Employment Legislation, Changes—Effect on Women

I want to hear the Minister’s answer.

The Acting Minister of Women’s Affairs was appointed only very recently, and I understand that no advice on these bills has been received by her.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That question asked was on notice. I would assume it would be possible to find out what advice the previous Minister had received, if the Acting Minister has not been in the role very long. Surely the Acting Minister is responsible for the work that is going on in that portfolio area.

Hodgson Hon Pete Hodgson Link to this

I think, in fairness, the Minister did answer the question. It may not have been quite the answer the member wanted, but the Minister did say that under the Acting Minister’s watch no advice has been received on that matter. The member has further supplementary questions to probe that answer, but I believe that it was a fair answer to the question.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It seems to me that if a question is addressed to a Minister, the personage of the Minister does not matter; the office of the Minister does. That is to say, it does not matter whether a Minister changes person every day of the week; the obligation on the Government is to answer the question on behalf of the Minister—the office. In that respect, if the Minister answering the question on behalf of the Acting Minister was referring only to a day or two of activity, that cannot be seen to be addressing the question.

Mallard Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this

The member will have heard me just require a Minister to answer a question that was, in my view, not answered. So I am not averse to requiring Ministers to answer questions. But I believe that the Minister did answer this question. The member has supplementary questions available to her, and the first supplementary question is patently obvious. That is what supplementary questions are all about. I accept that it is marginal, but on this occasion I have ruled that the Minister has answered the question, and there are supplementary questions to probe that answer.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think we are going somewhere we went yesterday, but this question, when it was originally lodged, did say “or her predecessor”. When your office—whether on the basis of objection or off its own bat—takes out “or her predecessor”, what you have done is substantially narrow this question away from the issues that my colleague was attempting to address. I agree with you: as this question has been read, there is no doubt that the Minister has addressed the question. But if, in fact, it was as it was lodged, I think you would have been requiring the Minister to answer in a different way.

I hear the member’s point. I was totally unaware, obviously, of that exchange that took place in the lodging of the question, and I am somewhat troubled by that. I think in the circumstances, given that this is a primary question, I will ask the Minister to answer it in a more fulsome manner.

I understand that previous advice was provided by the ministry to the Department of Labour raising concerns about both bills. The Government considered the advice, and on this occasion did not find it persuasive.

How does she respond to advice from various women’s and employment groups that the extension of the 90-day trial period will unfairly disadvantage women because they are more likely to have broken employment patterns, and will therefore be exposed more often to the possibility of dismissal without protection from unfair dismissal?

Extending the trial period to all firms will expand job opportunities for all New Zealanders, including women, and those job opportunities will, of course, benefit women. I am also advised that an evaluation of the trial period by the Department of Labour found that trial periods were taken up in roughly equal measure by men and women.

Has she or her ministry made any representations on behalf of women who combine employment with child-caring responsibilities and are concerned that the proposal to allow employers to request a medical certificate after a day’s absence will put additional stress and pressure on them, given that they are more likely to need sick and domestic leave?

As that member will be aware, the requirement for a medical certificate is a small change. It is anticipated that not many people will take it up, and therefore women will not be affected by that change.

As the Minister of Women’s Affairs, how is she standing up for women who are paid less than their male counterparts, and are therefore more likely to feel pressured to sell off their fourth week of annual leave, meaning reduced rest periods and less time to spend with children during school holidays?

Concern was raised that if more men than women cashed up a fourth week, it was likely to increase the gender pay gap. The flip side is that if more men than women choose to cash up, it may increase the gender holiday gap in favour of women. This Government trusts New Zealanders, whether they are men or women, to make their own choices. [ Interruption]