Women’s employment bill ‘poorly conceived’

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33959, 27 September 1975, Page 6

Women’s employment bill ‘poorly conceived’

(N.Z. Press Association) WELLINGTON. September 26. The Women’s Rights Employment Bill, introduced into Parliament by Mr W. L. Young) (Nat., Miramar) would incorporate in the law) the anti-discriminatory) action called for in part of the report of the Women’s Rights Comniitee in May this year, it is claimed. Mr Young said the private) member's bill would remove any possible legal barriers for equality of opportunitv and encourage a change in the attitude of society and help break down prejudices. “Good and all as equal pay for equal work is, there is a sense of frustration among women that there are barriers which preclude them from securing key) positions of responsibility I which carry appropriate i remuneration,” he said.) “Without the opportunity to! get these positions they) rightly claim that equal pay,) of its own, is hollow.” The main points in the: bill are: I Discrimination on the basis) of sex alone in employ- ! ment would be illegal. (This would remove re- , strictions on the type of work which a female, as opposed to a male : employee, could perform, : and on the hours of work or overtime limits applied specifically to women, and would outlaw any action which prevented or inhibited a I woman from obtaining promotion opportunities ! or obtaining positions of seniority on the same ; basis as a male j employee).

) Equal opportunity for women to participate in training schemes on the : same basis as a male although present provisions specifically designed to safeguard the health of female employees would remain. The prohibition of job-vac-a n c y advertisements making any reference “expressed or implied”, to the sex of a person) to be appointed. A final recommendation allowing for civil pro-

ceedqigs to remedy any claims of discrimination as set out by the bill. LIMITED AREA » The chairman of the .(Women’s Rights Committee. Mr N. V. Douglas (Labour., ' Auckland Central) criticised ■I the Bill saying it was 11 “poorly conceived” and covuered only a limited area of (discrimination in women's (employment. He said Mr Young had “agreed earlier with the rest •{of the Women’s Rights Committee > that the approach to (such legislation should be comprehensive and not ' (piecemeal. ' He opposed the Bill in its ) present form. Mr Douglas ’ said. ) “The legislation involved 1 in this proposal will require a good deal of discussion to 1 be effective.” Mr D. Thomson (Nat., Stratford) supported the Bill “saying the Opposition had ; proposed the bill because (the Government had not ; honoured its election prom- ' rises to alter a clause in the ■{new Industrial Relations Bill! ;so that discrimination) ■ against women in employ-) (ment would be abolished. The Prime Minister (Mr ’Rowling) had said the Labour Government was not I likely to introduce legisla-( Ition this year embodying) . any of the suggestions) ■ recommended by the cbm-) ' mission on women’s rights, ; Mr Thomson said.

y: “The women of New Zeailland have been betrayed by the Government in this very year — International , Women’s Year,” he added. Mrs M. Batchelor (Lab.. .. Avon) said the Report on ) Women's Rights was quite s I clear that piecemeal legisla.ition was to be avoided. She [i told Opposition speakers ; (that it was not Labour ! which had "betrayed dwomen,”' but 12 years of i National Government in which nothing had been , | done. , Mr E. S. F. Holland (Nat., Riccarton) said he was (amazed that the Government J had not even produced a .jtoken legislative gesture for ’(lnternational Women’s Year. |!He agreed piecemeal legisla- , (tion was undesirable, but: J said some action was needed; (now. ' It was time the Labour. ) i Party stopped making; [(“soothing noises” and did: .something. :( The Minister of Labour J (Mr Faulkner) said the Gov- , eminent had acted to re- ) I move discrimination from ‘{the State services. The bill ' was merely an attempt to {raise the Opposition’s image .(with women. “GIMMICK” It was a pre-election gim)mick which attempted to Ijmake up for 12 years in ’(which the Opposition had I done nothing. Mrs D. C. Jelicich (Lab., (Hamilton West) said the Op-

- position had been “galva- • nised into action because •'there is another election I looming up." But the National Party . knew that it was too late in i the session for such legislation to be made law "Could it be that their leader (Mr Muldoon) has ' (caused them such embarrassment that they J l ®'!; ' been panicked into action? {she said. In replv, Mr Young said he was bitterly disappointed at the Government’s attitude. ' He had at least expected 'to get support from the 1 ’ other members of the (Women’s Rights Committee las the bill was essentially a (simple measure giving effect no some of the recommend-' Nations of that committee. The Government’s attitude ■ was another blow to its (credibility, but the women (of New Zealand would now know where they stood, he) said.