Commission rules women’s fashion discriminatory

Press, 19 November 1982, Page 11

Commission rules women’s fashion discriminatory

PA Wellington The exemption of women’s fashion clothing from the Price Freeze Regulations amounts to discrimination, the Human Rights Commission has said. The commission has recommended that the Government remove the exemption unless it can be proved the industry cannot continue without it.

The commision's decision follows up a request by Labour’s spokesman on consumer affairs. Mrs Ann Hercus (Lyttelton), to consider whether the exemption of women’s fashion clothing was discriminatory in terms of the Human Rights Act. She said that she was “delighted” with the response of the commission, headed by chief human rights commisioner, Mr P. J. Downey. The next step was over to the Prime Minister, Mr Muldoon, and the Minister of Trade and Industry, Mr Templeton, she said. After discussions with the Trade and Industry Department, the commission decided that the department’s reasons for exempting women’s clothing could equally apply to male fashion clothing, “particularly in these days of greater male consciousness of fashion and the wide availability of men’s garments which cater for this consciousness.” Male fashion was just as transient as

female, the commission said

“If, in fact, a particular line is discontinued after a short run, the question of any freeze ceases to have effect. This would also be true in the case of men’s clothing,” the commission said.

In setting out its reasons for exempting women’s clothing, the Secretary of Trade and Industry, Mr J. W. H. Clark, said that because fashion changed so frequently it would have been impracticable to have frozen prices on a particular date. The “fashion" end of the women’s trade would not be able to continue without the exemption, whereas no request had been received to exempt men’s clothing.

“While no discussions have been held with the trade groups concerned, there would appear to be major difficulties in establishing the scope of any exemption that related to men’s fashion clothing,” Mr Clark said.

A further reason was that only a small proportion of women’s clothing was covered by the exemption, he said. The commission said that a remedy might be to give a similar exemption to men’s fashion clothing. “It is wrong in principle to make a distinction on the basis of sex unless this is clearly a matter of business inevitability. It is not enough to say this is to be presumed. “Much of the, existing dis-

crimination between the sexes is based on presumptions, and on examination most of these are found to be more than traditional prejudice without any rational basis of necessity,” the commission said.

The real issue was that the exemption was a carry-over from the period before the idea of equality between the sexes was understood as it was now, it said.

The commission noted Trade and Industry’s comment that the exemption had existed in 1968 regulations. However, since 1968 recognition had grown that discrimination between the sexes should be removed. It said that the Government should examine whether the industry could continue to function without the exemption. “If this cannot be shown, the commission recommends that the Government amend the regulations to remove the discrimination, as the commission is of the opinion that the women’s fashion clothing exemption appears to constitute a discriminatory law infringing the spirit and intention of the Human Rights Commission Act,” the commission said.

Mr Templeton told NZPA he could not comment on the report as he had not yet seen it. When he did, he would “look at it carefully.”