6. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) Link to this
to the Minister of Women's Affairs
Is she satisfied with progress towards her goals of getting more women in leadership and closing the gender pay gap following the release of the New Zealand Census of Women’s Participation 2010, which records a backwards slide?
Hon PANSY WONG (Minister of Women’s Affairs) Link to this
The report raises no new issues, and that is why two of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs’ priorities are to increase the number of women in leadership positions and to reduce the gender pay gap. I am disappointed at the dismal increase of 8.6 percent to 9.3 percent of women on the boards of the top 100 listed companies. That is why the Ministry of Women’s Affairs has launched the Women on Boards initiative. As far as the pay gap is concerned, when I became the Minister of Women’s Affairs in 2008, the New Zealand gender pay gap had stalled at 12 percent for a decade. Since then, the gap has reduced to 11.3 percent in 2009. It is now down to 10.6 percent.
Catherine Delahunty Link to this
Has she had any advice to explain why 24 public sector departments have larger gender pay gaps than the gap across the total labour force, including a massive 39 percent gap at the Ministry of Defence and even an 8 percent gap at the Ministry of Women’s Affairs?
Each chief executive of each Government agency is responsible for addressing any pay discrimination within their own organisation. The National-led Government expected the State Services Commission to be a good employer and to understand that the Equal Pay Act was passed in 1972 by a National Government. The Department of Labour has provided, and continues to provide, public and private sector organisations with pay and employment equity tools and resources to assist employers to do that.
Catherine Delahunty Link to this
Does she agree with the Prime Minister that the best way to measure income in New Zealand is the quarterly employment survey; if so, why does she not use this survey to measure the current gender pay gap?
Part of the measurement that the Ministry of Women’s Affairs adopted in 2004 is comparing the median hourly earnings of men and women. It is released annually as part of the quarterly employment survey, but we rely on the annual figure. That basis needs to be adopted on a consistent base because otherwise it would be distorting and we would not know whether the gap was closing. On this happy occasion, I am happy to inform the member that the gap has been closing for 2 years in a row, after it had stalled at 12 percent under the previous Labour Government.
Catherine Delahunty Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked her whether she agreed with the Prime Minister that the best way to measure income is the quarterly employment survey . She did not answer that question.
Mr SPEAKERI believe the Minister answered why she believed that a certain series should be used in measuring the pay gap. If I recollect correctly, there were two parts to the member’s question, and the Minister chose to answer that part.
Catherine Delahunty Link to this
Is the real reason that she continues to hide behind median income statistics to explain away the gender pay gap the fact that the Prime Minister’s preferred method shows that the gender pay gap is growing?
The measurement chosen by the Ministry of Women’s Affairs was adopted in 2004, under the previous Labour Government. If I had wanted to choose to hide behind anything, I would shift the base of measurement. The happy news is the gap has now been closing for 2 years in a row. But we are not complacent; we will continue to work on it.
Catherine Delahunty Link to this
Why has the number of women on Government and private sector boards decreased when the No. 1 priority of her department has been to get more women on boards?
Let me repeat: there has been a very slow increase in the percentage of women on the boards of publicly listed companies from 8.6 percent to 9.3 percent, but we are not happy about that. We want to increase it. As far as State sector boards are concerned, the percentages fluctuate between 40 percent and 42 percent. I am comfortable with a range between 40 percent and 60 percent in the State sector. Australia has just adopted 40 percent as its target. Norway has legislated for only 40 percent for a publicly listed company. I think we should be proud of New Zealand for what we have done on State sector boards.
Catherine Delahunty Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has not answered the question as to why the number has decreased.
If the member wants specific answers to questions, she must make her questions shorter and ask only one question instead of putting two or three things into the question. I believe that the Minister gave a reasonable answer to the question. The member has a further supplementary question, as I understand it.
Catherine Delahunty Link to this
Will the Minister commit to the agenda for change outlined in the New Zealand Census of Women’s Participation 2010 and join with the Green Party in a cross-party parliamentary caucus, as that report requests, to advance women’s progress inside and outside Parliament?
The Ministry of Women’s Affairs has three priorities: having more women in leadership, closing the gender pay gap, and tackling violence against women. We have the agenda for change and I think it has been embraced by New Zealand women throughout the country. When the chief executive of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs conducted 52 forums—[ Interruption]
I think I can anticipate the member’s point of order. Having defended the Minister against the point of order in just the previous supplementary question, I would have thought it behoved the Minister to listen to the next supplementary question, which, sure, left the Minister plenty of room to give a political answer should the Minister have wished, but to ignore the question totally is not very wise. So I invite Catherine Delahunty to repeat her question and I ask the Minister to listen to it. The Minister should not give the House a mini-speech about what she wants to tell the House but give at least some sort of answer to the question. The question was so political and there were heaps of opportunities to give an answer, but I would like to hear some sort of answer.
