Orphan role for ‘equal rights’ bowling club

Press, 1 May 1981, Page 24

Orphan role for ‘equal rights’ bowling club

f A new outdoor bowling club at Diamond Harbour has just ended its first full season, but because of a conflict with the Christchurch Bowling Centre the club has yet to seek affiliation to the centre.

And unless the present stand-off situation can be overcome it could be some time before the matter is resolved.

The hub of the problem is women’s rights.

The club was formed in 1979 with the blueprint being a set of rules obtained from the Waihora club, which is about 20km away at Motukarara. This was the nearest

bowling club to Diamond Harbour and a number of harbour residents were members there.

According to Diamond Harbour’s president, Mr M. A. Nolan, the Christchurch centre, at the time, approved of this action, although it pointed out that, the rules of the New Zealand Bowling Association had just been rewritten and once a copy became available the club would have to comply with any changes that had been made.

With just one amendment to the rules under which Waihora operated, Diamond Harbour went ahead and framed a constitution. It then

successfully applied to be registered as an incorporated society. The one alteration was that instead of membership being open to “males over the age of 21” it was open to “persons over the age of 21.” This meant that both men and women were eligible to become office bearers. Since then the club has established a green and secured from the Lyttelton Harbour Board two old buildings which it has converted into an implement shed and tea-room. It is now in the early stages of building a pavilion. About the middle of last year the club had some pre-

liminary discussions with the centre about affiliation, but at the time it was felt the step was a little premature, one reason being that a sizeable percentage of the membership (which now stands at 104, although this includes both associate and social members) were new bowlers and would not immediately be interested in inter-club competition or tournament play.

However, offers of assistance in getting established were forthcoming and, according to Mr Nolan, at least some senior officers of the centre were of the opinion that the question of a unisex committee could be settled amicably.

But the rules officer of the Christchurch centre, Mr M. A. Le Cren, is firmly of the opinion that under the rules of the N.Z.B.A. it is not possible for a men’s club which gives equal rights to women to be affiliated to the centre, and consequently to the N.Z.B.A. Mr Le Cren said that there was no objection to a joint committee of men and women at the outset to get the club started, but now, if the club wished to gain affiliation, some division was needed.

“The proper course, as is the case in countless other clubs, is for the men’s parent club to affiliate to the men’s to affiliate to the centre and

for the women’s section to affiliate to the women’s centre.

“There is no inequality in this and, if anything, it probably ensures that both men and women bowlers or equally well looked after,” said Mr Le Cren. However, Mr Nolan sees it quite differently, although he acknowledges that his club still has to decide if and when it will seek affiliation. “Naturally we don’t want to be on our own for ever,” he said.

Mr Nolan said that at the time his club was drafting its rules the Human Rights Act was attracting a lot of interest. “We just felt that in accordance with the act

there should be equality of membership, and not have a women’s section subservient to the men’s club.” Mr Nolan said he believed that the majority of the members — about a third of whom are women — still felt this way and wanted one club with an executive open to both sexes, as is the case at present. The secretary is Mr Nolan’s wife. “It has taken a lot of time and effort to establish this club and nearly all of it has been on a voluntary basis. The women have more than played their part so why shouldn’t they have an equal say in its operation?” said Mr Nolan. He said that he bad no

grudge against the centre, although he was disappointed that despite numerous requests the centre had not, after more than two years, forwarded to his club the promised revised copy of the N.Z.B.A. rules. “If we had these rules we might, perhaps, know better where we stand.” Mr Le Cren said he was still hopeful that the matter could be resolved. “We would certainly like to welcome another club — the seventyfourth — into the centre, but as the rules stand there is no way Diamond Harbour is going to be accepted unless it amends its membership clause from ‘persons’ to ‘males'.”