perform.

This law says that the door is open wide and will never close. It serves to reinforce all the work done already within our armed forces to attract and retain career women who can aim right to the top. My niece in the armed forces, who has been deployed overseas, and others of her generation know that they can do the job and, even more important, that they are welcomed and supported to do it in any theatre where New Zealand needs to operate.

The member for Waitakere, the select committee, and the Minister have done well by this bill. Its purpose was a good one. Its results are something to be proud of. It is another long step on the way forward. Any discrimination on the basis of gender must be a thing of the past, and we can consign another bit of discrimination where it belongs today.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) Link to this

I rise on behalf of the National Party to support the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. The purpose of this bill is to repeal section 33 of the Human Rights Act 1993, which will allow women employed in the armed forces to participate in active combat roles. The Human Rights Act of 1993 is outdated. This bill means that modern practices occurring today can now be addressed, and it clears up an anomaly. For the last 7 years it has not been the policy of the armed forces to discriminate against women, yet it has taken 7 years to get this legislation to come to the House. Again, like other members, I congratulate Lynne Pillay on the introduction of her member’s bill, which has been taken over by the Government.

The passage of this bill will remove the last exemption for gender discrimination in employment in the armed forces. Any decision to send armed forces personnel to an active combat situation should be based on competency and ability—not on gender, race, or religion. It seems very fitting that this bill was introduced in 2006, the Year of the Veteran. It also seems very fitting, with Anzac Day celebrated only a week ago, that this bill will pass its last hurdle today. I, like many other members of the House, laid a wreath at my local RSA. It was a fitting tribute. I laid the wreath on behalf of the Mt Roskill electorate National Party. I was the only MP there, but wreaths were laid by almost 20 organisations, including the local school. Anzac Day is a day for all New Zealanders to pay tribute to our armed forces. At the Onehunga RSA the address was given by Commander Margaret Weller, commanding officer of the Naval Reserves. Her address was very moving. She spoke about the time she spent at Gallipoli, and she reflected on what life would have been like for those soldiers compared with soldiers in our armed forces today. There were a few tears in the audience.

This bill has not been contentious; it has quite rightly been supported by the House at all stages. The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee received six submissions on the bill, only one of which it heard orally. Submissions were received from the New Zealand Defence Force and the Ministry of Justice. The Defence Force in particular supported this bill. There were no major changes. There was one minor wording change to the member’s bill, where “at the front line” was substituted with “in an active combat role”.

The title of the bill is very apt. It is all about human rights. Women have reached out in all walks of life, and although the numbers of women who enter the armed forces are low across the board at the present time—only 16.7 percent of the Defence Force are female, and, amazingly, that is an all-time high—women should have the choice of whether they serve in active combat. I doubt that with the passage of this bill the ratios will improve. There will have to be hard work and a drastic rethink on how to improve the ratio by attracting more women into the armed services. Women should not be discriminated against in respect of gender, religious beliefs, ethical beliefs, colour, race, ethnic or national origins, or disability. This bill will remove the last barrier and hurdle for women in our armed forces. Women should be free to choose their employment.

It would be remiss of me not to take the opportunity to acknowledge the efforts for New Zealander Nancy Wake, who was commonly known as the White Mouse, to be recognised by this Parliament for her bravery in World War II. Nancy Wake is 94 years of age, she lives in the United Kingdom, and she was our most notable Allied servicewoman in World War II. She has been honoured by France, the UK, the USA—everywhere except New Zealand. That is a disgrace. She was born in New Zealand. She left when she was 12, but she is a New Zealander. It seems amazing that we are abandoning her by not recognising her. The RSA has given Nancy Wake its highest honour. It is the first time that it has given that medal to a woman. This woman has been recommended for a Queen’s honour on countless occasions, and still there has been no recognition from New Zealand. That is the bitter irony and hypocrisy of this bill. Here we have a bill that removes discrimination and leaves the way clear for women to fight in active combat. And here we have Nancy Wake, who fought on the frontline over 50 years ago, and still there is no recognition. It is not too late. We have the June Honours List coming up. I hope—I hope—that she is on that list.

As has been noted before, I was in the Army territorial university medical unit as a medical student. There was no difference in the training; we matched the men in every task. Although the women may not have been the fastest around the 5 kilometre course with a 30 kilogram backpack, we still finished it. Women have proudly proved themselves in every walk of life; they can hold their own and do so proudly. Although my time in the university medical unit was limited, I quickly appreciated the absolute necessity of having trained, competent, and skilled troops who work unquestionably as a cohesive unit. I certainly applaud those women who choose to go into active combat roles and go down this very brave and courageous path. Females have been deployed and have made valuable contributions in many overseas operations, such as Afghanistan, Timor-Leste, and the Solomon Islands.

I also note that the removal of this exemption, which discriminates against women from serving in combat positions, will enable New Zealand to ratify its obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

I would like to take the time to acknowledge Colonel Louisa Parkinson, the highest-ranking women in the territorial army. I know Louisa personally, and she is a great role model. With women like her—positive and inspiring—I am sure the numbers of women in the armed forces can increase.

National supports this bill. We are a party that believes in personal choice.