Human Rights Commission

Press, 26 November 1981, Page 16

Human Rights Commission

Sir,—Having read the report (“The Press,” November 12) of the cancellation of the Master Builders’ Association’s proposed all-male dinner, I should be obliged if the Human Rights Commissioner would enlighten me, through your columns, as to what he sees in the Human Rights Act to make it unlawful for any group of males, or females for that matter, to decide to have dinner together in the absence of numbers of the opposite sex.—Yours, etc., D. J. MARSHALL. November 12, 1981.

[Mr P. J. Downey, Chief Human Rights Commissioner, replies: “The answer to the actual question D. J. Marshall poses is — nothing. The legislation does not interfere in any way with private functions. What it does do is to prohibit a trade or professional association from having two classes of members, a first class and a second class, with the second class members suffering restrictions and exclusions based on race, sex or religion. A woman complained that she was excluded from a business activity as a member of a trade association solely because of her sex. The Commission’s obligation is to investigate such a complaint; . but before it could do so in that case the Auckland Master Builders, apparently acting on legal advice, cancelled that particular official activity. It seems therefore they recognise that it would have amounted to an injustice to some of their members. The issue . was summed up neatly in an editorial in the ‘Southland Times.’ ‘There is nothing really wrong with a “men only” dinner as such, but if an organisation like the Auckland Master Builders’ Association admits women to its membership, they are entitled to all the benefits accruing from that membership, including attending the annual dinner.’ ”]