Thank you for giving me the opportunity to once again join you at your convention. I would like to acknowledge the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand for providing funding for this convention; the local organising team of the Islamic Women’s Council for organising the event; the Waikato Muslim Association for support; and Hamilton Girls High for providing the venue. I would also like to extend apologies from our Prime Minister the Rt Hon Helen Clark, who was unable to join us today.

Last year I spoke to you in Christchurch as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of Ethnic Affairs. I explained that the Labour-led government had a proud record of achievement in Ethnic Affairs since becoming the government in 1999. When we became the government there was half a fulltime equivalent position at a desk in the Department of Internal Affairs. Now there are nine staff, with people based in Auckland and Christchurch, and in the Office of Ethnic Affairs in Wellington. We have a Minister of Ethnic Affairs, who gives voice to ethnic communities at the Cabinet table, and we have an Ethnic Perspectives Framework that guides government departments and agencies in the work they do, both in policy and service delivery. We also have an Ethnic Affairs’ Appointments and Honours Database to ensure that all this country’s talent can be utilised and recognised.

This year I join you as Minister of Women’s Affairs, and so my focus is different but the message is the same.

It is a proud record of achievement not only since 1999 but since 1984 when a newly elected Labour government committed to establishing a Ministry of Women's Affairs, first appointing a Minister in 1985 (Ann Hercus), and then establishing the Ministry itself almost exactly 20 years ago. It was officially opened by the then Prime Minister David Lange on the 6 May 1986.

The Ministry was established to ensure that the women of New Zealand had a voice in Cabinet and that government would always consider the impact on women of its policies or programmes. There are those who ask why this is important. They challenge the existence of the Ministry. But that is a bit like questioning the existence of the National Council of Women or Maori Women's Welfare League or Pacifica or Rural Women (formerly the Women's Division of Federated Farmers) or Business & Professional Women Associations or the Islamic Women's Council or any other organisation that ensures that the interests of women are not lost in what is described by some as the 'mainstream' organisations.

Women's organisations are not seen as 'mainstream' by this narrow minded group, because they challenge the assumption that there are no gender issues that need to be identified and addressed in developing policy. These are people who are willing to accept gender segregation in employment and gender inequity in pay and conditions of employment. These are people who think it is all right that, even when women gain the same qualifications as men, they receive lower salaries than them. These are people who think that creating structural impediments to addressing pay equity is fine and who won't say it publicly but secretly despise the way the government has assisted the public health system nurses to address this.

These are people who mock the concept of work-life balance. They oppose paid parental leave, but now that it has been passed into law, they seem less likely to repeal it. Its extension from 12 weeks to 14 weeks has occurred and its extension to self-employed parents will happen on 1July this year.

They pay lip service to the importance of the parenting roles in families, but they refuse to support initiatives that promote quality early childhood education and out of school care and recreation.

The cost of lifting the skills and qualifications of the teachers in our early childhood sector has been enormous, but it has been worth every cent, because the quality of the teacher assures the parents of the quality of the experience for their children. I am looking forward to the universal availability of 20 hours a week for three and four year olds next year. It is not a decision we could have implemented when we gained office six years ago, because the greatest assurance parents ask for is quality and we couldn't do that with the system we inherited.

These are people who think it is Okay to turn a blind eye to the gender reality of partner violence at the serious end of the spectrum. A woman dies at the hand of a partner, or former partner in this country nearly every month. This is an appalling statistic and we should be outraged by it. I listened to the radio last weekend reporting another such murder, which was described by the police as a 'domestic'. I remember when we were all being encouraged not to minimise such offending with the expression 'not just a domestic'. The print media called it for what it was – the allegation was murder – but I never heard that word on any radio item I listened to.

I have made the point on more than one occasion that the government has toughened the law on home invasions – if serious crimes are committed against people violating the sanctity of their homes then there is a sentencing tariff that starts at a 17-year non-parole period. It is serious. But it doesn't apply if the victim's home is the offender's home too. It is 20 years since the law made rape within marriage illegal. Consent is required on each and every occasion – no matter the status of the relationship – casual or permanent. Why are offenders who terrorise and victimise people excused the full consequences of their offending solely because of their intimate relationship with their victim?

The existence of the Ministry of Women's Affairs prevents us from losing the gender perspective, which is vital in combating the violence itself. If we limited our perspective to the 'knock for knock' brigade, who count the more moderate end of the scale of violence and determine that it is an equal situation, (women equally violent as men), we will only be comforting those who believe there is a conspiracy of feminists who are actively seeking to destroy families – when the truth is that men and women who have studied the reality of systemic failure across the legal system – want the killing to end.

And they want the inter-generational damage that is inflicted on the children to end as well. Apart from the fact that the murders that occurred over Christmas produced 19 orphans – Mum dead and Dad either dead or in jail – we now know that brain development is impaired by exposure to violence in those formative years – and these babies don't have to be on the receiving end in a physical sense to be a victim of the violence meted out to others in the household – 'incubated in terror' is the expression that has been used to describe the environment that damages these children forever.

I don't apologise for the strength of my statements. I make them as often as I can. There is no excuse for the violence that occurs in our streets; but there is equally no excuse for the violence that occurs in our homes behind closed doors and we must be united in our condemnation of it and our commitment to eliminate it.