Catherine Delahunty Link to this
Will the Minister commit to the agenda for change outlined in the New Zealand Census of Women’s Participation 2010 and join with the Green Party in a cross-party parliamentary caucus, as that report requests, to advance women’s progress inside and outside Parliament?
The Ministry of Women’s Affairs sets its own priorities. We have the Government’s priorities—for example, I have already given—
Hon Annette KingIf Labour members are not interested in the answer, although someone else might be, they should keep quiet. For example, one of the recommendations in the report called for a range of 50:50, and, as I indicated earlier, I am comfortable with a range of 40:60. I think that the ministry’s three priorities dovetail with quite a range of the recommendations.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is like ibid to your previous intervention. The Minister has yet to answer whether she or her party is prepared to do something with other parties in Parliament, and reading out pre-prepared speeches about what her ministry is doing does not even address the question, despite, I think, your latitude and invitation earlier on to give the member a whack.
It is frustrating. Catherine Delahunty’s question was not unreasonable; it asked the Minister what the Minister was prepared to do—would she commit to something. I am not going to insist on the Minister giving chapter and verse of what she would commit to, but some attempt to answer the question would be helpful to the House. This is my third attempt to ask that the question be addressed, and we will just have to leave it up to the public to judge if it cannot be addressed. The Minister heard the question, so I ask her to try to at least address the question.
Hon Pete HodgsonDid she discuss the goal of getting more women into leadership roles when she visited Lianyungang Supreme Hovercraft Ltd in China?
I am not too sure what that question is all about. The issue of women in leadership relates to New Zealand and I addressed women’s concerns throughout New Zealand.
Was she acting in her ministerial capacity when she signed herself as “Minister of New Zealand Government” on a document for Lianyungang Supreme Hovercraft Ltd and for Pacific Hovercraft Ltd?
I was not aware that I signed a document overseas in my capacity as Minister of Women’s Affairs, when it had nothing to do with the ministry.
Indeed. Does a woman demonstrate leadership when, having reached the status of Cabinet Minister, she then witnesses a commercial deal as a Minister even though she is in that other land on a private trip?
Hon Simon PowerI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Although the member attempted to wind the two words “woman” and “leadership” into the question, it is clear that the primary question set down by the member originally related to closing the gender pay gap. That part of the primary question was nowhere near the attempt that that member just made to put a question to the Minister.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
The first of the supplementary questions asked by my colleague Pete Hodgson very directly asked whether getting more women into leadership or the issue of the gender pay gap were subjects she addressed on a particular visit to a particular company when she was in China. It is for her to say yes or no, but to ask her whether she did that is, I think, well within her areas of responsibility. [ Interruption]
There will not be any comments. On the first occasion when the member asked a supplementary question, I allowed it because it was not immediately obvious where the member was seeking to take his questioning. But given this primary question, I believe that it is not reasonable to try to link such a totally different issue to it. There is plenty of opportunity in question time. Ministers can be questioned on all sorts of matters and there are all sorts of opportunities to pursue these things, but this question is to the Minister of Women’s Affairs, and I do not believe that it is reasonable to simply pretend to link it in the way now being attempted. That is why I am ruling out the question.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I listened carefully to your comments. It is my understanding that a direct question to a Minister about the activities of the Minister on a private trip would not get through the Clerk’s Office because it does not relate to ministerial responsibility. You said that there were plenty of opportunities to question the Minister on that. My submission to you is that if members here attempted to ask a question based on the misbehaviour—
The member will resume his seat immediately. He knows that he is departing from the Standing Orders there. The member is a particularly talented member when it comes to finding ways to achieve things in this House. It is not beyond my simple wit to work out how such a question would be asked, so I am sure it is not beyond that member’s wit to work out how to pursue the matter if it is of interest to the Opposition. I am sure that there are all sorts of ways that can be done, but this is not an acceptable way in response to this particular primary question.
Does a woman demonstrate leadership when, as a Cabinet Minister, she witnesses a deal in China to advantage her husband even though both of them travelled to China privately?
Inevitably there is a little bit of documentation to table, concerning the deal in question and the witnessing by the Hon—
In describing the document in question, can I get more generic than that, do you think? In particular, it is the signature of the witness being the Minister in question.
For the House to decide whether it will grant leave to table a document, it would be helpful for the member to actually describe what the document is. The House does not know what the document is. It might have the Minister’s signature on it, but we need to know what the document is.
I was trying to appeal to your need for brevity. The document is a deal between Lianyungang Supreme Hovercraft Ltd and Pacific Hovercraft New Zealand Ltd. It is dated 3 December 2009—in fact, it is not dated then; it is dated some other date, I apologise. It has given rise to a bunch of legal activity subsequently—