THE PRESS FRIDAY, MAY 4, 1984. Coolness on convention

Press, 4 May 1984, Page 12

THE PRESS FRIDAY, MAY 4, 1984. Coolness on convention

The Prime Minister has stirred a fruitful source of dissension with his statement on Wednesday that the Government has no intention of ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. New Zealand has been a signatory to the convention since 1980, but the convention is not binding until it is ratified. Even then, the convention does not give any organisation outside New Zealand the power to influence New Zealand law. The convention would become a means to test and challenge New Zealand law and practices, as they affect the status of women in this country. The general tenor of the convention is unexceptionable. Since 1980 it has gained the support of many women’s organisations, and other groups, in this country. However, like many documents that come out of United Nations initiatives and gatherings, the convention is general enough to be open to more • than one interpretation. At times, it comes close to contradicting itself. Ratified or not, its supporters and opponents will be able to •find in it. material to support their points of view. Without such a degree of ambiguity, few United Nations documents could hope to receive sufficient support from various quarters of the world to make their preparation worth while.

Those who oppose abortion, for instance, might take heart from a phrase in Article 5 (dealing with the elimination of “stereotyped roles” for men and women) which states: the interest of the children is the primordial consideration.” Article 16, on discrimination in marriage, refers to “rights and responsibilities ... to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of children” — a statement that most who favour extended access to abortion would probably approve. Such statements can only be reconciled by those prepared to adopt less-than-absolute positions.

Into other parts of the convention might be read an obligation on women to serve in all sections of the armed forces; an obligation for women, in whatever employment, to receive paid maternity leave; and an obligation to impose censorship on text-books, and perhaps on other material. The point needs to be made that the ■ convention is intended to encourage, rather than to oblige, a government and a community to observe certain rules and behaviour. It might be ratified in full, but with certain reservations; it might be ratified to declare an intention to achieve its conditions in due course. Probably no country in the world could ratify the document in full and maintain honestly that its laws and customs meet the convention’s requirements now. The Cabinet in New Zealand last year decided to defer adoption of the convention on the ground that it needed further study. Such

delay is a familiar tactic of governments round the world, faced with a decision where the political advantages of different courses of action remain unclear. Many New Zealanders may have been displeased by the delay. Vigorous opposition to delay, however, is much harder to mount and sustain than opposition to a flat refusal such as that given by Sir Robert Muldoon this week. It may still turn out that the Prime Minister was giving a personal opinion and that Cabinet and the National Party caucus will not give him unqualified support. Even then, there is likely to be lively debate.

If the absence of intention so far to ratify the convention becomes the policy of the Government, the status of the document, and the meanings that can be ascribed to its clauses, are likely to become lively issues for the General Election this year. The debate has a good deal of irrelevance. Ratified or not, the convention will still be open to a variety of interpretations. Agreement about whether all its provisions are being followed is unlikely. If a New Zealand government accepted the convention, it would help provide moral force for some arguments about women’s rights and place in the community. No new legal powers would necessarily be created to achieve or enforce those rights.

An extended debate throughout the country on matters that cut across the normal divisions of party politics might be no bad thing. If the convention is, finally, to be ratified, a debate first might help to clarify what it means or what it should mean in this country. New Zealand remains one of the countries where such a convention is probably needed least. Impassioned debate can sometimes harden attitudes, rather than encourage compromise and acceptance. Some enthusiasts, for and against the convention, will not agree, and will press their interpretations, their approval, or their reservations to the last breath.

The convention was put to the public for discussion. Someone, in the end, has to read public opinion so that action can be taken. If the outcome, for whatever reason, is fierce contention over its import, and if this dispute is going to be conducted among those whom the convention is intended to benefit, one must wonder whether ratification can ever serve any good purpose. One strong possibility is that the convention has been misrepresented and, therefore, misunderstood. This implies that the document should lie on the table until some of the heat has gone out of the argument and until the broad purpose of the convention is appreciated. As long as the opposing groups are so entrenched, the ideals, however flexibly defined, stand little chance of the wide acceptance they need to be usefully applied.