Women’s convention ‘will not be adopted’

Press, 3 May 1984, Page 1

Women’s convention ‘will not be adopted’

PA Auckland The Government will not adopt a controversial United Nations convention on women’s rights, said the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Muldoon, yesterday. Sir Robert was answering a question, about the United Nations convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, during a talkback session on Radio Pacific in Auckland. The convention was signed in Copenhagen in 1980 on behalf of New Zealand by former Government member of Parliament, Miss Colleen Dewe, but has not yet been ratified.

Sir Robert said that the convention would have no relevance for New Zealand until and unless it was adopted by the Government.

“I can tell you that my Government has no intention of adopting it. It is highly controversial and there are certain aspects of it that a number of people in the Government party, myself included, are not happy with.”

While the convention had some good points in it, said Sir Robert, it cut across the views of a large section of New Zealanders, including many women.

The president of the National Council of Women,

Mrs Dorothea Horsman, said that it was “quite unthinkable” the, convention would not be ratified by New Zealand. She said she was surprised by Sir Robert’s remarks as the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Cooper, had assured the council it would be only a matter of time before the convention was ratified.

She said that all the arguments put against the convention by the Women for Life group had been denied by the Human Rights Commission and by members of the Government.

She said her organisation, which represents about 200,000 women, would keep lobbying to counteract the “lying propaganda” that had been circulated about the convention.

Miss Dewe, now the chairwoman of the Advisory Committee on Women’s Affairs, said she was disturbed and disappointed that the impression of a certain group in the community should have gained credence at Prime Ministerial level.

“What the Prime Minister has said is in fact totally contrary to the views of all credible and respected women’s groups in the country.” Miss Dewe said that the convention would not cause

mayhem or the disintegration of the family. New Zealand should be prolid to put its name to the convention because it was one of the few countries in the world which had implemented it in theory and in practice.

She said she was not surprised by Sir Robert’s remarks, because there-was an element within the Government caucus opposed to ratification.

“But I am very alarmed and disappointed that he is one of them, because I thought he would realise the political reality and the political good sense of ratifying.”

An Auckland spokes-

woman for Women for Life, Mrs Connie Purdue, said that Sir Robert’s statement was the “best possible Mother’s Day present for the mothers of New Zealand.” Her group, which began campaigning against the convention last June, had expected the battle to continue much longer. She said it was a difficult campaign because they were faced with so much material coming from official sources which gave one side of the story only. “But we were very quickly supported by many hundreds and thousands of women and men,” she said.

The second best result of the campaign against the convention was that there was now a non-silent majority in New Zealand ready to make a stand for family and Christian values and to protect the status of motherhood, she said. The convention deals, among other things, with women’s rights to vote, marry freely, be educated, and hold public office. It also requires that women be given maternity leave with pay without loss of former employment, seniority, or social allowances, and pushes for the development of a network of child-care facilities to allow parents to combine family life with work. The opponents of the convention see these principles, particularly on maternity leave and child-care facilities, as a threat to the established roles in the family.