Unions want law changes

Press, 1 March 1984, Page 12

Unions want law changes

PA Wellington Wellington trade unionists want women to be protected from being forced to pierform sexual favours with employers for fear of losing their jobs. In submissions to the statutes revision select committee studying the Rape Law Reform Bill, the women’s sub-committee of the Wellington Trades Council urged* that the exercise of authority be included as a factor which negates consent.

That was particularly important in protecting women workers from being forced to submit to sex with an employer or supervisor for fear of losing their jobs, being demoted, or being hounded out of their jobs if they did not comply.

“Without a doubt, such instances of rape occur,” the

sub-committee said. “We are aware that lowpaid, non-English-speaking or immigrant women workers are particularly vulnerable to this sort of exploitation and it is therefore doubly important that these women be afforded protection by the law against such harassment by employers. “While unions will continue to oppose such actions in the industrial sphere, legal remedies within our industrial laws and under the Human Rights Commission Act, 1977, are inadequate to protect women workers, even if such problems are brought to the attention of the appropriate union.” The sub-committee said women workers were daily subjected to violence both in the workplace and outside

it, simply because they were women.

“This violence runs the gamut from being beaten or raped, to being physically abused, to having to work in a workplace surrounded by pornographic pictures and degrading comments," it said. The submission was among a number of those presented on Monday on the bill which provides for: • The principle that rape should always be punished by prison terms unless there are unusual circumstances.

• A rewriting of the offence of rape. • Abolishing the rule that' a warning must be given to the jury if the evidence of a complainant is not corroborated by independent evidence.

• Changes to court proceedures for handling rape

cases. The Trades Council subcommittee, among other submissions yesterday, urged that a clause which does not penalise men for raping their wives in marriage be removed from the bill.

The bill provides that no person shall be convicted of rape in respect of sexual intercourse with his wife unless they are living apart at the time in separate residences. The Public Service Assocation also criticised the clause, saying it could not see why the “anti-women” provision should remain in the law.

Retaining such a provision reinforced the myth that wives were the proprerties of .their husbands who may use and abuse them as they saw fit,

it said in submissions. The National Council of Women said responses from its branches had opposed the retention of the clause granting spousal immunity. One reason the branches had given was that it said it perpetuated a medieval concept a woman was a man’s property under the legal umbrella of marriage. It also resulted in a married woman having less legal protection than one living in a de facto relationship. Overseas experience indicated where marital rape was an offence there was not a great upsurge of cases. The council said it did not support an increase in the maximum sentence for rapists