You can see from my traverse of these three key focal points that a Ministry, which is the smallest core government department with a staff of about 30 people, cannot spread itself too thinly. That is why it focuses its efforts to these areas and does not fund or deliver services to women, other than the running of a Nominations Service, which I will come back to.

Two years ago the government signed off on an Action Plan for New Zealand Women, which sets out what the government is doing to improve the lives of New Zealand women over a five-year period. The plan identifies the three key areas of action for women that I have spoke of:

• economic independence

• work-life balance, and
• health and well-being.

Under the heading of health and well-being, apart from domestic violence and specific women's health issues, the Plan promotes access to government services for people from a Non-English Speaking Background. The telephone interpreting service offered by the Office of Ethnic Affairs is an example of a programme, which has gone from a trial programme to a permanent government-funded service. But there is much more to be done to ensure access for all women.

You can see from this example that the Action Plan for New Zealand Women will only be delivered when we have government and non-government agencies working in partnership with the relevant communities. The role of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs is a supportive one working closely with all of the agencies and communities providing advice, doing research and monitoring progress. But the delivery is very much on the ground and needs different groups of women working collectively to engage with the service providers and the policy makers.

The Ministry works closely with women’s organisations and non-government organisations to better understand the needs of different groups of New Zealand women. This includes groups such as the Islamic Women’s Council, which can give an insight into the issues that are particularly important to the communities you serve. I say ‘particularly important’, rather than ‘different’ because I believe that many of the issues will be the same as those faced by other New Zealand women and it is important that mainstream programmes have the capability to meet the needs of all women. The 'mainstream' cannot be allowed off the hook in this regard.

Your move to formalise your constitution and establish the Council as a separate legal entity – which I understand you are discussing later today – is an indication that you see your organisation as having a permanent role in representing the interests of Muslim women. I am particularly pleased to see this.

It is very important when the coverage of international debate appears to avoid concerns about the possible subjugation of women's interests to men's interests in the debate itself, that we can talk to Muslim women here in New Zealand without fear that the discussion is inhibited by outside influences.

I know the Ministry is as interested in your views as I am, and there are serious issues that we should debate and seek to understand. I have made the point in the past that lack of understanding can bring about problems – ignorance breeds prejudice and fear. The strongest weapon against prejudice and fear is therefore knowledge and understanding. If we know and understand each other we do not need to fear each other. And the debate around these issues needs to be respectful.

I recall very well when we passed law in New Zealand to prohibit the practice of female circumcision, there were those who said – 'how dare you challenge a cultural practice' – to which we responded, 'it will not happen here; not in New Zealand'. And there were those who said 'don't talk about it publicly, because we don't want New Zealanders looking at us and thinking about circumcision – it was our custom in our home country – but we live in New Zealand now and we will not continue with it – but please talk to us privately; don't expose us to the public debate on this issue; that is how we get change.'

I was impressed with what I heard from the representatives of the community, who wanted change, but who wanted to find ways to achieve that within the community and the context of the environment that they were now living in. I hope that you will agree that this is a good approach for addressing issues in the future.

However, female circumcision was an issue where they agreed that the practice itself was oppressive and a breach of their human rights, even though it was a customary or cultural practice. I am sure that there will be other issues that need to be debated where this will not be the case, which is why I cannot emphasise strongly enough the importance of you leading the debate. If you don't lead the debate then there is a real danger that others who want to support you will not understand the issues, placing them in their own context and not in yours. And that is why I make this plea to you to take this leadership role.

Finally, I want to comment about the Nominations Service located in the Ministry of Women's Affairs. I know that they have a very particular interest in finding more women from your communities, who have the skills to serve on state sector boards and committees.

I understand that Anjum Rahman has practical experience of the Nominations Service – she is registered on the Nominations database and was recently appointed to the National Legal Aid Review Panel.

The Nominations Service recently undertook the first whole-of-government stock-take of membership of state sector boards and committees and found that women represented 41 per cent of the total Government-appointed membership of those boards. That success is due, in part, to the work of the Nominations Service - but it can’t put forward women for appointment if they are not on its database. If you think you might have the necessary skills, then speak to the Nominations' Service or look at the ‘Women on Boards’ section on the Ministry’s website.

We value and need more diversity on our state sector boards and our private companies would benefit from it too. The New Zealand Census of Women’s Participation, just published by the Human Rights Commission, shows that just 7.1 per cent of the members of boards of the top 100 listed companies in New Zealand are women; that's less than 50 women! And that’s a waste of women’s talent that the companies and the New Zealand economy cannot afford.

This is not a question of tokenism – it’s a question of good business. There are some interesting recent studies, which show a positive correlation between diversity in board membership and strong company performance. That is because having a wide range of perspectives at the board table - including having more women’s voices, and more cultural diversity - broadens the ability of a board to identify risks and opportunities.

So please think about what you could do to share your talents, and help New Zealand prosper. The strength and diversity of our economy, our communities and our families, coupled with the celebration of our identity, is what will take us forward as a nation. We need everyone to reach his or her full potential in order to achieve success as a country. You can – and must – be part of that.

Thank you and best wishes for the rest of your convention.